Polygamy and Freedom of Religion

[Amethyst Rose]

I was watching the news last night, and saw a story about a man in Utah who is being charged with bygamy, and could go away to jail for 20 years if he is convicted.
Now, this man claims to be a fundamentalist Mormon (we'll forget the fact that the Mormon faith abolished bygamy 100 years ago, for the moment).
So.... why is bygamy etc., illegal? Doesn't it go against the constitutional right of freedom of religion? If a man's religion says that he should have multiple wives, then should he be put in jail for doing so???

[Earth Walker]

Yes he should go to jail, especially since Mormon men treat
Women like dirt! :smash:


For those who love, time is eternity....

[Yvonne Belisle]

Not all of them my exhusband was very nice I ran everything. He just didn't want me to work out of the house. Then agian he did have some major problems. Who knows I've been around some great mormon men and one who was an unmentionable name.

[dragondancer]

I think that polygamy goes beyond religious freedom, for one thing, this man had five wives and 29 children, now I am completely open minded and believe that it is not my place to dictate how others live their lives. On the other hand, I do disagree with the fact that one of his wives was only thirteen when he became involved with her. Now the Mormon faith no longer believes in Polygamy, so his religion does not dictate that he could or should have multiple wives. I think that it is hurtful to the women and children involved, even if they say that they are okay with the situation and that it doesn't bother them. I mean come on, as a woman, I can't stand the thought of anyone else being intimate with my fiance. Marriage is about partnership and intimacy and I think those things get tossed out the window when there is one man and five women in a relationship. For starting a relationship with a child who was only thirteen years old, yes, I think he should go to jail and I think her parents should receive some sort of punishment as well if they consented to the marriage.

[Earth Walker]

My mother dabbled with Mormonism, and she and us kids
suffered with the problems it created. It is no different
than any other patriarchal religion!
This is why I am proud to be a Pagan, a daughter of the
Great Goddess...it is a way of life; and not a religion like
christianity, with its various cults, or Islam, etc.


For those who love, time is eternity....

[amberlaine]

Frankly, I think its positively absurd that the government gets to decide how many pople I marry. What business is it of the governements who I marry? I should be able to marry a man, a woman, or 3 of each if I so choose.

I dont even think this necessarily has anything to do with religion ( for the record, I thik religion should keep its paws out of my bedroom, too) But its just a matter of oversstepping one's nounds. The government exists, (or should exist) to protect and provide for its people. Thats it. Who I'm sleeping with, married to or whatever has nothing to do with keeping the rest of the country safe and happy, so get out of my life!

Heehee.

And, just because I have to say this: not all Mormom men treat women badly! ouch! Talk about blanket overstatements!

[Amethyst Rose]

Lets forget about the mormon guy and the issues behind that for a minute.
What I am more interested in is the religious aspects of it. Lets say that some other religion, maybe even a pagan religion, believes in bygamy....women can have multiple husbands, or vice versa.......
So a pagan woman with 3 husbands gets charged..... I'd bet my future children that everyone would be up in arms about this intrusion of her religious freedom.

[Yvonne Belisle]

There are several groups of Mormons. They are not one entity dispite what many people think. There are some factions that believe in smoking and coffee, some that believe in poligamy, and some that don't. The main group is the one that is most common. The others are splinter groups. I personally don't wish to share my partner when it comes to some things I just don't play well with others. I too think that becoming involved with a 13 year old is unacceptable. I mearly wanted to point out that not all Mormon men are the same and not all factions of Mormons have the same beliefs. It's like saying that all of us believe the same thing because we are pagan. I am mearly pointing out a common missconception. I don't want to see us guilty of the same thing we accuse them of, ie jumping to conclusions about a religion because of a label it wears.

[Kaylara]

I am a polyamorus pagan, and my fiance is a polyamorus agnostic. Polyamory is only successful if the people involved are completely trusting, and honest. Not to say that monogamy is a bad thing, it's just not my thing. I think that I can love other people and still love my fiance. We have dating rules that we follow closely.

It is not the governments place to tell me that once I get married, I can only be with this person, or him with me. The situation is not hurtful to either of us. Neither one of us has supremesy here, we are equal, and if he or I oversteps that, then we know that we are having real problems.

I have never felt bad or jealous about someone who Traz was dating, or messing around with, because he wouldn't be doing it if I didn't feel comfortable about that person. We always use protection with other people, and live by the credo: "I will be safe; I will come home"

See Green Egg magazine for more information about it... I do take exception when someone says that my way of loving someone is harmful even if it is what I choose... Sorry, I think that's as offensive as those people who tell me that I am going to burn in hell.

Kaylara

[Xois]

bigamy-having 2 wifes
polyandry-having more than 1 husband
polyagmy-having more than 1 wife

I think its fine. Intimacy isn't the sole property 2 people. There are people who are totally happy in tripples and quarduples. I don't even think you need the religion excuse. Love and be intimate with whomever you like. Its not for everyone!

:)

Cheers
Xois

[dragondancer]

I should have stated in my post that I do not have any particular beliefs regarding mormons or anyone else. I do not agree with saying that someone is mormon, so therefore they are a certain way. I think that every religious group has it's zealots and that the fact that this is becoming a mormon issue rather than a person issue is unfortunate. Personally I have known some wonderful mormon families and some not so wonderful mormon families. Just the same as I have known some wonderful pagans and some not so wonderful pagans. I think that the same can be said for every group of people out there.

