Another Round of Polygamy Bashing

A trial of some people from Bountiful, B.C., Canada brings with it attaching negative associations to the word "polygamy" even though the actual problem is not voluntary relationships between consenting adults.

For example, there's this report by Daphne Bramham at vancouversun.com that is headlined "Evidence all in at trial of B.C. polygamous parents charged with trafficking their daughters." Why are the parents identified as "polygamous?" In how many articles do you ever see people on trial identified as "monogamous?" The problem here is alleged child abuse, not polygamy between consenting adults.

The trial of three parents from the polygamous community of Bountiful, B.C. charged with trafficking their 13- and 15-year-old daughters to U.S. for sexual purposes wraps up next week with final arguments.

"Polygamous community." Are there "monogamous communities?" We weren't aware towns married. Are sister cities allowed to marry?

That there are polygynous adult marriages is not nearly as important to what is going on as the fact that these people belong to a certain small religious group with an authoritarian leader who orchestrated the events in question, and the real issue is the abuse of children. Would it be any less of a problem if the minor girls were each being "married" off to a different older man rather than multiple girls to one man?

The headline to Bramham's article at montrealgazette.com was a little better, but "Obedience to prophet paramount in polygamous community, trial told" still calls it a "polygamous community." This is exactly why so many people who want ethically nonmonogamous marriages avoid using the term polygamy, even though that's the term for a marriage or marriages involving more than two people.

It is important not to lump ethically nonmonogamous people in with child abuse. We advocate for the rights of all consenting adults to their relationships, including polygamy, if that's what they want. We oppose child abuse and maintain that full marriage equality for all will actually help fight child abuse.

Escaping a Broadbrush

It is irksome to see the title "Escaping Polygamy." I know many people who could say they escaped monogamy, escaped marriage, etc. Abusers are someone to escape. A relationship construct is only something to be escaped for someone who isn't suited for it. For example, if you're polyamorous, it can be rather painful to be coerced into a monogamous relationship with no hope of polyamory.

With that in mind, here's a report from Ryan Gajewski at usmagazine.com with the headline "Escaping Polygamy's Lorie: Sharing My Husband With My Sister Is Like a 'Bad Dream."

A polygynous man taking sisters as wives is not all that unusual. However, I can understand that if someone really doesn't want to be in a polygynous marriage, or doesn't want to be in one with her sister, that it could be a terrible way to live. Nobody should be pressured into a relationship they don't want. Part of having full marriage equality and relationship rights for all is allowing people to be themselves. This will allow people to have the relationships they want, including not having a legal, romantic, or sexual relationship at all.

The wrong kind of sisterly bond. Escaping Polygamy's Lorie opens up about the pain of sharing her husband with a blood relative in the Sunday, August 21, episode, as seen in Us Weekly's exclusive sneak peek.

The wrong kind of sisterly bond for her. For other women, sharing a partner with their sibling is something to which they aspire.

The A&E unscripted series' preview clip shows Lorie telling the camera that she has 10 children with husband Verl, who she married when she was 17. Verl was already married to Lorie's older sister, and the two of them have 15 kids together. (Verl also has six kids with a third wife, who is his half-sister.)

How did that not make the headlines? He's in a consanguineous marriage. Of course it wouldn't be a legal marriage anyway, since he has a legal wife and the law still only allows one, but not only is polyfidelity criminal in Utah, so is having sex with your half-sibling. I'm not defending Verl specifically, but consensual adult relationships shouldn't be criminalized.

They all belong to the polygamist Salt Lake City–based Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Is the problem here really polygamy, or rather something about the FLDS? Consider what the article says next...

'Escaping Polygamy' Star Lorie

"My mom walked out of our life when I was 9, and [my sister] took the role of a mother, and she really felt strongly that I needed to be a part of her family," Lorie explains. "She would tell me that she felt like if I didn't do this, then I would lose my eternal salvation."

So tell me how this would relate to the polygamous freedom to marry under a system of gender equality in which people are truly free to not marry and to marry the person or people they want to marry?

Column at Major Newspaper Calls For Polygamous Freedom to Marry

Many thanks to Peg McEntee at sltrib.com for speaking up for the polygamous freedom to marry, which is essential in order to reach full marriage equality.

And, as a strong believer in the right of same-sex couples to marry, it came to me that willing adults who enter into plural marriage should have the same rights.

Having covered polygamy in Utah for more than two decades, I’m acutely aware of the abuse that can and has occurred in polygamous enclaves.

