Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Polygamy? Pahleeze!
In an AP story, (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6077871.html) Brock Vergakis writes about the Attorney General race in Utah. The race, according to this article, has mostly been defined by people asking the candidates questions about their views on polygamy. Around 37,000 polygamists live in the west, most of them in Utah. Because of the raids on a polygamist community in Texas earlier this year, the interest in how Utah will treat polygamists has grown. Despite the fact that Utah has bigamy laws (a requirement for statehood back in the 1890's) the only cases that are tried are those that regard spousal or child abuse. Shurtleff, the current AG of Utah, says that "If we were to go out and start arresting every couple, every adult consenting to polygamy, then we would have to build thousands of jail beds. How are we possibly going to take those kids into custody? The costs are astronomical. The resources aren't there." Shurtleff's competitor, however, has a different view of why polygamy cases shouldn't be tried in Utah. Hill claims that Lawrence v. Texas, a case struck down a Texas sodomy law, on the grounds that the state has no justifiable interest intruding into the private lives of consenting adults creates a precedent that makes polygamy permissible. "Our bigamy law still stands, but frankly, it's indefensible based on that ruling," Hill said. "You can prosecute for forced marriages, but to actively prosecute a polygamist for being a polygamist? You're not going to succeed." What's interesting is that in 1878 (yeah, 1878) the United States Supreme Court upheld the law the outlawed polygamy citing a "compelling state interest" to maintain morals. Although the precedent set in Reynolds has long been abandoned, it seems that the decision is still relevant to this discussion. What rights do individuals have under the auspices of religion? The Court in Reynolds held that the state had the right to maintain moral standards but Lawrence declared that the state shouldn't intrude into the private lives of adults. Obviously, bigamy laws in Utah have no enforcement mechanism, but this shouldn't simply mean that the intention of the law is disregarded. Hill seems to believe that polygamy is a fundamental right, but she ignores the fact that women who are part of a polygamous marriage are often socialized in such a way that they may not even understand they have a right to resist such a situation. Believing something has never meant full protection under the first amendment and countless Court cases have proven that. Polygamy is outlawed and those laws should be enforced. By allowing polygamy to continue, Utah is not only allowing their laws to be openly mocked, but is also allowing the propagation of a religion that objectifies women and socializes children in the most perverse of ways.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
The answer is to tighten Home school laws so that Polygamous children do know what rights they have, and Home School Counseling that makes
sure they understand, this can be done within the bounds of their religious values.
California Children attend Homeschool for socialization, arts and crafts and homework assesment a few days a week.
Oregon’s Civil Rights are nothing to crow about, but they have the highest number of Homeschool children in the nation and these have very high test scores--a result of their abysmal school system.
I agree with Jonny that it's pretty ridiculous to allow a law to not be enforced simply because the resources don't exist to do so. Think about that in the context of say stealing, and the story changes completely. As far as intruding into private lives, the sodomy case is slightly different because it's involving two people in the privacy of a home in a sexual act that doesn't necessarily affect any part of your life but sex. In the case of polygamy, the effect is much different. It affects your entire life and well-being and mindset. It affects the children that come from that home. I still don't know where I stand on whether or not polygamy should be allowed for Mormons, but it raises a lot of questions that need to be answered before I sign off on it, as Jonny brought up.
Polygamy was originally outlawed mostly becuase it was considered to be morally reprehensable and repulsive in the context of the culture the case was tried in. Today we still find polygamy to be repulsive becuase that is what we have been raised to believe. I think that the Lawrence v. Texas case does have precedent here. The type of marriage you engage in is a private matter, whether it be same-sex marriage or polygamous marriage, its still a private matter. The court cited a need to uphold a moral standard in the orignal polygamy case in the late 1800s, would the same reasoning still hold today or would we rule that by not allowing polygamy we are restricting their free exercise? There are many laws on the books that arent enforced anymore, and Utah polygamy is one of those. No state has the resources to deal with expansive polygamy population in Utah, and it would probably be more detrimental to the state of the children to remove them from their homes than it would be to let them live in a polymist setting. If it isn't hurting anyone I really don't see a problem with it. Don't think I want to allow polygamy for everyone, but for Mormons, most of whom probably wouldn't engage in polygamy today even if they had the chance, I don't see that big of a problem with reversing the precedent since it isnt being enforced anyways. That's how I feel this morning after reading this article but if they were to find the resources to prosecute polygamy then it would make sense to uphold the precedent, but if they aren't going to find the resources and enforce the law they might as well reverse it.
First of all Johnny, I am pleased with your position supporting the rights of women and the importance of overcoming female objectification. I would counter however, that many religions, Christianity included, that do not follow polygamy objectify women through submission and common social constructed gender roles. Beyond that, I would agree that Utah choosing not to enforce this law is problematic in their assertion of power and that their claim that they cannot now enforce the law because it is too far gone is an even larger assertion of their weakness. Slavery up rooted a lot of people and if we followed Utah's understanding of law enforcement, we never would have corrected our injustices. Polygamy is problematic in terms of the identity of women and is by far not my favorite aspect, but I find Utah's lack of legal integrity more disturbing. Follow through with your laws or overturn them, my goodness.
Post a Comment