[Yvonne Belisle]

I tend to agree I have seen it work quite well for some people. The people that I know who make it work have sat down together and made rules that fit them to follow. The people I know all have one in common that they aprove or would aprove of the other person. That isn't to say that the person in question is dragged over and the partner says how about this one it's that it is a person that the other person would aprove of. I know that I had a friend when I was a single mother that lived across from me. Her husband treated it as if with the exception of sex he had two wives. I never slept with him but I helped raise the children just as she helped raise mine we often made meals together and shared duties such as shopping and taking kids to school. I would like to think that the kids benifited from my presence in thier lives just as mine did from having them in ours. My kids had a father figure to look up to and a second mother around when they needed attention that was just thiers. Between us we had 5 children and 3 to 5 is much better than 3 to 1 as my children would have had without them.

[Mairwen]

I've been trying to stay out of these convos, but since it's come back around ...


Originally posted by Kaylara
I think that I can love other people and still love my fiance. We have dating rules that we follow closely.

I agree, Kaylara. Mr and I have an open relationship. We've known each other 9 years, and have been together for 6. We realize that we both have different tastes and needs, and in order for us to be "satisfied" (ie, fulfilled), we realize and understand that we each must seek elsewhere. But this takes complete trust, total honest and deep love for each other, you know? We have our rules ~ you gotta have rules ~ and we adhere to them, because we know that someone (and ultimately both) will/could be hurt if we don't.


It is not the governments place to tell me that once I get married, I can only be with this person

I agree. Kentucky has all sorts of archaic laws, including one still on the books stating very clearly that anything other than the "missionary position" is illegal and therefore defined as sodomy. *shudder* ... Most people ignore the law and go on, though. What are you going to?



"I will be safe; I will come home"

We have the same rule ~ and we're very hardfast about the "waking up together" one, unless it's totally unrealistic that we do.

And I feel that it's wrong for anybody, Pagan, Christian, whatever, to tell me what I can or cannot do in my bedroom, with my body, etc and so forth.

[Earth Walker]

Originally posted by Amethyst Rose
Lets forget about the mormon guy and the issues behind that for a minute.
What I am more interested in is the religious aspects of it. Lets say that some other religion, maybe even a pagan religion, believes in bygamy....women can have multiple husbands, or vice versa.......
So a pagan woman with 3 husbands gets charged..... I'd bet my future children that everyone would be up in arms about this intrusion of her religious freedom.

In ancient matriarchal societies, a woman had sex with a
man to have a child. There was no "marriage", which is an
invention of patriarchal religions for the sole purpose of
keeping women in "their place."
Contrary to what the mainstream religions would like people
to believe, Pagans are not sex-crazed, nor did/do they participate
in daily orgies.
If anything, it is the mainstream religions that are sex-crazed,
the world population is over 6 billion and still growing...which
is far beyond sustainable limits...agricultural and wildlife habitats
are disappearing rapidly to build housing, shopping malls, etc.
100 species of animals are becoming extinct every day!
Pagans practiced natural birth control, it was only when a woman
decided to have a child, NOT the man, and generally, women
stayed with women. Pagans kept human populations in proper
proportions to other life and to the environment, in total harmony.
You would be surprised to learn what the word "husband"
really means...and I'll let you discover that for yourself.


For those who love, time is eternity....

[Xois]

Hi Mystique

Can you tell me what your sources are for these matriarcal societies. It is my understanding that the latest evidence discounts widespread Matriarcrial societies. When they did exsit (and not very often) they were isolated. The amazons for example have been disproven as a Greek fantasy...

Thanks
Xois

[Kaylara]

Well, I forget where I found it, but there was a matriarchy in Ireland... I'll look it up...

Kaylara

(I think it was in Margot Adlers' Drawing Down the Moon: Interview with a Modern Witch... I gotta look it up.)

[Mariposa De La Luna]

OK I tried to post but it freaked out so to put it briefly, which my post was not but i can't typt it again.

Here! Here! Amberlaine! I second that!

In this country at this time marrying a 13 yr old girl is child abuse! I can't believe anyone could do that to thier child! I am appalled and disgusted! Unfortunately some Mormons are not the only groups who practice this in this country. Kids should be kids and connot make such decisions at that age.

[Mariposa De La Luna]

Iwas just reading a book An introduction to Celtic Mythology by David Bellingham that states:

"Caeser has little to say about Celtic women, except that they were 'shared between groups of 10 to 12 men'. to the Romans and ourselves this would appear barbaric, but it may well imply a matriarchal system in which women had the social priviledge of a number of lovers. Certainly high ranking celtic women enjoyed a degree of power unknown to thier classical counterparts: witness the warior queen Boudicca, who led the first century ad rebelion against the roman invaders. Although we must bear in mind that the Celtic myths were probably always told from a male viewpoint, the human female characters in Celtic mythology are rarely the downtrodden or faceless figures of the Greek myths, which might also suggest that, unlike Classical Athens, freeborn women formed part of the bard's audience."

So the society may not have been matriarchal but at least equal. i think that is ideal.
(please excuse my typeing but my shift key is going out)

[Earth Walker]

Originally posted by Xois
Hi Mystique

Can you tell me what your sources are for these matriarcal societies. It is my understanding that the latest evidence discounts widespread Matriarcrial societies. When they did exsit (and not very often) they were isolated. The amazons for example have been disproven as a Greek fantasy...

Thanks
Xois

They recently showed four programs on Discovery Channel &
TLC (The Learning Channel) that Matriarchal societies existed
68,000 years before the advent of the invading patriarchs from
Europe. In South America, the Near & Middle East, even the
Jewish people worshipped the Goddess prior to the rise of
Judaism...and Matriarchal societies existed elsewhere, Asia,
Africa, Europe, North America, Hawaii, Samoa.......................
Sorry, but the Amazon women were real; they fought the
patriarchal invaders for many years, but these men found that
they were no match for these women in combat, so they
resorted to treachery to defeat them, which they finally did!

