I wonder how many people stay together for the sake of the children. In this country it's not many since we have a divorce rate so high it's embarrassing, like everything else Americans do., but I think it might be better for the kids if divorced parents continued to live in the same home but carried on slightly separate lives. There's no reason why consenting adults can't come to an agreement on how to date, when to introduce a new member of the family, and how to live, compound style, if need be, so that the kids have access to both of their parents every day. Someone would be able to stay at home with the younger kids at all times, and schedules could be arranged so that an adult is home by the time the kids are back from school. That leads to more supervision for the children, equaling a better education (because someone can make sure their homework is finished), more parental involvement in school (because someone will have the time), and fewer instances of children getting access to things they shouldn't have (like video and computer games, music parents disagree with, TV shows that are inappropriate, etc...) Besides all of that, with several adults paying the bills, more children would have access to private schools.
Update: For the less liberal, click here for information on housing cooperatives.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
60 comments:
I have tried repeatedly to convince my bride that if I mnarried, or shacked up 3-4 more women then that would be a good thing. She isn't convinced.
jsull28fl
Raising children communally can work well. Being in a polygamous relationship or group marriage is a separate question.
But most polygamous relationships are not balanced gender-wise. For example I know of one religion that allows a man to have four wives. Coincidentally, that same religion has the biggest problem with unattached young men getting involved in religious fanaticism.
Communal living is the answer to most of our problems.
I agree with Bud, polygamy? Yikes, on the one hand I believe that anything consenting adults do is fine...on the other hand most polygamous situations are hardly consensual.
Unfortunately polygamist are genreally religous nut jobs and that can't good for the kids.
The thought of my husband having sex with other women - married to them or not - makes me sick.
While it might be nice to have help in the house and with the kids, I would not be willing to share my husband. Period.
I think the communal living idea used to be common when families still lived near each other. Grandparents helped with the grandchildren, and the children and grandchildren helped with the grandparents (and great-grands). Now, everyone wants to be so damned independent, people move all over the place, families don't want to take care of their own. I don't think we need extra spouses, I think we need to reprioritize.
Ewwwww. Studies repeatedly show how terribly unhealthy such an environment is for everyone involved, especially the children. Go to childbrides.org, read Under the Banner of Heaven, the amazing God's Brothel, and Daughter of the Saints.
Being married to a Filipina, they still basically utilize communal living with all the extended aunts, uncles, cousins, etc very much in the daily picture of life. I think we (Americans) can learn something from that model of living.
I always wanted to be a poligamy like that in 'stranger in a strange land'. Obviously I would be the insanely rich old bloke.
Saur,
These sites are not really looking at the issue from a balanced point of view. Yes, these things are bad, but if adults consent to equal relationships, it can work. The problem is, we have very few examples of "the new Polygamy", in which two adults who have mutually decided to be married but to date other people find other people who have no problem living with this type of relationship. As long as communication remains open and all parties are consenting adults, there's no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do as they wish. Children in this kind of relationship will probably benefit.
Bud,
I agree. WShen communities band together and raise children in a communal or co-operative environment, it works very well. The more elders a child has access to, the better. Supervision and involvement are keys to raising kids. Socialization with other children in a well supervised environment (high adult to child ratio) makes kids more aware of how to live , work, and play with others, which can only be a good thing. Today's children are limited in this because people have smaller families and thus, there are fewer people to interact with. The more, the merrier, for everyone.
Aq,
It's not for everyone and certainly shouldn't be a requirement, but it should be a choice between consenting adults. People have moved away fromt heir families, btu that doesn't mean they can't be a part of a community. We don't reach out to our neighbors anymore. We don't choose neighborhoods based on who lives in them anymore. Housing co-operatives are great ways to join a community. We happened to get lucky, but not everyone does. And again, if people want to build their own family, as long as they are consenting adults, who are we to stop them?
I think "communal living" is attractive to some, because the old extended family has fallen out of favor in the west.
