Debating Polygamy's Resurgence

[Muddleoftheroad]

Indonesians Divided Over Meaning of Koran
By Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, November 28, 2003; Page A01

JAKARTA, Indonesia -- A suspicious cell-phone number on the family phone bill tipped off Titin Salpomiatin that her husband, Erlangga, was cheating on her.

When she confronted him, Erlangga claimed that the woman in question was just a friend. But a year later, he felt he could not hide the truth. He broke the news to Titin that he had taken a second wife and that they had a newborn baby.

"She was furious. She cried. She protested," he recalled.

Erlangga, a personnel manager in a palm oil company who goes by one name, said he argued that the Koran allows him to have up to four wives. Titin recalled that she accused him of exploiting the Koran to justify his sexual wandering.

Today, he divides his time equally between Titin and his second wife. While he has two wives, Titin said, "I don't feel that I have a husband."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17517-2003Nov27.html

As we move forward with discussions of marriage and how it might change -- the right wanting to keep gay rights down and the rest of us wanting gay rights -- this seems an important issue. How would America handle a resurgence of the issue of polygamy?

[pistoff democrat]

1. While I find this an interesting exercise in abstract debate,

what is important to me is to deal with first things first.

We must make it so that any 2 human beings, regardless of race-color-ethnicity-religion-gender, gain equal access to the 'privileges' of marriage.

After that happens, I'll join into your article's sorts of debates as well.

No disrespect meant... :hi:


(...his truth is marching on)

[Muddleoftheroad]

2. Not dissed

But the problem I see is that this IS part of the discussion. If we are changing the nature of marriage (and I hope we are) so that gays have equal rights, what boundaries, if any, do we set?

[MojoKrunch]

11. Old hat for us SciFi fans.

There was a spate of stories from the 60's about the new direction of the institution of marriage, prompted I'm sure, but the pill and new divorce laws.

Contracts.
Simple as that.

This is what a marriage license is in the most general sense, anyway.

I have no problems with any group of consentual adults attaching themselves to each other legally so long as people aren't being taken advantage of... like poor Titan was.

IMO, multiple marriages would solve a great many of todays social ills.
Multiple incomes to support the family.
Multiple allo-mothers to help the birth mothers with rearing duties.
New meaning to "extended family", of course.
A whole new meaning to "it takes a village"... when the "village" are all your legal spouses.

And the interpersonal issues would be outrageous... everyone might want to "marry" a therapist into their group. lol

Look at how many people in the US "restart" new families because the old marriage fell apart.
Lots of people are having to learn how to co-parent while getting new families/relationships started and functioning.

If we were all a little more open-minded/self-assured, we could maybe pull of something like that.

I have no idea how it works... but I could see people making it happen.

Mojo

[Jane Roe]

3. US law on polygamy

For those interested, a list of US Supreme Court cases on polygamy is given at:

http://www.churchstatelaw.com/casesbytopic.asp?topic=Polygamy

I think the federal prohibition on polygamy (upheld in Reynolds v US) is unConstitutional. Polygamy should be a state issue -- the Constitution gives the federal gov't no power to regulate marriage. Personally, I would prefer to live in a state where polygamy was legal.

As you seem to have intuited, legal commentators are suggesting that the recent sodomy case (Richardson v Texas, I think) may cause the Supreme Court to rethink its polygamy decisions. I hope it does.

[Muddleoftheroad]

4. Polygamy

However, I think the polygamy issue HURTS the gay rights issue here. I have heard rightwing commentators linking the two a few times. As yet, it seems rare, but given time, I think they will successfully link these two issues.

[Jane Roe]

10. Pro-polygamy commentators have also "linked" the two . . .

All Supreme Court cases on the right to privacy are linked in some sense. When the Supreme Court decides a right to privacy case in one context the Court will routinely cite at least some of its other decisions made in other contexts with the aim of explaining a consistent jurisprudence. That's just the way it is.

Personally, I don't think the two cases are that connected. To me Richardson v. Texas dealt with whether *states* can legislate on the issue of sodomy (conducted in private), while McReynolds dealt with whether the *federal* government can legislate on the issue of marriage. This is an important distinction, so to me the cases are not linked very strongly.

By the way, I support Richardson v. Texas and think the decision was a long overdue and valid application of the Bill of Rights.

[Paschall]

14. "I think they will successfully link these two issues."

Attempts to do so were made everywhere in Europe where domestic partnership/civil unions laws have been passed.

The two issues were never successfully linked. The tactic is sensationalist fear-mongering.

[camero]

5. Maybe an uptick in crime rates

Nothing lowers crime like having a life partner. It's because the person has to start thinking about other people besides themselves.