PREFACE
from Ancient Mirrors Of Womanhood by Merlin Stone
(Read also: When God Was A Woman by Merlin Stone)

Nothing would be more interesting in connection with the
WOMAN'S BIBLE than a comparative study of the accounts of
creation held by people of different races and faiths.
--Clara Colby--Comments on Genesis
The Woman's Bible 1895

There has been an ever growing consciouness of the advantages
of being able to personally identify with positive images and
role models, in developing self-esteem that encourages the
fulfillment of individual potential. This consciousness has made us
increasingly aware of the general lack of strong and positive
images of women, in the literature and traditions, both sacred
and secular, of our own society. In reaction to these realizations,
some of us have been searching in the obscure records of the
last few centuries, reclaiming the histories of important women
who have been all but ignored. Others have been developing
fantasies of the future, inventing new images of woman, in the hope that they will be there for the women of today and
tomorrow. These efforts and contributions are of immense value
to the building of a body of positive female role models, but is this truly all that is available to us, as we search for role models
and inspiring images of womanhood?
The hopeful request quoted above, made by Clara Colby,
editor of the nineteenth century Woman's Tribune, was written as
women were initially confronting and challenging the gender
biases, and roles of women, in the Hebrew Scripture (the Old
Testament), and the New Testament-- and the negative effects
that various aspects of these religious scriptures have had upon
women.
With just a slight knowledge of Mexican, Scandinavian, and
Algonquin beliefs, Clara Colby observed that images of woman-
hood seemed to be somewhat different in the religious lore of
non-Judeo-Christian cultures, and thus suggested that a further
exploration of this lore might produce some valuable insight
and information.
Yet many women of today suspect, or even firmly believe, that
a study of the religious accounts "of different races and faiths"
would probably only result in finding that womanhood has always
been perceived and portrayed as secondary to manhood.
Statements, some even by well educated feminists, often convey
the idea that if actual accounts from societies that regarded
woman as powerful, as supreme creator, or as important
culture heroine, ever did exist, such information is now buried in
the dust of prehistory--a Goddess name here and there all that
is left to ponder.
The gradual formation of these attitudes has been accomplished
in various ways. One has been to confine grade school and
high school studies primarilt to what has existed in relatively
recent, generally Caucasian, male-oriented societies.
Another has been through reassurances by university teachers,
and texts, that if some cultures had viewed woman as supreme
deity, or that an accompanying female clergy had deeply
influenced moral and social structure, indication of this occurs
only in the scantiest (and therefore inconclusive) of references.
A more subtle factor at work has been the rejection of all things
'religious' or 'spiritual', by many who might agree with the need
for finding positive images of woman, but would prefer not to
discover them in other than secular sources--thus ignoring
the power and influence that contemporary male-oriented
religions have upon even the most atheistic or agnostic of women
today. Though stemming from an almost antithetical set of
values, the above attitude manifests itself in a manner that is
almost identical to that of the orthodox or devout Catholic, Jew,
Protestant, or Muslim, who chooses to ignore any information that
might bring long held religious beliefs into question. An even
further buttressing of these attitudes has been provided by the
few scholars who were aware of a wider body of knowledge on
the subject of Goddess reverence, and/or female clergy, in a
particular period or era, but continually referred to this material
as 'mythology' -- thereby relegating it to a topic closer to fairy tale
or fantasy, than the religious beliefs of a particular society.
These factors, along with several others, have combined to quite
efficiently smother the fires of motivation to search. After all, it is
pointless to look for something that one has been taught to believe does not exist, is sinful, or is not especially pertinent or
meaningful to 'real' life.
Just casually scanning ANCIENT MIRRORS OF WOMANHOOD, the
reader cannot help but observe that assurances of non-existence,
or very minimal existence, of information about woman as deity,
as clergy, or as important culture heroine, were simply not true.
Though widely scattered in brief, often fragmentary, references,
a large body of detailed information about woman as deity, has
long existed in the written literature of many cultures, and in the
oral traditions of many others. Perhaps, in our contemporary
quest for role models and positive images, the accounts of woman
as Goddess, or as culture heroine, that reveal portraits of woman
as strong, determined, wise, courageous, powerful, adventurous,
and able to surmount difficult obstacles to achieve set goals, may
be of even greater interest and value for women of today.
Yet nearly all of the information included in this volume has been
completely ignored in our educations, and in popular literary
themes, while in the few, usually obscure, texts that do include
any information, it is most often covered in the most cursory of
references.
Gathering the material presented in this volume has required
many years of patient gleaning of fragments of information, from
an enormous number of archaeological and ethnological studies,
and literature as diverse as the Prose Edda to the Shan Hai Ching. Thus each of the fourteen sections in this volume is the
result of lengthy research, and correlation of information, about
images of woman as Goddess and culture heroine, as they have
been known in various cultures. It is these generally unfamiliar
images, these proud portraits of womanhood, discovered and brought together as a body of information, that comprise
ANCIENT MIRRORS OF WOMANHOOD.


For those who love, time is eternity....

(I have to go to the polling station to vote in the B.C. election.
I will continue this subject shortly).

[Yvonne Belisle]

We seem to be drifting way off topic here so I opened a new thread for the conversation on matriarcal vs patriarcal societies

[Amethyst Rose]

Thanks Yvonne :D

[Earth Walker]

IMHO, any man or woman who "marries" more than one
partner is a Pigamist! <oooinnnkkk>


For those who love, time is eternal....

