I've been kicking around an idea. First of all, I have a human rights theory about the injustices within polygamous societies. It contains my life's work in this unique field. I've been discussing bits of it here and there, but the whole theory is something I haven't revealed to anyone in its entirety. Only my closest colleagues have even the vaguest idea about what I've assembled, and I'm preparing to unveil it in a way that is going to have as much impact as I can possibly achieve. But that's not what I'm working on at this moment. Here's a new idea to supplement what I've already done.

Suppose we decide that legalizing polygamy is out of the question. That is the conclusion of my theory. What do we do next?

I have the idea of a one-time only amnesty for current polygamous marriages. Anyone who intends to keep their current relationships can be allowed to do so, but any further polygamous marriages of anyone, adult or otherwise, should be aggressively discouraged. Those who wish to take part in this amnesty must register their polygamous marriages with the state. In return, the state will promise not to prosecute these current arrangements any time in the future. But there will be no legalization of polygamy and those who refuse to comply with the law will not have an excuse. This should be well publicized so that even the most isolated polygamous communities will be made aware.

Underage polygamous marriages should be punished with the greatest severity. It has to be clear that the people of this country are not going to tolerate that sort of thing any longer. It is one of the most insidious forms of sexual abuse there is.

That's my idea about what to do next. For now, I'm going to let my peers chew on my human rights theory for a while and see if they can poke any holes in it. After that, I'm taking it to the goddamned President of the United States!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2010 01:56AM by Troy.

With a mind like yours, the world is a better place.

Encouragement like this is very inspiring!

Since polygamists only legally marry one of their wives, how do you decide who is practicing polygamy and who just has several mistresses? Is living under the same roof the determining factor? They will just claim the other women are renters. The guy has children with all of them? Several guys have children with multiple women to whom they are not married.

I don't care what arrangement consenting adults agree to as long as they are not abusing the system for their own personal benefit.

It is a particular brand of polygamy that we despise. The brand of polygamy that abuses and abandons children and robs them of their childhood. It is the brand of polygamy that abuses the "system" by "bleeding the beast", a euphamism for collecting Wellfare. It is the Mormon brand of polygamy.

What three or more consenting adults do with their sex lives is no business of mine.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2010 01:21AM by winecountrygirl.

There are already bigamy laws in place that prosecute "purported" marriages. I don't see any huge difficulty in making a case against them, given what we know about their doctrine and given the fact that people like Kody Brown are living with their plural wives and have children with them. If a jury has trouble deciding, put ME on the witness stand.

It implies my indifference to there being a god. You can personally attack me, but it won't change anything. I don't know all your life experiences (though I have read your bio on the site) and you don't know mine. But they would definitely surprise you. Our paths have crossed and you don't even realize it.

Perhaps our paths have crossed. But I'm through arguing with people who aren't interested in changing things.

I said I agreed with someone else who expressed an opinion against yours. Please don't malign me because I don't agree with you completely. You obviously think you're a genius (don't we all to some extent?) but that doesn't mean no one else should ever have a voice. We want to blame a lot of stuff on religion these days, but even educated people who think they have all the answers and won't listen to another's voice don't solve anything either.

I have a lot more that I want to say, but I know it won't change anything except make you want to have the last word. No sense in arguing about it on a public forum.

One which guarantees children basic human rights -- like the right to a decent education, adequate food, timely medical care and the like. If you talk to the President could you mention that to someone up there? :)

What you've mentioned are what we call "positive" rights in the business of political philosophy. They are controversial, to say the least. The strong libertarian tradition in this country is always fighting against this trend. Technically speaking, a libertarian political theory is one that denies these "positive" rights, since they involve corresponding positive duties, which libertarians deplore. But I have no patience whatsoever with strict libertarianism. It is keeping us in the 18th Century. I have a considerable amount to say about this too, and it will all come out. A lot of this is very technical and takes some time to explain, but that's what I'm here to do for everyone.

Yes, you'd better believe it's something I consider worthy of the president's time.

