Teenage girls transported over the border for the purpose of sex and breeding: That’s human trafficking.
Underage girls, below the age of consent, conscripted into conjugal relationships: That’s sexual assault.
Lifelong marriage is a little different than human trafficking for prostitution, wouldn't you say?
Adolescent boys driven from their homes by men middle-aged and older — fathers, church and community leaders — as perceived rivals in the competition for nubile mates: That’s societal engineering and a different kind of abuse.
I know of adolescent boys who have been "driven" from home because they wanted personal freedom, rather than familial or peer pressure to adhere to certain rules and expectations. In monogamous homes. Or because their "monogamous" parents divorced each other and married new spouses.
Sec. 293 of the Criminal Code is as clear as arch legalese will allow, forbidding conjugal union with more than one partner at the same time, “whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage."
That law should be overturned in the interest of marriage equality.
But polygamous marriage within the rubric of religion — the coercion and sexual exploitation of girls, whether agreeable to those females or nor, and the trafficking required to sustain a polygamous community — is rightly a crime.
Prosecute child abuse. Don't prosecute people for consenting to marriage.
The law doesn’t force monogamy on married people. And the law does not render illegal the cohabitation of however many people choose to live as a family nor dictate their sleeping arrangements.
It can also be said that ten years ago, the law didn't force heterosexuality on anyone, but same-sex marriage was banned. It is time to increase the freedom to marry again and move towards full marriage equality.
Whether brainwashed or culturally kneaded to it, the obedient daughters of one daddy and multiple moms, their embracing of polygamy can’t possibly be used to justify a legal accommodation for plural marriages.
No, I guess nothing can match her bigotry, right?
This isn’t just about the individuals directly involved. It’s about all of us because we, too, have an ethical stake in acceptance or rejection of polygamy.
That's what the bigots said about interracial marriage and same-sex marriage, too.
The FLDS is not a benign religious sect, like the gentle Amish.
She makes it clear throughout this essay that she dislikes the FLDS and considers the religion invalid, as though they shouldn't even have the freedom of religion. I'm not FLDS or any kind of "LDS," but I respect the freedom of religion, and I stand for the rights of all adults to love, sex, and marriage. Prosecute domestic violence, kidnapping, rape, and molestation, but do not deny marriage equality.
No comments:
Post a Comment
To prevent spam, comments will have to be approved, so your comment may not appear for several hours. Feedback is welcome, including disagreement. I only delete/reject/mark as spam: spam, vulgar or hateful attacks, repeated spouting of bigotry from the same person that does not add to the discussion, and the like. I will not reject comments based on disagreement, but if you don't think consenting adults should be free to love each other, then I do not consent to have you repeatedly spout hate on my blog without adding anything to the discourse.
If you want to write to me privately, then either contact me on Facebook, email me at fullmarriageequality at protonmail dot com, or tell me in your comment that you do NOT want it published. Otherwise, anything you write here is fair game to be used in a subsequent entry. If you want to be anonymous, that is fine.
IT IS OK TO TALK ABOUT SEX IN YOUR COMMENTS, BUT PLEASE CHOOSE YOUR WORDS CAREFULLY AS I WANT THIS BLOG TO BE AS "SAFE FOR WORK" AS POSSIBLE. If your comment includes graphic descriptions of activity involving minors, it's not going to get published.