[silvermoon]

I don't have a problem if a man or woman wants to have more than one spouse at a time if they all agree to it BUT i do have serious concerns about a 13 year old girl :( getting married.

The fact that the state dictates who and how many people one can be LEGALLY joined to is not that suprising. Let's face it they do not allow 2 people who are in :heartthro love but just happen to be of the same sex to marry legally (thus denying them the right to benefits etc........), why should we be suprised that the state will only allow someone to be married to only one person :rolleyes:.

The only real concern about this case is the fact that he has married some of his wives when they themselves were little more than children:mad:. Where were these girls parents (esp the 13 year old).:confused:

:heartthro :heartthro Blessed Be :heartthro :heartthro

:) silvermoon:)

[Elaine]

my pennies on the subject are as follows

-any person that has to seek anything sexual from someone who is barely old enough to know about sex needs therapy!! Young kids are impressionable! At 13 you don't have the slightest idea what is happening in life, to your body, etc....I'm not sure who said it...but I agree that that 13 year olds parents should be punished for allowing her to be married!!!

-government should have no say so as to who i choose to marry... I am happily married to my husband and we are just us....but if he or I wanted to marry a second person that should be our choice!! not someone elses!!! If I wanted to marry 14 WOMEN, that should be completely legal!!!! I can't understand where the government gets off telling me what I can and can't do in my bedroom!!! If I'm happy...and the peson/people in my life are happy...what difference does it make!!!??

-I think some of us are taking the whole mormon/13 year old thing and forgetting to seperate the two!! just because that has happened doesn't mean that it's the norm!! they are 2 completely different issues!! and we have to remember to keep them as such!!

-As Xois was saying it's not for everyone!! as the saying goes..."variety is the spice of life!" why isn't this looked at closer? Everyone is different...we all look different, act different, and like different things!! just because it's right for me doesn't mean it's right for you....I think the government needs to look at this and realize that just because they wouldn't like it doesn't mean that others wouldn't be completely happy in that situation..

-I saw a show on tv...I can't remember what channel, but it was about these couples...the one that sticks in my mind most...it was 2 guys and a girl.....she was married to the one and they had taken the other guy into the relationship, just like it was a second husband...and they couldn't be happier.....they were just as happy as anyone in a "normal" relationship!

ok I'll stop babbling now....I just really don't understand why people have such a fascination with budding into other people's lives!!

[Mairwen]

Originally posted by Mystique
IMHO, any man or woman who "marries" more than one
partner is a Pigamist! <oooinnnkkk>
For those who love, time is eternal....

That's a bit harsh, don't you think? :eek: :rolleyes: :mad:

[amberlaine]

*nods* Way harsh, I agree, Mairwen.

[Dria El]

What I want to know is why it took them 25 years to get to this? I saw an interview with the 'girl' and she said they'd been 'married' for 25 years. Also another thing, from what I understand, they technically aren't married, just living together and the state decided that they had been living together long enough to be considered a 'common law' marriage and now it was time to prosecute. What's up with that?

Dria El

[Yvonne Belisle]

If it's Utah they have funny common law's my friend had to get a divorce because she had a child in common and it hadn't even been 5 years the time it takes without a kid. Personally I think that for me and my partner one on one is right but Like I said before I have friends who multiple partners is right. My ex and I split a 4 year relationship because he told me we had a one on one and told any woman he wanted to sleep with it was an open relationship. What he did was just plain wrong, but it doesn't make the lifestyle wrong. I also think that if the young lady in question is now over 18 they no longer should have the right to prosicute him for it. I think it should have been done years ago and the parents should have been nailed too. There is no way that someone in authority didn't know what was going on.

[Tigerwallah]

Joseph Smith decided that he wanted to have a little diversity in his marraige, but his wife was strong, and he was denied. Brigim Young, however, was the more dominant in his househod, and he capitalized on Joseph Smiths toying with the idea of polygamy. I would have no problem with Mormon polygamy if it weren't that only the men could do it. Also, many young women are given into marraige to old farts. These women are pressured by religion and their society into these marraiges. No young woman should have to settle for a loveless marraige.

Mormonism is an interesting religion. I honestly believe that it was based on an errant child's lie as to why he was late for dinner. My biological family is from Navoo, IL, where the Mormons settled after leaving Palmyra, NY. Too many discrepancies. Too much cover up. My mother had a heck of a time getting a book by one of Brigem Young's wives - called, I believe, The 27th Wife. It really uncovered all of the falasies of Mormonism. I'm also suspect about the golden tablets (Heck, I'm more than suspect, I know that the darn things never existed). Convenient that the chosen one - Joseph Smith could manage to lose gold tablets handed to him by an angel (Moroni - Anyone else notice what the first five letters are?) during the walk home. You would think that as the chosen one he'd be up to the task of carrying a couple of tablets home. Anyhow, I'm starting to rant. Back to the subject.

This man's five wives were all receiving welfare benefits because they claimed to be single mothers - and this guy was putting them all up to it and benefitting from taxpayer money. He should go to jail for that, and for statutory rape.

[Tigerwallah]

I have no problem with people having more than one partner. It makes the oath of marraige obsolete, though, as you are promising faithfulness to one person until death do you part. I'm philisophically opposed to marriage in a conventional sense, as well, but multiple partners and marraige just do not jive.

I have had a multiple partner relationshipwith two men. It lasted for about 4 months. Eventually, I fell madly in love with one man, and just could no longer be with the other. This caused much pain and an eventual parting of ways. In the beginning it was very pleasurable, but in the end, I wish that I never had done it. I lost the man I believe was my soul mate. Some can do it successfully, but I need to live a simpler life.