Of course, that abuse is not isolated to polygamous communities, nor is it caused by polygamy. Removing laws and stigmas against consensual adult relationships will make it easier to prosecute abusers, because witnesses and victims will be more willing to work with law enforcement.

My support for gay marriage hinges on these factors: a mature, loving couple should have the same rights and protections as straight couples and to have governments recognize their unions; and that each individual enters into the relationship without financial or ecclesiastical pressure.

Thank you!

Who am I to oppose the choices of two women who join in matrimony, or two or more who choose to enter what now is called a "spiritual" marriage with one man?

This world has seen uncountable changes in customs and mores, and it surely will see more as time goes by. Let adults be adults, committed and accountable.

I have friends who ask if their gay marriage has ever affected my straight one. And I ask them if mine has affected theirs. The answer is always no.

The staff of more news organizations need to speak up in favor of the rights of an adult to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults. Yes, that includes polyamory and polygamy as well as monogamy and other forms.

Anti-Equality Utah Law in Court

The court case involving the "Sister Wives" polygynists (plural marriage) is in the news again. Remember, this case is in court because Utah has laws that more or less criminalize polyamorous cohabitation or considering more than one person your spouse. Here is the report at sltrib.com by Nate Carlisle and Jim Dalrymple II...

As the hearing proceeded, Waddoups zeroed in on the definition of a polygamous relationship. Posing a hypothetical question he asked what the difference was between a polygamous relationship and an unmarried man who chooses to have intimate relationships with three women.

After a series of increasingly heated exchanges, Assistant Utah Attorney General Jerrold Jensen replied that a polygamous relationship is different. He said it was defined by people representing themselves as married.

“I think it’s the representation that they make to the world,” Jensen said.

Waddoups questioned whether the state had created an arbitrary standard for prosecuting relationships.

“The law has to draw a line somewhere,” Jensen argued.

“They have to be rational lines,” Waddoups shot back.

The rational line is consenting adults. Adults should be free to share love, sex, residence and marriage with ANY consenting adults.

Waddoups said he wondered if Utah’s bigamy statute was created to “stamp out a religious practice.”

Jensen said that religion clearly was a part of past anti-polygamy laws, but also argued that every state has laws that ban polygamy.

Waddoups questioned Jensen for about 40 minutes. Waddoups questioned Turley for about half that.

Turley criticized the states’ reliance on stories and anecdotal evidence to say polygamy fostered abuse.

“I can give stories in the tens of thousands in monogamous marriages where abuse has occurred,” Turley said.

There is no good reason to deny adults the right to love who and how they want. The law in Utah needs to go, but it will be just one step along the way. Nationwide, we need to allow freedom of religion, freedom of association, and full marriage equality. Abusers will be easier to find and prosecute if the stigma and criminalizations against plural marriages, polygamy, and polyamory are eliminated. There more at the website's blog.

An Ally For the Polygamous Freedom to Marry

Margot Harrison at 7dvt.com interviews Professor Janet Bennion about her book Polygamy in Primetime.

courtesy of David Ballou

Like many examples in Bennion’s illuminating study, they defy the popular perception that the practice of men taking multiple wives is solely about the male libido.

You don't say?


But whatever we think of polygamy in America, Bennion argues, it’s not going away anytime soon. And she believes it should be legal.

Thank you! As you can see, she knows her stuff...

Bennion, 48, has been researching polygamy for two decades. As a master’s student in 1989, she moved in with a rural Montana colony of the Apostolic United Brethren, a fundamentalist Mormon sect that still practices plural marriage as instructed by founder Joseph Smith in 1843. (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints [LDS] officially renounced polygamy in 1890.) 

Bennion would go on to publish book-length ethnographic studies of the AUB and the LeBaron fundamentalist colony in Mexico. Her fieldwork got her in trouble with LDS church leaders, who “disfellowshipped” her.

That's too bad. Some religious organizations support people questioning the imposition of the "heterosexual monogamy only" model.

Polyamory Rising

Thanks in no small part to the Browns and their TLC television show, "Sister Wives," awareness of consensual polygamy (especially plural marriages) is increasing. The same goes for the Showtime's Polyamory show. Both shows and related media and discussion will contribute to relationship rights for poly people, including the freedom to marry and, ultimately, full marriage equality.

The Browns lead a forum at UNLV, prompting some news coverage. Here's a report from Paul Takahashi at lasvegassun.com...