Polygamy would increase the crime rate because there would be alot more single men because most could not afford more than one wife. I know it sounds sexist, (so please accept my apologies, it's not meant that way) but women still gravitate to men that make more money or have more education than they do.

So alot of men will become "unmarriageable".

[Muddleoftheroad]

6. Do you really think it would catch on?

I mean, I don't know an American woman who would tolerate this situation.

[camero]

12. Not in a big way

Some don't really mind men dating other women so I would assume (yes, I know, assume means ass-u-me)that some women would not have a problem with a rich husband seeing other women.

I don't think it would be en-masse but your question was how would the country handle polygamy. The Utah case is a good example. How many wives did this guy have? 15? And his "wives" defended him.

[bleedingheart]

7. Personally if the involved parties were okay with polygamy

I don't care...but the key problem is the fact that the man in this particular situation has the control over the situation. His first wife is basically helpless to do anything other than possibly divorce and I bet that isn't a very hospitable option for her.

[sangh0]

8. Yeah, that's our problem

polygamy!

Oh yeah, ...and Laci Peterson and Michael Jackson.

[Muddleoftheroad]

9. Positive contribution

Thanks for the added bonus of your help here. Sorry, but I see this as a related issue to the definition of marriage and gay rights. If you don't find gay rights important, please just stay away.

[sangh0]

13. And you're going to help

by repeating the idea that there's a link between polygamy and gay marriage?

Nice way to play right into the RNC's propoganda that gays are promiscous.

[Paschall]

21. "Play into" is a nice euphemism

;-)

[Muddleoftheroad]

27. Not my linkage

It just is a reality that they are going to make the link and I would like to discuss it.

[Paschall]

24. If you want answers, you'd do better...

...to study the civil marriage campaign material prepared by gay people, rather than getting yourself worried about a non-issue that won't reverberate with anyone but the knuckle draggers.

Do a search here for "polygamy":
Human Rights Campaign Civil Marriage Center
http://www.hrc.org/Content/NavigationMenu/HRC/Get_Informed/Issues/Civil_Marriage/Center/Center.htm

[bleedingheart]

15. Polygamy and Gay Marriage are completely unrelated

This is my opinion so flame me if you want but Polygamy is about an imbalance of power in relationships.

Polygamy has been traditionally for the benefit of a dominant male who keeps a "harem" of women. Think of the Mormon man who keeps a 10 wives around to keep him happy and take care of the 53 kids he fathered on all of them. At least according to Muslim tradition (correct me if I am wrong) muslims must keep each wife equally as well and limits them to four wives. A muslim can't keep one wife in luxury while keeping the others in relative poverty..although they may...I don't know.

Women are VICTIMS of polygamy. Women who fall victim to polygamy are women who are uneducated and poor or oppressed by their culture. If your a poor indonesian gal with few options then entering into a polygamous relationship may be one of the few ways to feed yourself.

Women who are educated, well off and not oppressed by their culture have SELF-ESTEEM...they have a healthy view of themselves and feel that they deserve the love and attention of a healthy relationship not one in which they must compete for it on a daily basis.

Now I am sure there is someone out there who loves and willingly lives polygamously... (to each his/her own) but I bet that is pretty rare.

Gay Marriage is entirely different! Gay marriage is about two people who love each other and come together willingly!!!

[sangh0]

16. But some "liberals" will continue to act as if they are related

in order to keep repeating it, which is how propoganda works.

[bleedingheart]

18. I know...

It just amazes me that people would even consider them related...

Personally I can't wait for the day that my brother and his SO can legally marry... they have been together 6 years!

[camero]

17. I agree

I think he is linking them together because of the Santorum comments on sodomy. And that attack will come. We must be prepared to answer it.

[sangh0]

19. Polygamy is illegal!!!

That's the answer

[bleedingheart]

20. If Polygamy was legal Santorum would be the first to sign up for

a few extra wives...so long as the pope gave him a dispensation...

He is the kind of smirking smug slimebag sonofabitch who would do it....

Mark my words...Santorum longs for the Handmaid's Tale to come true...

[camero]

25. I know.

But in public he would tell a different story. I just think the freepers will try to compare the two just as they said that sodomy was part of a slippery slope. (No pun intended)

[pistoff democrat]

23. My feelings exactly.

eom

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

22. At least polygamists COULD be married in America at one time

which is a right a MONOGAMOUS gay couple has never enjoyed. I really appreciate your concern that us poor sick gay folks can't get married but given that you have compared us to multiple partner situations I am simply SUSPECT of your sympathy in the matter.

What's next from you? A post on how America will respond to the inclusion of bestiality in marriage?

:eyes:

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.