[Emerald Sky]

As far as the 13 year old... I agree that 13 is too young, but the questions about why would her parents allow it... because that is an acceptable age in the Mormon religion. The parents most likely approved of it happily.

On the subject of the government dictating the laws of marriage... I agree with all of you. They should have no say in who or how many people you marry. I honestly think it's one of those things that the majority of people don't question b/c "it's just the way it's always been", and most people *really* don't think for themselves. They let society, religion, government, etc. think for them. So they accept the law and agree with it b/c it's all they've ever known. Most people are taught to be closed-minded so when/if they hear about other types of marriages their first thought is rejection to the idea b/c that's not how they were taught. KWIM?

[waterangel]

I am not sure of all of the details of the certain case that you were talking of , but in general, I believe that if one's religions consents to multiple spouses, and the ones consenting are of age (such as 18 and older) then I believe that it should be their constitutional right to do so. As long as they work, pay taxes, and dont' abuse those who they are bonding to, then let them be happy. I believe it is a fear with some of the american(and possibly worldly) public , the fear of the unknown. It has been what has cause many arguments and downfalls over the ages. From everything from, race to religion, when people seem to not understand it, and don't take the time to do so, they fear it, and then want to persecute it and shut it down. I don't hear it, I don't see it, so it can't be kinda thing. If more people would open their eyes to the world and what it has to offer, and be more acceptable of others as they are, this world would be a much better place to live.
____________________________________________________
*****An it harm none, do what ye will!***

[Yvonne Belisle]

One of the reasons that it was originally done by the Mormon church was the ratio of women to men. There were more women than there were men in a day and age where it was unaceptable for a woman to work. They were also trying to increase the population of Mormons. The rule was that a man could have as many as he could support. From what has been said I gather that the man in question was not living up to that. If his wives were on welfare then he obviously wasn't doing his share, and he shouldn't have married that many of them.

[Dria El]

Originally posted by Emerald Sky
As far as the 13 year old... I agree that 13 is too young, but the questions about why would her parents allow it... because that is an acceptable age in the Mormon religion. The parents most likely approved of it happily.

I think we should keep in mind that he is a fundamentalist Mormon, not part of the mainstream Mormon religion. The mainstream religion doesn't believe that way. I was raised Mormon and a good part of my family is still Mormon. One other thing about the whole 13 year old and married thing is that not so long ago people were getting married at that age and it was a fairly normal thing.

Dria El

[Vinga]

Ok I'm going to be the oddball here and say that I don't agree with bigamy - whether you're Mormon or not . If a couple decides to have an open relationship, that's fine, but I don't think one should be allowed to be legally married to more than one person. Why? Because it would make the whole concept of marriage obsolete and as an immigrant I can definitely see the governments point of view. A married couple does have a lot of benefits and there would probably be a lot of abuse of the law to gain from these benefits. Like someone said in a pervious reply, all these 5 wives were receiving welfare, also imagine the health insurance frauds, immigration frauds etc!
It would also enable a lot of those deadbeat dads/moms out there to get out of paying child support, which would only hurt the children.
I think the whole point of marriage is the responsibility that comes with it, not the sexual aspect, and I think that responsibility requires only one legal spouse at a time.

As for this specific case with the guy in Utah, I think what is outrageous is the marriage to the minor. Even if bigamy was legal, 13 is still a minor and it's still statutory rape - no if's, and's or but's about that.

[Amethyst Rose]

Originally posted by waterangel
I believe that if one's religions consents to multiple spouses, and the ones consenting are of age (such as 18 and older) then I believe that it should be their constitutional right to do so.

Thankyou!! That is exactly the point I wanted to make! This shouldn't have turned into a discussion about mormonism, but should have been about religious freedom.
You rock, Waterangel! :D

[waterangel]

Originally posted by Amethyst Rose


Thankyou!! That is exactly the point I wanted to make! This shouldn't have turned into a discussion about mormonism, but should have been about religious freedom.
You rock, Waterangel! :D

Why thank you Amethyst Rose. What we also have to keep into mind, is that some people believe that bygamy is their religious freedom, to have the choice to marry several or many. Where as there are many different kinds of religions with many different types of rules on how to get married and such. There are even some within the pagan religions whom get married under pagan religious rules. The part about the thirteen year old, yes I say was absolutely wrong, but then again, I did say, as long as they are consentuating adults, why bother them. Who is the us goverment to say who we can marry, and that following our religions into the marriage spectrum. If they started doing that then they would have to step into all religions that didn't follow the "rules"....and how would we all feel about that. Once that was allowed then the goverment would feel free to trod over everyonce freedom of religion, becuase they can, and I don't think anyone wants that.
But my thinking is my own, and I would not want anyone to believe that I am trying to disrespect them by saying other wise. Just putting in my two cents.
And by the way, thank you all for making me feel welcome to the group. It sure feels good to be able to be in a discussion with out all the hypocricy(sp) that I have seen in so many groups and for everyone to be able to speak their mind. Here! Here! to mystic wicks!!

[Tigerwallah]

None of us like the gov't poking their nose into our personal affairs, but (I hate to say it) most humans can't police themselves. Most of us live for instant gratification - damn the consequences. Well, in this case, you have men, under the guise of freedom of religion doing this.