Christopher DeVargas

Kody Brown, center, is flanked by two of his four ‘Sister Wives,” Christine, at left, and Meri, at right.

There are more than 850 societies around the world that practice polygamy, and an estimated 30,000 or more plural families living in the United States, Blumer said. However, because of a negative cultural stigma and legal concerns, most plural families live largely in secrecy.

When the Brown family came out to their monogamous friends relatives some 20 years ago, it strained relationships and broke some bonds.

The Browns also suffered repercussions when their family made national headlines after "Sister Wives" first aired. Meri lost her job, Kody lost a couple of advertising clients and Robyn had a difficult time finding work.

For a couple of years, the family also faced legal prosecution. 

How ridiculous it is that people perpetuate such bigotry.

No Appeal of Anti-Equality Court Ruling in Canada

Someday, both Canadians and Americans will look back in shame at having fought against full marriage equality. Those who are on the right side of history await everyone else. Here's what I last wrote about this case.

A lawyer who argued to decriminalize polygamy will not be appealing the court’s decision to uphold Canada’s 120-year-old anti-polygamy law, it was announced Wednesday.

“A legal publication suggested recently that (lawyer George Macintosh) had decided to appeal. That report was erroneous,” a statement released by his office said.

This is disappointing.

Texas Anti-marriage Law Challenged

The Browns are challenging the Utah law against the polygamous freedom of association, but there’s also a challenge to Texas’ bigamy law.

Unlike other Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints men charged in Texas, 70-year-old Wendell Nielsen is not accused of marrying underage girls. Instead, the three felony bigamy charges against him are focused on women ages 66, 56 and 43.

In newly filed court documents in Schleicher County, Nielsen’s attorneys argue that the law unfairly targets groups with a religious belief in plural marriage. They quote a landmark decision that struck down the state’s sodomy law, Lawrence v. Texas.

"The bigamy statute appears to be nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to ‘use the power of the state to enforce [majority views regarding morality] on the whole society through the operation of criminal law’ and as such cannot survive even minimal scrutiny," according to a motion to quash Nielsen’s indictment filed this week.

The more people think it through, the more they realize how ridiculous it is to try to stop consenting adults from having relationships. And when they think it through more, they also realize it is unfair to deny the freedom to marry.

In a separate argument, Nielsen’s attorneys claimed the bigamy law is unfairly enforced and unconstitutional because it applies only to certain groups.

The law, for example, would not apply to three women living together who consider themselves married, or three men in the same situation, attorneys wrote, because marriage in Texas can only be between a man and a woman, and the bigamy statute requires that the accused is legally married to one person.

Let’s make it simple by recognizing that an adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults. State lawmakers could save everyone so much trouble and free up the courts by supporting these basic human rights instead of trying to punish people on an arbitrary basis over the person or persons they love. Yes, some bigots will cry. They'll get over it, just like they got over desegregation.

Consensual Polygamy is Not Abuse

Referring to Warren Jeffs, Lorne Gunter writes about not liking the FLDS, how things are in Bountiful, nor how the RCMP has responded to allegations of abuses.

But then again, dawdling has long characterized the way B.C. childwelfare officials and Mounties have treated allegations against Bountiful's domineering leaders. Fearful of upsetting the leaders' Charter right to religious freedom, police and bureaucrats have been slow to the point of inert when looking into complaints that children and women have been physically and psychologically abused there.

It would be easier for the authorities to investigate and prosecute abuse if marriages between adults were not criminalized. If adults were free to marry any consenting adults with government sanction and protection instead of prosecution, witnesses would be more forthcoming.

I can see where the courts might accept the argument that polygamy in and of itself is not abusive - that consenting adults could enter into such weird and creepy relationships of their own free-will.

“Weird and creepy?” I wonder what Gunter’s relationships and personal life are like, and if there are people who would think any aspect is weird and creepy? At least Gunter can see that courts might understand polygamy isn’t inherently abusive.

That commentary drew a letter from Nancy Mereska, president of Stop Polygamy in Canada. I can see Stop Domestic Violence or Stop Child Abuse, but Stop Polygamy? Why does Mereska care so much what relationships other consenting adults have? And does she really have it out for polygamy (would she be against, say, a woman marrying two women), or just polygyny? Anyway, in the letter she writes…

The international convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women discusses polygamy and says that parties should prohibit it because of its harm to women and children.

Isn’t is discrimination against women to tell them they can’t marry the person(s) they want?