As a theory, and indeed a practicality, libertarianism is a miserable failure. It emphasizes liberty, and teabaggers never tire of repeating the word. But to put liberty in a position of priority over justice is to invite tyranny. Justice is the principle that provides balance to our human rights. Everyone must have equal liberty, or we cannot be a just society. At the moment when someone takes more liberty than their fair share, justice slips out of balance. Liberty is one of the most fundamental of all human rights, but without justice as the ruling principle, there is, quite literally, no justice. We can never settle for less justice as less balance is not balance at all. It is justice therefore that must hold priority over human rights. If we have justice, we will have equal liberty. But if we have liberty without this balancing principle, anything can happen and it's the most vulnerable members of society who will suffer first. History has proven this again and again.

Liberties are important, unquestionably. But without justice, it's a moral jungle. The libertarian position provides no answer to this logical error. It is all built on the unproven assumption that if everyone has perfect liberty, our problems will go away. But that is nothing more than an excuse for moral anarchy and apathy. In my experience, it is those who argue for a kind of libertarian anarchy who are some of the most moralistically opinionated people to be found. They never tire of telling government to stay out of the bedroom, no matter who's been taken in there under duress of some kind.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2010 05:55AM by Troy.

They are a loose-knit group of conservatives.

I myself hold libertarian principles, but I'm also practical when it comes to reality.

to somebody else's work, goods or services.
Maybe I have a right to piano lessons?

I'll just toss that one in as a brainstorming move, because one reason polygamy didn't "die out" following the Woodruff Manifesto and the later Smoot Hearings was because it had "gone underground," and the fundie groups developed their own "culture-within-a-culture."

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2010 02:16AM by Troy.

Exactly it is. The reason the President needs to get involved is because it is too big for Utah and its spineless legislators. It also sprawls across state and international lines. Who wants to go to Washington with me? Everyone is invited.

Let's get Mitt Romney involved here. A public confrontation about this could easily make him do or say something stupid. To a Mormon politician, the human rights abuses of Mormon fundamentalism are a severe and crippling embarrassment. I'm not afraid to go face-to-face with that bastard. I could roast him on this issue. We philosophers wrote the book on political debate and I don't have any popularity contests to win. I embrace my skeletons. And I do all of this for free! I'm my own boss. Nobody fires me!

I wouldn't take a 100 yard walk with you, my fellow Piney. You are a nut job. Amnesty for polygamists? Like that would solve anything. THEY MADE IT ILLEGAL AND THE PEOPLE ARE STILL DOING IT. What is giving those that are currently living it a 'get out of jail free card' supposed to do at all?

This makes as much sense as Brigham Young telling the Mormons not to drink coffee or smoke, but that those that are currently doing it are exempt. I think even silly Obama would think that you are nuts also.

It never surprises me when people take a live-and-let-live attitude when it comes to polygamy. These folks have been the bane of my existence for years. Call it crazy if it makes you feel better, but sitting on my ass and doing nothing is not my style. If you're going to suggest I do that, be prepared to get flamed. I'm through dealing with the apathy. It's despicable. If this attitude makes me unpopular, I'm fine with that. It's not my reputation I'm worried about. I'm willing to put that on the line, unlike anonymous pot-shotters who won't lift a finger. I have nothing to lose. You can't make me any more broke than I am and I'm beyond embarrassment over this. I have bigger fish to fry.

... offering tax incentives for birthin' babies.

Welfare system could use a like overhaul as well!

I can see helping someone out who's made an honest mistake - ONE TIME - but when he or she does it again in order to take advantage of an otherwise well-meaning system, he or she should be punished. And I mean punished severely!

Here's how to seriously curtail such practices:

You wanna have a big family? Be my guest! But you're going to have to pay for birthin' 'em, feedin' 'em, clothin' 'em and edumacatin' 'em all by your lonesome. That might not stop the first one from being born, but it will certainly make wanna-be parents think twice before goin' for two-zees.

Welfare system needs to do likewise. Yeah, we'll lend you a hand this time. Do it again, however, and we'll simply cut you off. If you can't afford one baby, you surely can't afford two. We're not going to encourage three!