Let's talk more about the 13 year old girl. When I was thirteen, I was rollerskating with my friends at the park, and fantasizing about the Dukes of Hazzard (Really dates me). I did all the things that children do at that age. Most of you probably did too. That girl was denied that life by her religion. Freedom of religion? How about Freedom from religion? She will never know what it is like to have her first kiss with the cute boy who is in her Algebra class. She will never go to her prom. She will never have the freedom to go to Europe after college, or any of the things that kids do. Instead, she was thrust into marraige to a man who is probably older than her father, and has the immediate burden of being a wife, mother, and responsible adult. Someone mentioned that if her parents consented that it's fine. NO!!!! It is not fine. It is just more people screwing up her life. Look, most of us believe "Do what you will an it harm no one." This has harmed that child. Imagine her wedding night? Imagine the nightmare a 13 year old girl had to suffer as she lie with that old man. Most 13 year olds are just discovering kissing. The first time is tramatic when you are with someone you actually love and are attracted to when you are emotionally mature. It harms the other wives. They too will never know what true love is between A man and A woman. Do they share joyfully? It harms the taxpayers forced to support and diaper the new church members. It harms the environment - that's just what the earth needs, more irresponsible breeders.

Things were very different in Brigim Young's time. A lot more people had rural lives. You had to have a large family to help run the family farm. Mortality rates were high. Those things do not apply anymore, and have not applied in over 50 years. There is just no reason for a single man to marry multiple women. I've seen many a Mormon man - more so than Mormon women these days. And they can't possibly need the membership, as they will baptise all of us after we're dead anyway.

Marraige itself has become something different. It used to be a neccessity for living. You'd marry another hand to help on the farm. You'd have children who would grow up to help and eventually take over the farm. These days, a single person has a much better quality of life than a married person. We don't need the population boost, and most of us work for corporations, not on the family farm. Marraige has become about love. It's really just a symbol that two people are committed to eachother. It was never about bonding several people together. The state controls marraige for benefits, mostly. My mom gets my father's social security benefits since he passed away. How would the state decide which wife gets this man's? It can't. There is a lot more to this than the state poking it's nose in a personal affair.

Once again, I have to say that I would not be as angry if the mormon women had the same right to multiple husbands, but I still would protest the sanctity of the marraige when multiple partners are involved.

[Rævyn Cigány]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mystique
[B]


You would be surprised to learn what the word "husband"
really means...and I'll let you discover that for yourself.


I think it sounds like it means "house-bound", meaning the man stayed at home while the woman was the one who went out and hunted for food...is that right? :eek:

Rae )0(

[Dria El]

The one flaw with alot of these arguments is that you're applying your culteral values to another cultures situation. Just as your religion wouldn't and doesn't work for others, neither would your culteral philosophies work for everyone else. Please keep in mind that I'm not in agreement with his situation or what he's doing. I mean, it's definitely not for me (I'm way to selfish with my man [well, if I had one]). But I will fight for his right to make that decision.

And just to let you know... from what I understand, he's only actually married to one of them. The others are considered 'common law' marriages which is how they are able to prosecute. Sounds to me like they're grasping at straws...

Dria El

[Elaine]

if the other wives are common law marriages then that puts an entirely different spin on the entire story....if they are common law then it was not their choice to be married...it was the states....if my husband and I wanted someone to move in with us and be part of our family...who are they to tell me I can only do it for a certain amount of time or we'll be married to them....I think that's rediculous!! I don't know if I have a misunderstanding of what a common law marriage is...but it seems to me like the gov't is just trying to find something to pick on these people for....I agree that them being on welfare and all that ...something should be done....and the same with the 13 year old....(can a 13 year old actually become common law with someone...that seems rediculous to me!!) but if I am not confused about what common law actually is...then these people should be left alone when it comes to the marriage thing....if they were just living as a family and the gov't deemed them married...then it's the gov'ts fault!!! someone please correct me if I am wrong on what I am trying to say!!!

[Tigerwallah]

Originally posted by Dria El

The one flaw with alot of these arguments is that you're applying your culteral values to another cultures situation. Just as your religion wouldn't and doesn't work for others, neither would your culteral philosophies work for everyone else. Please keep in mind that I'm not in agreement with his situation or what he's doing. I mean, it's definitely not for me (I'm way to selfish with my man [well, if I had one]). But I will fight for his right to make that decision.

And just to let you know... from what I understand, he's only actually married to one of them. The others are considered 'common law' marriages which is how they are able to prosecute. Sounds to me like they're grasping at straws...

Dria El



Ok, I'm confused. If the state is looks at a union as common law once it has been in effect for x amount of years, how is it even possible that the man was common law with 4 women? I had several roomates once, if we stayed together would NY have declared us to be "common law" spouses? NO! There was some ceremony to bind this man and each one of these women together. The state didn't just start recognizing them to be married. Him and 5 women.

As for cultural differences, I think they are human rights differences. This "culture" is infringing apon the human rights of these women. It is not uncommon for a Mormon man to marry an adolescent girl. The last case I saw like this had the man, a grandfather, married to a 17 year old girl - they had been married since she was 12. These girls can not know what they want for their lives at this young age. They are pressured by fanatical parents and their religion to believe that this is what they want, but given the opportunity to think differently, would the situation be the same? At 13 I thought that 30 was reaaaaaallllllllllly old. Under unpressured situations, a 13 year old girl will not choose a 40 something year old man. These girls think God wants this for them.

[Yvonne Belisle]

As I said before Utah has odd common law rules. To the state if there is a child in common then it is common law they don't care about the number of years. It most likely took them several years to realize that he had no divorces. The red tape there is substantial. I wasn't kidding when I said that my friend had to get a divorce in under a year and no there was no ceremony they had a kid together she had barely even given birth. There is most likely a lot of information that the public is missing on this one. One thing he may have done was call them his wives even if he did it in jest if they were living together and had children together that would be all it took to have the state declare it. If I had not moved to California before my 4 year old was born I would have been considered common law with no ceromony and no promises. It's not a normal state.