The international Convention on the Rights of the Child says a child has a right to know its parents. In polygamy the father is absent.

With full marriage equality, polygamy could be a matter of law; polygamy means marriage. That’s hardly being absent. Notice she does not mention that it is perfectly legal for men to have children with multiple women, as long as he is only married to one at a time, if at all.

In polygamy, women's and children's rights are diminished measurably.

How so? She doesn’t say. She simply asserts it. And diminished compared to what? Certainly not women and children who have been abandoned by deadbeats.

It really isn’t complicated. An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults. Domestic violence and child abuse should be prosecuted. What is the problem with taking an approach like that?

Freedom to Polygyny, Polyandry, and More

There are a couple of recent entries at The Pursuit of Harpyness of interest to this blog.

The first is annajcook’s review of Judith Stacey’s Unhitched: Love, Marriage, and Family Values from West Hollywood to Western China.

I mentioned that book and author here.

What this book does do is encourage us (implicitly Western, largely heteronormative readers) to rethink the way our culture has elevated monogamous hetero marriage (and even same-sex marriage) to its status as the ultimate basis for family creation. Stacey does this by offering us snapshots of alternatives to that husband-wife-and-(maybe)-kids family formation: gay male families of many kinds in West Hollywood, polygynous marriages in South Africa (where it is legal for some) and the United States (where it is illegal for all), and matrilinial households of the Mosuo in China. By opening up a window onto the successes and failures of different strategies for family formation, Stacey suggests that “no family system is ideal, and no family form can be best for everyone.”

Which is why we should let everyone decide for themselves and not let some people decide for everyone else.

I am increasingly frustrated by the rejection of poly relationships (whether traditionally polygynous or queer) as a form that can, and should, be recognized as a legitimate family form — particularly when such rejections come from people who otherwise support the right of adults to form intimate partnerships of their choosing.

Me too. That’s why I encourage solidarity.

Is it so hard to believe that sometimes the family form that works best for those involved is one that expands to involve more than two people?

Apparently it is, for the narrow minded. Fortunately, more and more monogamists are seeing that poly people should have their rights, too.

I don’t precisely agree with Stacey that polygyny is inherently un-feminist. I would argue that what makes a feminist family has more to do with the egalitarian nature of the relationship(s) involved — including those between parents and children — than it does with the combination of bodies or gender expressions present.

Exactly!

The second entry is from BeckySharper, who asks, “Should We Defend Polygamists?” She cites the lawsuit by the Browns seeking the freedom of association.

I don’t for a second buy that women are empowered by sharing a husband. But I don’t think what they’re doing is criminal.

That’s the bottom line, isn’t it?

She contrasts the Browns and others like them with Warren Jeffs.

There is no spectrum of private consensual relations — there is just a right of privacy that protects all people so long as they do not harm others.

That’s the way it should be, but we have various restrictions in different states on the right to marry that violate that in different ways, which is why a Marriage Equality Amendment would help.

Kate…

I agree with you 100%. As consenting adults they have a right to live the way that they choose.

TJ…

As someone who supports gay marriage, I have to accept I can’t have it both ways. If we allow all kinds of relationships, then we have to take in the polygamists, also. As much as it horrifies me to think of one man, a handful of wives and tons of kids, I have to deal with it. Like I tell those offended by gay marriage- fine, if you don’t like it, don’t do it, no one is forcing them to marry a same sex partner. So, as long as I don’t have to become one of five wives that service one man, I’ll survive.

KJ…

I don’t have so much a problem with polygamy, but I have a major problem with the fact that girls are brainwashed to think polygamy is their way to salvation and that they should be happy to be married at very young ages. If consenting adults who have had access to a full range of information and opinions on the subject consent to polygamy, I have no objection and neither should the state. But children cannot consent.

Agreed. Assuming that it is true that girls are being brainwashed in isolated communities in the way feared, that should not mean that nobody should have the polygamous freedom to marry, any more than if these girls we’re being brainwashed to vote a certain way at age 18, that nobody else should have the right to vote.

wondering…

And why does polygamy always end up being polygyny anyway? Why not a few more examples of polyandry, or multiples of both genders?

Those families do exist! They do not get nearly the same amount of attention, perhaps because it is usually not based on splinter group religion or because they keep a low or anonymous profile deliberately.

A woman should be free to marry a man who is married to, or will be married to, or will be at the same time marrying, other women (and/or men). She should also be free to marry multiple men (or women). For this to be possible, we have to have gender equality under the law, the right NOT to marry, and the right to divorce. This will help protect people from getting tricked or trapped into abusive marriages.

