American regression, vol. XVIII

[sigma7]

Until 1963, interracial marriages were illegal in Utah. Residents who suffered chronic epileptic seizures and were not sterilized also were barred from marrying in the state.

And, until 1993, anyone who had syphilis, gonorrhea or HIV could not make that walk down the aisle.

Now, in 2005, three Utahns who want to unite as husband, wife and wife say their preferred form of marriage also should be allowed.

They are asking the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse a federal judge's rejection of their challenge to state prohibitions against bigamy and polygamy.

And Kansas takes a collective sigh of relief as they're temporarily no longer the most backward-looking state in the union.

Comments

[paradisacorbasi.livejournal.com]

I thought Utah was one of the few states where polygamy was already legal. I wonder which state it is, then.

[sigma7.livejournal.com]

Apparently it's illegal, and still officially "frowned upon" by the dominant religious group, but still practiced with worrisome frequency and difficult to prosecute.

It's actually illegal in Utah to commit bigamy...

[ember-burn.livejournal.com]

http://www.le.state.ut.us/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_09002.htm
76-7-101. Bigamy -- Defense.
(1) A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.
(2) Bigamy is a felony of the third degree.
(3) It shall be a defense to bigamy that the accused reasonably believed he and the other person were legally eligible to remarry.

Amended by Chapter 296, 1997 General Session
Download Code Section Zipped WP 6/7/8 76_09002.ZIP 1,777 Bytes

[norabombay.livejournal.com]

See, and I thought that my home states, Florida and Virginia were doing a very good job of this on our own. We tend to be highly backward on a regular basis.

Polygamy is one of those things. I like the idea that people are able to form families in any form they would like. In practice? Polygamy doesnt' wind up being nearly so benign, or a good thing to get in volved with .

[querldox.livejournal.com]

There's "traditional" Mormon polygamy, and then there's "modern" non-Mormon polygamy.

At least that's the best phrasing I can come up with. The traditional Mormon style, at least the type that gets press attention when practiced today, seems to amount to one guy, lots of wives in near slavery, and a strong tendency to brainwash mid-teenage girls into it.

On the other hand, I have several, non-Mormon, acquaintances who are in various >2 person longterm romantic relationships, usually triads, and who refer to their partners as husband or wife and would gladly make it legal if it was an option. Far as I can tell, everyone in these were adults who entered into 'em of their own accord and are as happy with the relationship as any random two person marriage.

I see the former as backwards and bad, the latter as fine with me/none of my business. But that's due to how people in the relationship are brought into it and treated, not due to it having more than two people.

[sigma7.livejournal.com]

I've never really thought of the latter as polygamy, really. Polygamy has in my mind always been associated with the former and, thus, had a lot less positive connotations than its dictionary definition -- the "poly" lifestyle as exemplified by the latter example seems more functional and less abusive and it's hard for me to associate that with the word "polygamy," just 'cause it seems more benign, a lifestyle as opposed to a social construct, almost a social deconstruct. I hadn't noticed a movement for poly-rights in the latter group (did I miss it?) but certainly the former under the guise of freedom of religion.

Most of my issue with the difference is, as you noted, consent versus inability to consent, willingness versus victimization/intimidation. But I don't see polygamy becoming an endorsed or recognized civil state any time in our lifetimes, if ever, as I believe the latter seem more willing to live off the record, as it were.

[(Anonymous)]

There is a poly "rights" movement, but it consists largely of raising awareness in the same way the gay movement originally stuck to that point. Very occasionally, there is more activity when a draconian state law is used to prosecute poly sex when monogamous sex would have been ignored.

There is an understanding that if gay marriage is not allowed and generally accepted, adult consenting polygamy doesn't stand chance. For this reason, it's not unheard of for poly adults to work alongside gay rights people in efforts to get gay marriage legalized. That's why you'll find more awareness and acceptancy of polys in the gay community.

When religious rights icons argue that accepting gay marriage might lead to "polygamy, legalized child abuse, and bestiality," they ironically have it one third right. Generally speaking, those in favor of allowing modern polygamy (aka polyamory) draw a hard red line for full knowing consent. And they argue that sticking to this better would eliminate problems with Mormon old-style polygamy, since it usually involves marriage to underage women who don't understand what they've agreed to or that they can get out.

Realistically speaking, it would be harder to prosecute Mormon old-style polygamy if any type of polygamy were allowed. Instead of prosecution, the battle would be moved to the arena of awareness and social help in the form of domestic shelters and so forth. I'm not really sure whether either method is particularly effective, since these folks don't socialize much.

[mblase.livejournal.com]

The entire US legal system (as well as most first world countries') is based around the existence of monogamous marriage. Taxes, co-ownership, moving to and from other countries, a whole lot of things are based around the assumption that marriage consists of only two people. Changing that makes life difficult for a whole lot of things.

And can you imagine what a divorce case would look like? What if you could sue for alimony from two or more people, and you were only the second-highest income in the family? Polygamy was a lot easier to manage, legally speaking, back in the day when women couldn't own property. Nowadays it'd be a nightmare to unravel.

Moral issues are a completely different matter. I think it's safe to say that this is one matter that feminists would be reeeeeeally hot to oppose.

Now, gay marriage, that's a completely different issue. Ever since men and women became legal equals in this country, there's little argument from this angle to oppose male-and-male or female-and-female marriage. That's a purely moral discussion, with few legal ramifications.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, please. It would be equally easy to argue that divorce was in general easier to settle before women had property rights. This doesn't then lead me to conclude that therefore women shouldn't have property rights. If there is a social reason to make the rules more complicated, we do so.

Different feminists have different opinions on polygamy/polyamory, just as people in general do. In general, they agree that the Mormon practice of marrying multiple underaged girls without necessarily gaining full knowing consent is socially reprehensible. However, some feel that disallowing consenting adults to form multiple bond marriages is just one more leftover prejudice from the days of forceful patriarchy.