Think of the welfare and tax fraud that goes on in a single polygamous arrangement. The "legal" marriage looks all hunky-dory. Husband has a low income job, claims his wife and maybe two of the group's children as dependents and gets the associated tax breaks, incentives and a little welfare - maybe food stamps - while the other wives collect individual welfare checks; the amount of which being based on the number of kids the individual "single-parent" claims.

Sorry, folks, but that's a premeditated swindle If ever I saw one. Again, if its your bag, then be my guest. Just don't do any of it on my dime!

Now, let's get into that "Do unto others" thang. My kids are perfect. They've never caused any trouble, interrupted anyone's evening out, cost anyone a dime, etc., etc., etc., and never will. I guarantee it!

That's how I do unto others and that's exactly how I expect others, even those with kids, to do unto me. Doesn't happen though. Parents expect me to just shut-up and mind my own business when it comes to their kids, particularly when they (the parents) are conducting or condoning bizarre or irritating behavior. They don't have a problem with my paying for their kid's education via property taxes or feeding and clothing their little rug rats through my "contributions" to the welfare system. For some reason, however, it just bothers the hell out of them when I point out the glaring imperfections in their "parental" skills.

Fair enough. I just want my money back. What I've "contributed" over the years equates to what many consider rather serious investment capital. I could've retired by now were it not for everyone's kids!

But I guess that's too much to ask of folks who just want to f**k all day and make babies.

Timothy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2010 12:29PM by Timothy.

You mean... like the right to marry whomever you please?

... like some creepy old bastard who, in his position of religious authority, tells you it's god's will that you marry him when you're only thirteen. And with your parent's approval no less!

Yeah, you're all about human rights. Particularly when it comes to the unprotected!

Timothy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2010 01:12PM by Timothy.

Your solution to this violation of a child's rights (in your 13-year-old example) is to violate MORE people's rights by banning a type of marriage you don't particularly like?

Two wrongs make a right for you then, Timothy?

I'm just saying adults - consenting or otherwise - have no rights when it comes to abusing children.

You wish to change that?

Timothy



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2010 01:39PM by Timothy.

Child abuse is a separate entity from marriage equality.

In fact, children themselves are separate entities from marriage. One doesn't have to be married to produce a child. One doesn't have to be married to responsibly care for a child, or love a child. And there are plenty of "traditional" families that participate in child abuse.

You don't solve the problem of child abuse by abusing the rights of adults.

That would be child abuse, asrealle, particularly when the thirteen-year-old child is pressured by aged old religious authority and parental induced fear.

Polygamy has never been about children, "marriage equality" or religious beliefs. Its always been about sex. That's fine with me until innocent folks get hurt. And folks - particularly underage brides and young male competitors - get hurt in those arrangements.

Of course, I'll be more than willing to sit-down, shut-up and mind my own business just as soon as I get my money back. As a resident and land owner in Texas, I'm still payin' for that FLDS bulls**t.

Don't want to pay for any of it no more!

Timothy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2010 02:19PM by Timothy.

Underage marriage is illegal now. Underage sexual relations is illegal now. Enforcing the law on that should be a no brainer. And I don't think anyone is in favor of allowing that. It's what adults engage in that is in question here, isn't it?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2010 03:35PM by Devoted Exmo.

Polygamy world-wide is replete with episodes of older men marrying and having sex with very young girls. Those "older men" of which I speak are definately adults!

As a side note, polygamy in this country alone is filled with such episodes. Always involves adults somehow.

Timothy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2010 04:48PM by Timothy.

Those adults are not allowed to marry or have sexual relations with underage girls in this country. That's the law. The tragedy here is that it's not being prosecuted.

That's very different from proposing that three (or more) adults can form a polygynous union, so long as they're paying for it themselves and properly caring for the children.

Philosophically, I agree with azrealle on this.
Government needs to stay out of my bedroom and my doctor's office and my gun cabinet.

... pressured Helen Mar Kimball into marrying Joseph Smith.