Robert Wickett Argues Against Guilt by Association

Representing the FLDS in the Canadian poly trial, Robert Wickett argues against guilt by association, against blaming polygamy for the things only some individuals may have done, and against tearing families apart.

“This church, like any other, is comprised of a vast variety of people. Most are hard-working, law abiding citizens. Some may have committed crimes, but it would be wrong to visit the crimes of some upon an entire community.”

Isn’t that a basic notion of justice?

Mr. Wickett said if the law is upheld, those families would have two choices: they could either voluntarily end their marriages, in some cases separating children from their parents, or face criminal charges.

“I urge you to consider the impact of those inevitable prosecutions upon the families in Bountiful,” Mr. Wickett told Chief Justice Robert Bauman.

The law would “dismember their families.”

The law banning polygamous marriages must be thrown out. Adults should have the freedom to marry.

Guilt by Association Used to Attack Freedom to Marry

Antiequality types keep ignoring that correlation does not establish causation, and other sound ways of thinking. Using the despicable tactics of assigning guilt by association, and assuming guilt before conviction, they want to deny the freedom to marry to all poly people based on allegations leveled at some people who engage in polygyny.

That is what we're seeing in the Canadian poly trial, and the larger civil rights issue.

This report is from Daphne Bramham.

After more than two months of hearing evidence on polygamy, there's no one in the Vancouver courtroom who disagrees that the practice can be harmful.

So can singleness and monogamy.

The most disturbing evidence the B.C. government presented is that as many as 31 under-aged girls -the youngest only 12 and 13 -were trafficked by their fathers and brothers between the fundamentalist Mormon communities in Bountiful, B.C. and the United States.

That sounds like child trafficking. That isn't polygamy. They probably all ate breakfast, too. Does that make breakfast bad?

Even FLDS lawyer Robert Wickett acknowledged the possibility in his written argument, calling them "a discredit to those responsible."

But, he said, "Those harms are not to the discredit of every member of this religious faith and they are not an inevitable consequence of plural marriage."

He's right.

Reimer said Thursday that all polygamous relationships are potentially harmful and all are criminal, while Jones said multipartner relationships are only criminal if they have "the trappings of duplicative marriage" -something which "need not be exhaustively defined in advance."

So it is okay to have sex and live together, just not be married? This is the argument that marriage is oppressive to women, at least when it involves men. So if we're going to argue that, let's ban all marriages that involve both men and women. And again, the phrase "duplicative marriage" means that "women are all alike."

Here's another report from Daphne Bramham.

It is called "Religious freedom doesn't protect polygamy . . . or murder." So now they're associating polygamy with murder?

Canada's Constitution guarantees religious freedom. But no rights are unlimited as lawyer David Matas explained Thursday in B.C. Supreme Court where Chief Justice Robert Bauman is is hearing closing arguments in a constitutional reference case which asks whether the polygamy prohibition is valid.

There's no constitutional protection for someone who claims that killing was done out of religious belief," said Matas, the lawyer for Beyond Borders, a non-governmental organization that works to combat sexual exploitation and trafficking of women and children.

What about the fact that marriage is a civil right, regardless of religion? Again and again we and others have pointed out that abuse should be prosecuted, not relationships between consenting adults. Canada needs to keep moving towards full marriage equality.

The British Columbia Government Has Finished Its Attack

In the Canadian poly trial, the BC government has finished attacking the polygamous freedom to marry, at least for now.

If the prohibition on polygamy cannot be supported by the evidence presented over the past few months in B.C. Supreme Court, it could never be supported. That's how Craig Jones – the lead lawyer for the B.C. attorney general – closed the government's case Wednesday in the constitutional reference case to determine whether the polygamy law is valid.

That’s something we can agree on.

He then went on to assert that granting the polygamous freedom to marry would not help prevent abuse.

Criminalizing polygamy is a legitimate limit on religious freedom given the harm it causes women and children, he argued.

Certain men may have harmed women and children. Consenting adults marrying each other does not harm women and children.

The closing arguments scheduled to be completed by April 15.

Here’s an update…

Federal government lawyer Keith Reimer says the evidence of harm was overwhelming, but he says Parliament doesn't need conclusive, scientific proof that polygamy is dangerous.

Rather, Reimer says the government only needs to show there is a "reasonable apprehension of risk" to support the law that bans any form of multiple marriage.