[Tigerwallah]

What a weird state. That is pretty agreivous of the state to asume that two people with a child would want to be married. That is an issue of the state poking its nose in where it doesn't belong.

[Dria El]

Originally posted by Tigerwallah
It is not uncommon for a Mormon man to marry an adolescent girl.

It IS uncommon for this to happen. I grew up Mormon. Alot of my family is still Mormon. I still know lots of 'other' Mormons. The majority of Mormons (and that's counting all denominations) would NOT do this.

[bluecat]

This is a new article about a Polygamy trial that just ended on 5/18/01




Utah Bigamy Trial May Push Polygamists Underground
May 19, 2001 2:24 pm EST

By James Nelson
PROVO, Utah (Reuters) - The conviction of an avowed polygamist who lived with five women on a remote compound in western Utah may very well push other polygamists deeper underground, lawyers said on Saturday.

Tom Green, 52, was found guilty late on Friday of four counts of bigamy and one count of failure to pay child support and could go to prison for up to 25 years when he is sentenced on June 27.

Green's lawyer, John Bucher, conceded his client's undoing was probably the high profile stance he took, appearing on national television to talk about living with the five women and their 25 children.

"Green shot his mouth off. He stuck out like a sore thumb and that has resulted in this prosecution," Bucher said.

The verdict could force other families living quietly in polygamous situations to go even deeper underground. And that may be just what local leaders want as the state polishes its image ahead of staging the 2002 Winter Games in February.

"You've started a precedent. The other polygamists are very nervous about that," said Bill Morrison, a family attorney for Green who testified on his behalf. "A lot of county attorneys have some interest going after polygamists, where heretofore they haven't done that," Morrison said.


The case is believed to be the first brought against a polygamist in the United States in nearly 50 years and put the spotlight on Utah, where plural marriages once thrived among Mormon pioneers who settled here.

But the practice was banned in the early 1890s as a condition for Utah's statehood, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as the Mormon Church is formally called, now excommunicates members who practice polygamy.

30,000 POLYGAMISTS

The conviction at least gives local politicians a chance to say polygamy is no longer tolerated in the state, although an estimated 30,000 people in Utah are in polygamous relationships. Unlike Green, most keep a low profile.

Juab County prosecutor David Leavitt said the guilty verdicts were based on a combination of Utah's bigamy laws, which prevent a man married to one women from marrying another; and the state's common law marriage statute, which says a marriage exists if people hold themselves out to be married.

The state argued that even though Green divorced the women on paper, the divorces were a sham because he continued to live with the women in a common-law marriage setting.

"We expect these laws to be enforced and when we have evidence to prove it (an infraction) we will prove it," said Leavitt, whose brother is Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt.

Green, who is free on bail, said he planned to appeal and has maintained he practices polygamy on religious grounds, and the practice should be protected under the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion.

The Green case stands in sharp contrast to the early 1950s when federal agents invaded a polygamous enclave on the Utah/Arizona border. The prosecution effort was abandoned amid concern over who would care for the wives and children.

Authorities contend polygamous families can only exist financially if they receive welfare, and that Green's family collected $54,000 in welfare payments.

The prosecution argued that Green married young women in their teens, divorced them, but continued to live with them while they collected welfare.

Three of Green's wives are pregnant and among the five are two sets of sisters.

Green was also charged with first-degree felony rape of a child for allegedly having sexual relations in 1986 with a 13- year-old girl, whom he married, an offense carrying a prison term of five years to life. No trial date has been set for the rape charge, which was severed from the four bigamy charges.



AND THERE IS MORE




Polygamist Found Guilty
May 19, 2001 5:10 pm EST

Tom Green Found Guilty On Four Counts Of Bigamy


PROVO, UTAH, MAY 19, 2001 (CBS News) - Tom Green, 52, was found guilty of four counts of bigamy and one count of failure to pay child support and could go to prison for up to 25 years when he is sentenced on June 27.

Green's lawyer, John Bucher, conceded his client's undoing was probably the high profile stance he took, appearing on national television to talk about living with the five women and their 25 children.

"Green shot his mouth off. He stuck out like a sore thumb and that has resulted in this prosecution," Bucher said.

The verdict that came late Friday could force other families living quietly in polygamous situations to go even deeper underground. And that may be just what local leaders want as the state polishes its image ahead of staging the 2002 Winter Games in February.

"You've started a precedent. The other polygamists are very nervous about that," said Bill Morrison, a family attorney for Green who testified on his behalf. "A lot of county attorneys have some interest going after polygamists, where heretofore they haven't done that," Morrison said.

The case is believed to be the first brought against a polygamist in the United States in nearly 50 years and put the spotlight on Utah, where plural marriages once thrived among Mormon pioneers who settled here.

But the practice was banned in the early 1890s as a condition for Utah's statehood, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as the Mormon Church is formally called, now excommunicates members who practice polygamy.

The conviction at least gives local politicians a chance to say polygamy is no longer tolerated in the state, although an estimated 30,000 people in Utah are in polygamous relationships. Unlike Green, most keep a low profile.

Juab County prosecutor David Leavitt said the guilty verdicts were based on a combination of Utah's bigamy laws, which prevent a man married to one women from marrying another; and the state's common law marriage statute, which says a marriage exists if people hold themselves out to be married.

The state argued that even though Green divorced the women on paper, the divorces were a sham because he continued to live with the women in a common-law marriage setting.