I also believe it was "consenting adults" who made and birthed HMK before forcing her to marry Joseph Smith.

On the other hand, I don't believe the victim in this instance (HMK) was a consenting adult.

You folks need to get something straight. Polygamy is not about "marriage equality" or religious beliefs. Its all about sex. Nothing wrong with that in my book so long as its among consenting adults. All to often, however, children, such as HMK, are forced into the situation and that ain't right.

Wanna do Tommy Monson, BadGirl? ... I doubt it, but you wouldn't have any choice under the mormon brand of polygamy!

As a matter of fact, you wouldn't have much choice under any brand of polygamy!

Timothy

adults.
That would make it illegal.
Don't understand what your argument is; it doesn't seem logical.

I'm saying that consenting adults should have the right to enter into any relationship with each other they please.

Would it surprise you to know that child rape and underage marriage happens OUTSIDE the realms of polygamy? These are atrocities that are terrible, and the perpetrators of such acts should be punished.

HOWEVER. Denying the rights of adults to marry will not solve these problems, and in fact, introduces yet another rights violation into the mix.

Short of outlawing underage marriage and outlawing polygamy (which is our current state of affairs), do you have any productive solutions to child rape and child abuse?

polygamy.
I think you're using the word wrong.

Government ruthlessness in attempting to eradicate a popular practice is futile unless an overwhelming majority of the people find the practice unacceptable, in which case government action is hardly necessary.

Government action in the face of, or disproportional to, public sentiment will be counterproductive. I do not think that at this point in time enough people find the practice of polygamy, especially between consenting adults, objectionable enough to sustain any rigorous government sanctions. Politicians have a way of sensing the popular mood, it being their business, and I suspect you will be met with more or less polite rejection of your proposed government activism.

A negotiated settlement where the government offers a man amnesty for current marriages - from bigamy/polygamy laws, not from anything else.

That would keep them from living outside the law and fearful of getting help for domestic violence, etc.

In return, they agree to
-take no more wives
-not kick sons out
-keep their kids in public schools until 18
-stop bleeding the beast
-provide annual financial documentation of how they support it all
-Put non FLDS officers into their police force
-put non FLDS teachers into their schools

I think these guys are so used to living they way they want, they'll all just move to Canada. But at least it sends a message that we expect them to live by the same basic rules as other Americans.

Heresy says: "I think these guys are so used to living they way they want, they'll all just move to Canada. But at least it sends a message that we expect them to live by the same basic rules as other Americans."

Are you dissing Canada? If so, I have to patriotically pipe up and say hey, what the heck?

At least we're trying here to get the anti-polygamy laws enforced or at least clarified, in particular with regard to long term consistent allegations and fears of child abuse within fundamentalist polygamous communes. In the Province of British Columbia, where one Mormon fundamentalist community exists (Bountiful) there are many groups advocating for the children's rights to adequate health care, standard education, freedom from abuse, and to make their own choices as appropriate.

There is a lot of publicity in the media about the issues and "activists" who are addressing the situation in many different ways with a view to at least improving the education, social situation and health care for Bountiful's inhabitants.

If you meant to suggest that Fundamentalist Mormon polygamists would get a free ride in Canada, I dispute that. Yeah, the govt is slow to act ('tis the nature of govt, to be sure) but sooner or later they will have to decide the issues one way or another. In the meantime, many dedicated people are trying to assist any residents inside Bountiful, especially the children, who need or request help. One of the most basic interventions that has helped tremendously is to try and open up the society more so as to mainstream things a bit. Since I first became aware of Bountiful and its closed nature, a few yrs ago now, the residents have gone from having zero connections to the outside world to getting access to the Internet, from having sub-standard health care (especially in Obstetrics) to having a clear path to the local non-Mormon-based hospital and other health services (especially Maternity, for obvious reasons), and establishing other connections to mainstream society. Winston Blackmore, their one-time bishop, has even seen the light somewhat and now interacts with the media, giving interviews, where before he was very defensive and closed.