It isn’t reasonable to think it is harmful to allow consenting adults to marry each other.

The anti-equality people keep bringing up claims that minor girls were transported from one place to another to be married off. I do not defend forcing, coercing, or pressuring minors to marry, but I don't understand how the government lawyers focus on this when the same governments (US and Canada) have repeatedly defended a minor's rights to engage in sex and terminate pregnancies without parental permission or even determining who else was involved in the pregnancy. I fail to see why getting married is different, especially with parental consent. We can better protect minors by bringing polygamy out of the shadows so that we'll have more witnesses willing to testify in child trafficking and child abuse and domestic violence cases.

If it can be proven that a given group is engaging in an organized criminal conspiracy, there are laws to deal with that. Denying consenting adults their rights to love, sex, and marriage makes things worse, not better.

I can’t outdo the coverage being provided by some of my favorite blogs, including...

Dear Polly Amorie
Polyamory in the News

Jones Calls Civil Rights Proponents Haughty

Closing arguments are underway in the Canadian poly trial, and Craig Jones is insisting that bigotry needs to be enshrined in law to protect women from their own choices.

“The child brides smuggled across borders to serve as compliant wives to middle-aged men they have never met, the boys expelled or sent to work camps without an education, the harsh mechanisms of control, the grotesque subjugation of women and girls, these are not discrete harms [of polygamy] that are simply coincidental,” Jones said.

Child trafficking is a crime.
Child neglect is a crime.
Polygamy should not be, and no, it isn’t inherently connected to those other things. There are three or more adults living in spousal arrangements all over North America who aren’t abusing or neglecting children, and the women involved are quite happy with the situation, which is something they chose for themselves. And how does any of this “subjugation of women” fit in to a marriage involving three or more women and no men? Or three or more men and no women?

Jones described polygamy as “anti-democratic, anti-egalitarian, anti-liberal, and antithetical to the proper functioning of a modern rights-based society.”

How is allowing adults to choose their spouses any of those things? Asserting it doesn’t make it true.

Although he said ‘duplicative marriage’ need not be “exhaustively defined in advance,” Jones said all conjugal relationships involving more than two people are criminal if they go beyond “mere cohabitation” and have some form of imposed consequences related to entering or remaining in the relationship.

Do you follow that? Because I’m not sure what he means. Does he mean it is okay to be polyamorous or have group sex and live together, but not consider each other spouses? Or will living together or group sex or polyamory be subject to prosecution, depending on the whims of law enforcement? If the law is going to allow people to live together, why deny them spousal designations?

‘Duplicative marriage’ is a phrase that sounds to me like it denies the individuality of each person, like saying "All women are the same, so why the need to marry more than one?"

If law enforcement demonstrates that some polygynists have engaged in child trafficking or child abuse, that does not mean that polygyny or polygamy in general is to blame. That is an attempt at guilt by association. We can also point out that almost all of the crime in Canada, including child trafficking and child abuse, is perpetrated by people who do not profess to practice polygyny or any form of polygamy.

An adult should be able to marry any consenting adults. Stop trying to deny other people their freedom to marry.

Canadian Poly Trial is Back This Week

This article gives a bit of history.

On one side are members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, a polygamous sect that lives in Bountiful, civil liberties advocates and supporters of so-called polyamorous relationships. They argue the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, and violates the charter guarantee of religious freedoms of those for whom multiple marriage is a tenet of their faith.

It isn’t just religious freedom. It is about basic human freedom to pursue voluntary relationships with other adults.

On the opposite side are the federal and provincial governments, women's rights groups and self-described "survivors" of polygamy, who insist polygamy inevitably leads to sexual abuse, child brides and human trafficking - crimes that justify outlawing the practice.

Women’s rights groups? There are women’s rights groups who recognize that laws need to be repealed when they restrict a woman’s right to choose her spouse(s). If she wants “spice” in her life, that should be her right.

The only thing polygamy inevitably leads to is… more than two people sharing life together.

Oppal said he has no doubts about which is the correct answer.

"That's what I was arguing with my son about, you have to look at this in a global sense, the harmful effects of polygamy," he said.

What does that mean? Most of the mess in the world from the last hundred years has been from people in supposedly monogamous marriages.

"And you've heard some evidence about that, the abuse of women and children, the fact that the underlying philosophy of a polygamous relationship is demeaning to women."