"We expect these laws to be enforced and when we have evidence to prove it (an infraction) we will prove it," said Leavitt, whose brother is Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt.

Green, who is free on bail, said he planned to appeal and has maintained he practices polygamy on religious grounds, and the practice should be protected under the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion.

The Green case stands in sharp contrast to the early 1950s when federal agents invaded a polygamous enclave on the Utah/Arizona border. The prosecution effort was abandoned amid concern over who would care for the wives and children.

Authorities contend polygamous families can only exist financially if they receive welfare, and that Green's family collected $54,000 in welfare payments.

The prosecution argued that Green married young women in their teens, divorced them, but continued to live with them while they collected welfare.

Three of Green's wives are pregnant and among the five are two sets of sisters.

Green was also charged with first-degree felony rape of a child for allegedly having sexual relations in 1986 with a 13- year-old girl, whom he married, an offense carrying a prison term of five years to life. No trial date has been set for the rape charge, which was severed from the four bigamy charges.




Both are the same trial.


Blue

[Yvonne Belisle]

Thank-you for the information now we have facts upon which to base our arguements of this case. We will still differ a lot on if the government should step in or not but that's normal.

[Tigerwallah]

Originally posted by Dria El


It IS uncommon for this to happen. I grew up Mormon. Alot of my family is still Mormon. I still know lots of 'other' Mormons. The majority of Mormons (and that's counting all denominations) would NOT do this.

Last year, one of my employees, a 17 year old Mormon girl, left my service because "it was time to marry." She told me that most of her friends were much younger when they married, and that her parents told her that it was time.

[Dria El]

Originally posted by Tigerwallah
Last year, one of my employees, a 17 year old Mormon girl, left my service because "it was time to marry." She told me that most of her friends were much younger when they married, and that her parents told her that it was time.

That may be but it doesn't make it common. I spent 30+ years as a Mormon and I still have contact with Mormons (and I'm talking more than just my family) just about every day and I've never even heard of it. I knew that it was something that was practiced 'way back when' and I knew some fundamentalists probably still practiced but it wasn't widespread. Just my opinion of course...

Dria El

[CleftOfLight]

I think if it is truly your religious belefe and the beiefe of the women or men you marry.Then it is fine by me.personelly I see nothing wrong with a man or woman having more than one partner.

[Morning Star]

So.... why is bygamy etc., illegal? Doesn't it go against the constitutional right of freedom of religion? If a man's religion says that he should have multiple wives, then should he be put in jail for doing so???

Because other religious fundamentalists want to make sure that everyone lives according to THEIR gods law & the government doesn't want to have to create laws for more complicated marriages. *shrugs* Simplicity huh?

[charmedkisses1]

the Bible doesn't say you can have multiple wives. Just because people did it didn't mean it was about their religion. Is it in the book of Mormon? If my religion said I could kill everyone, should we make that legal?

[UglyCelt]

Surely If his partners are aware off each other AND his beliefs, Its Okay ?? Just a thought.( I'm new !! - Hi all)

[charmedkisses1]

I think that polygamy goes beyond religious freedom, for one thing, this man had five wives and 29 children, now I am completely open minded and believe that it is not my place to dictate how others live their lives. On the other hand, I do disagree with the fact that one of his wives was only thirteen when he became involved with her. Now the Mormon faith no longer believes in Polygamy, so his religion does not dictate that he could or should have multiple wives. I think that it is hurtful to the women and children involved, even if they say that they are okay with the situation and that it doesn't bother them. I mean come on, as a woman, I can't stand the thought of anyone else being intimate with my fiance. Marriage is about partnership and intimacy and I think those things get tossed out the window when there is one man and five women in a relationship. For starting a relationship with a child who was only thirteen years old, yes, I think he should go to jail and I think her parents should receive some sort of punishment as well if they consented to the marriage.

I agree.

Also, Mormons aren't Christians (even though they associate themselves with Christianity). I have many Mormon friends and they are embarassed by polygamy and how everyone thinks they do it.

[charmedkisses1]

Surely If his partners are aware off each other AND his beliefs, Its Okay ?? Just a thought.( I'm new !! - Hi all)


Usually they all live together...

[Sequoia]

Wow, talk about thread necromancy...

And this whole thing has turned into a Mormon-bashing thread.

"It's really common for Pagans to sacrifice animals and even babies. Sometimes they eat these sacrifices. You hear about it in the papers, it's true." "You're right, I had a friend who said she did that. Those Pagans..."

Wow, wouldn't everyone be pissed off over that one? :alol:

Mormons are like any other religion; they have good people, they have bad people. They have fundies, and they have "holiday" followers. They have overzealous converts and people who use it as a justification for their own perversions and they also have people who do good things in it's name, and spread positive things in it's name. Just like any other religion. Chill out, and stop with the bashing, before I bring in the articles about burning goats.

That said, I still don't believe the government has any say in what "marriage" is, whatsoever. Number of partners, sex of partners, race of partners, religion of parters, creed of partners... none of it matters.

But then you get into the "well, then who legally qualifies for my work benefits?" argument.

[mattolsen]

Freedom of religion is not as simple as that. The way freedom of religion works in the united states is basically you have the freedom to worship however you wish so long as you do not harm others. According to laws in the US polygamy hurts others much the same way drugs, alcohol, prostitution, etc hurts others. These are "victimless crimes" since in the US we like to protect ourselves from ourselves *shrug*

Personally I never got that nonesense, if I want to do something that is not good for me how is it good that I can be put in jail for it... one of these days its going to be illegal to eat McDonalds