It's amazing the changes that are wrought merely by a person or group knowing that outside eyes are upon them, which is the least action that can be taken while law enforcement and other govt agencies wind through the various processes that can also open up such closed communities and provide services, resources and protection where needed.

If any polygamous leader or groupies think they can cross the border and set up camp in Canada with impunity they're going to want to think again. There are citizens here with loud voices against that and some govt members who are listening, as slow as that process is. And for the kids, the next generation of Bountiful residents and others like them, perhaps these small excursions into mainstream (outside contacts and especially access to the Internet) will help ensure they will one day have the personal freedom to make their own life decisions. Here's hoping that for many that results in more mainstream community-based social circumstances, better (more complete) education, exceptional health care, an abundance of choices and lives as happy and fulfilling as possible. All this is possible, even living in Canada as they do!

Edit to clarify: I don't mean to criticize the obstetrical care the women had formerly received inside Bountiful, as they have had the benefit of well trained, skillful midwives, but the situation has improved in recent years with better access to the community hospital and its nurses and medical staff who understand and help with the unique circumstances the Bountiful women face. I think midwifery is a noble profession and is often more than adequate, and may even be preferable to other options, but absolutely women in childbirth need rapid access to expert medical care if needed and every woman, every time, should have the choice of which resources she prefers. In our health care system, midwives work within the medical system and in cooperation with nursing and medical staff at clinics and hospitals. That is a win-win for everyone as far as I am concerned.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2010 04:27PM by Nightingale.

I didn't mean to diss Canada. I think they move across the border both ways to evade problems. I especially think they move young girls around if they get uppity.

I'm glad to hear things are improving. The last I heard, Blackmore was getting off the hook and it did diminish my long running fantasy to be Canadian instead of just south.

I didn't think you did, which is why I stifled my irrational knee-jerk response to defend my country too vociferously prior to getting all the facts. :)

Blackmore did get "off the hook" in that he had a trial pending to address the issue of him being "married" to multiple women. In Canada, polygamy is on the law books as being illegal but notoriously that is not enforced, to date anyway. The AG in B.C. (location of Bountiful) wanted to "test" the law, stating that it should either be enforced or expunged. Unfortunately, the AG was startlingly turfed in the last provincial election and lost his seat (startling because he is a high profile and popular guy - a former judge seen to be objective, learned, etc). The new AG lost no time in deciding not to prosecute Blackmore after all. It's a pity that "justice" depends to some extent on the party in power and especially the minister assigned to a certain portfolio (in this case, the AG has the discretion as to whether to bring a case or not and he decided not).

I think this is not the end of it, as political winds come and go and activists and other interested parties are not just going to go away.

At a personal level, I am all for people making their own choices, including their own relationship and sexual choices, absent any harm to other parties and to society (i.e., costs, use of resources, etc). I would not advocate for removing freedom of choice for consenting adults. My focus has been entirely on the abuse that is known to occur in groups such as that in Bountiful, including child abuse, sexual abuse, limiting education, child labour, restricted access to health care, raising children in closed environments, the issues related to underage and cross-border "brides" (i.e., young teen girls), kicking teenage boys out of the group, etc.

Those are issues that still need to be addressed and corrected where necessary. Hopefully, activists here can continue to advocate for the health and well being of all of Bountiful's residents.

(The dissing of Canada comments were meant to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, just so you know). :)

Edit to add: The law in Canada against polygamy forbids "living in a polygamous union" so the term "marriage" doesn't unnecessarily complicate the essential issue, in my view.

Also, the primary overriding issue would seem to be freedom of religion (Blackmore's chief defence), which is enshrined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He seems to think that trumps all other considerations. Fortunately, it is an established principle in Canada, as far as I am aware, that the rights of children supercede the rights of adults to have 100% freedom of religion. Thus, any child abuse allegations which can be proven would trump Blackmore's claim that his right of freedom of religion is paramount over and above all other rights and issues. Of course, this is all exceptionally difficult to prove in any law suit, which as we know takes years to get to court anyway, another plus for the defence. Meanwhile, children continue to be born in Bountiful and another generation comes and goes...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2010 05:13PM by Nightingale.