Prosecute abusers for abuse. And how is allowing a woman to decide what kind of a marriage she will have demeaning to her? Canada has, thankfully, the same-sex freedom to marry. And yet a woman isn’t allowed to marry more than one woman? Why not? How is it demeaning?

The RCMP did not have enough evidence to support charges unrelated to polygamy, such as sexual abuse, said Gabelmann. It's a problem cited by governments arguing in favour of the law: polygamous wives, including young teenagers, are reluctant witnesses.

You’d get more tips and more witnesses if people didn’t fear having their home torn apart and being thrown in prison simply for having more than one spouse or being married to someone with more than one spouse. So this supports the freedom to marry. Legalizing polygamy will reduce abuse.

Adults should be able to marry any consenting adult(s).

Good For George Macintosh

He makes sense. May the Canadian authorities do as he says: scrap the ban on the polygamous freedom to marry and prosecute forced marriage and other real crimes.

A lawyer appointed to represent parties seeking to scrap the polygamy law has rapped the authorities for failing to prosecute cases of child rape and sexual exploitation.

And George Macintosh suggests in written submissions filed in B.C. Supreme Court that a new criminal law to crack down on forced marriages should be enacted.

He points out that the marriage ban actually makes it harder to uncover and prosecute child abuse because the witnesses are afraid of the authorities.

British Columbia CLA Stands For Freedom to Marry

Here’s some good news out of Vancouver in the Canadian poly trial.

A B.C. civil rights group is siding with a controversial religious sect in a landmark court case examining Canada’s ban on polygamy.

In final arguments filed with the court, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association says the law against multiple marriage is outdated and should be relegated to the scrap heap of history because barring polygamous relationships violates fundamental freedoms protected in the Canadian charter.

Thank you!

The association says it, too, is concerned about allegations of child abuse and sexual interference within polygamous communities, but it argues that criminal activity should be investigated and prosecuted whether it occurs in polygamous or monogamous relationships.

Exactly! Good for the BCCLA. Prosecute ABUSERS. Let adults marry any consenting adults.

The Browns Are Doing Some Good

Here’s another take on the family featured in “Sister Wives,” this time by Joyce C. Tang. Looks like the series is doing some good.

Polygamy aside, the Brown clan looks no different from your average Mormon—or Midwestern—family. They wear jeans and T-shirts (no Temple garments required) and have modern haircuts. Their kids are allowed to watch television, surf the Internet, and play video games, and some have attended public schools. And with boyish Kody as the patriarch, the Browns are a far cry from the terrifying images broadcast during the 2008 raids on Warren Jeffs’ Yearning For Zion ranch in Texas.

At 32, Robyn is the youngest wife to 40-year-old Kody. She and her “sister wives” are self-professed “outspoken” and “independent” women, and their brood of 16 children, currently being watched after by a team of grandmothers back in Nevada, appears happy and well-adjusted.

The more people see that nonmonogamous marriages can be good, the better.

“Our kids being able to be completely open has been liberating,” said Kody Brown.

Bigamy laws have meant that many polygamists grow up in hiding, with constant fear of being taken from their homes, losing their jobs, and being ostracized by their surrounding communities. Though Meri “felt very integrated into mainstream society” growing up as a polygamist Mormon, it was at the cost of “shar[ing] my whole truth,” she said.

The article gets into the family’s religion, though the family does not make their religion an issue in the show or the publicity for the show. Of the Apostolic United Brethren, which the article calls a splinter group of the LDS church…

Unlike the FLDS, Kingston, or LeBaron groups, which tend to be cloistered and abusive, the AUB, or as it's also known, the Allred group, aims to be more open to and integrated with mainstream society. In a 2008 public statement, the AUB outlined its disapproval of arranged or underage marriages and incest, discouraged members from government assistance, and claimed no affiliation with the FLDS.

I think the article may be broadbrushing in saying the groups cited “tend to be… abusive.”

Children are free to live a polygamist lifestyle once they’re older. Or not. One of the Browns’ own children—that is, one of Kody and Janelle’s children—has already decided she won’t, and that’s fine with her parents. Among the AUB, reported rates of child abuse are similar to those of monogamous communities, says Janet Bennion, a professor of anthropology at Lyndon State College who lived among Allreds to research her dissertation.

So there’s no boogeyman here.

Despite the bigamy investigation in Utah, it’s unlikely any charges will be brought against Kody, especially now that the family has relocated to Nevada. Paul Ryan, a spokesman from the Utah Attorney General’s office, told The Daily Beast that the office has “not focused on crimes involving consenting adults.”

They shouldn’t be crimes to begin with. Good for the AG of Utah.

The Brows should be able to get their marriage legally recognized. That would happen under full marriage equality.

Sister Wives is Back

Sunday's season premiere is 9 p.m. EDT. Set your DVR or plan to watch.

Many months ago I was sitting back and collecting coverage of TLC’s “Sister Wives” to gauge the show’s portrayal of polygyny and the public reaction to it, but I have yet to get around to writing up a reaction to the first season. If you have watched the show, please comment with your thoughts.

It has definitely raised awareness, which is a good thing as long as that awareness is not manipulated by the bigots. Reality television shows don’t exactly have a great track record when it comes to how marriages are portrayed, or perhaps marriages don’t have a good track record of surviving such productions.

I’m sure that if the Browns experience a split, someone will cite them as an example of how polygyny doesn’t “work.” But the same people will be unlikely to cite “Jon and Kate” as proof that monogamy doesn’t work.

From the Associated Press…

It's easy to see that Kody Brown and his four wives share a closeness and a comfort zone and, yes, a sense of humor that keeps the conversation at a gallop.

Good!

They were tired of keeping secrets and living in fear. They were tired of the misconceptions and stereotypes that defined polygamy in many people's minds (including HBO's extreme polygamy drama "Big Love," which some of the Browns say they have watched and enjoyed).

"I went through high school hiding who I was," says Robyn, who wed Kody on last season's finale, bringing three children from her previous marriage into a brood that now numbers 16. "I shut people out because I didn't want to be labeled and made fun of."

How sad and unacceptable.

"We're not trying to proselyte our faith or our lifestyle," says Kody, who is legally married only to Meri, his wife of 20 years. "We're just looking for acceptance."

"And I think we're getting that," says Meri, with whom Kody has a 15-year-old daughter. "People will tell us, 'It's not for me. There's no way I could share my husband with somebody. But I am totally for you doing it, if that's what you want to do.'"

That’s good news.

"There have been a lot of people who have opposed it," Kody acknowledges. "They say they still think it's creepy."

There will always be bigots.

Whatever the seeming oddities (and super-sized proportions) that set the Browns apart from "normal" families, "Sister Wives" is most striking in the way it charts common ground with any other loving, busy family.

Going about their daily lives, sharing chores and outings, with bumps in the road, but also laughs, the Browns are relatable on many levels.

Tear down the walls of prejudice. We need more shows and more movies that portray banned marriages in a positive way.

"Kody maintains a good marriage with all of us - each one of us, individually," says Christine.

"He's a gentleman and he's very fair with us," says Meri.

It is outrageous that this family would be investigated. It is not acceptable that they are denied their freedom to marry before the law.

Another Look at Polygamy

Rebekah Hebbert asks what harm comes from polygamy, referencing the Canadian poly trial.

She cites the allegations against some in Bountiful and some other FLDS communities.

And what will happen now that the judiciary has to decide which should prevail: freedom of religion, or some of the most basic values and norms of Canadian society?

The polygamous freedom to marry isn’t just about religious freedom. It is for the freedom of anyone, regardless of belief or nonbelief, who wants to marry more than one person. Marriage is a fundamental right.

But is this kind of harm, or any harm, inherent in polygamy?

No.

Surely monogamy has its own problems?

Yes. But if people want monogamy, they should be allowed.

Dr. Margaret Somerville, Samuel Gale Professor of Law at McGill University, in an interview with MercatorNet suggests that while not all alleged harms are inherent in polygamy, some indeed are.

“My primary objection would be for the children... I believe that family units are primarily for the benefit of the children.

Parenting and marriage not are not inherently connected. People are free to raise children alone or outside of marriage, and not all married people raise children. If someone is an unfit parent to the point of neglect or other abuse, take the child away.

“Children are best off with their mother and father, preferably their own biological parents unless an exception is justified as being in the best interests of a particular child...”

This claim was already shot down in courts in Canada and California and elsewere when the courts ruled in favor of the same-sex freedom to marry.

”Polygamy is an alternative adult arrangement, which is also difficult for some of the children who become adults within that arrangement.”

Some kids find it difficult in single parent homes or monogamous homes, especially with a stepparent. But we don’t outlaw a parent getting married.

Sommerville goes on with the standard bigotry she previously used against same-sex marriage.

An adult should have the right to marry any consenting adults.