It does take more than just mom and dad to successfully raise a child, and that used to be accomplished with the help of families. Grandparents, aunts, uncles, church families, neighbors... used to all pitch in and watch over each other's kids in different settings of family life.
My dad tells of, when he was a wee, very poor lad in El Paso, TX during the 1930s, he literally could go anywhere in town and bump into someone he knew, and that person knew HIS parents. Kept kids in line better, kept parents better informed about their kids whereabouts and activities, and helped kids feel safer.
We are such an independent lot anymore, that most of hardly know our neighbors.
I don't know what the affect on the kids would be, but with the divorce rate what it is and with the very small amount of women who are strong enough to stay home and actually raise their children then maybe having 4 or 5 adults in the same house might help.
JS - Do you think there are any men out there strong enough to stay home and raise the kids.
I knew that would bring silence.
After the baby is born, my huisband will be a stay at home dad.
That's great to hear United. Being that my wife was a doctor, we could have probably made the same decision since she probably could have gotten paid more than I. But she didn't like the hours and wanted a more 9 to 5 job which she found in research but with less pay. So I am the one that has to go to work while she stays home.
If I was financially wealthy, I would stay home in a heartbeat. Being with Little Abbey in the mornings and afternoons before and after work are some of the happiest times in my life right now.
I have known several stay at home dads over the years.
Why polygamy? Why not just live in a small town, one where you actually know your neighbors, where people look out for each other? I know that sounds like a quaint kind of myth, but it was once how people lived. They had to, it was pro-survival behavior.
jsull, you're showing your myopia again: "with the very small amount of women who are strong enough to stay home and actually raise their children".
It doesnt take strength to stay home and care for children, it takes money, and we've become, via the miracle of the market system, an all-parents working society for all but the very well-paid.
And why does it have to be women taking care of children? I've spent the last nine years of my life working nights, and raising my children during the day while my wife worked. Admittedly, since I've tended to only get four to six very broken hours of sleep a "night", I guess you could say that it took a lot of "strength".
Dave,
It doesn't necessarily have to be polygamy, but some people are happy doing that, and if they're consenting adults, who are we to stop them? I think polygamy provides for a committed relationship. Marriage affords a certain legality to the situation, allowing for things like wills, which are important if something happens. Also, people may feel that it provides legitimacy to any children resulting from romantic relationships between consenting adults.
My wife's job requires her to travel 2 weeks per month. During that time I am a stay at home/work from home Dad of 3 kids. The other two weeks my wife is a stay at home mom and I work on site for my clients.
What a great setup. We also live in a small town where everybody knows everybody. That helps immensely.
Polygamy is the antithesis of a commited relationship. You cannot be committed to a person body and soul when you commit yourself body and soul to another. Committed implies an exclusivity that polygamy destroys. It allows for multiple romances and sexual partners without the depth of a committed relationship.
Having a community as Daveaway and Cranky suggest offers more support than what we usually experience in large cities, where though there are a lot of people, ironically we isolate ourselves from each other. Small towns, however, and some communes where individual families are sacred do offer supports that are very helpful.
I see that you are concerned for kids; I think the polygamy route is extremely dangerous.
By the way, how do you determine inappropriate television in a polygamous household...stories of monogamous relationships?
Well I went back on the road today for a short run to do a show and I had some time to study on this idea. I was wrong to say "strong women" I should have said strong families. My bad. I did however come to a conclusion in my mind. I believe that your take is correct, with the piss poor state of devoted couples today and the piss poor state of early education there could be no other solution that the communal raising of children. I had to think outside my world though. In my world there are 2 devoted parents, I realize that makes me bad in some eyes, but with 2 devoted parents there is no real need to have outside support in the raising of children. If one parent is home tending to the early education and the moral training of children then no outside sources are needed but with poor early education, dependance on the government (instead of depending on mother/fatehr bread winner) and the shitty state of committed couples today I do believe communal raising might be best. Fathers should take most of the blame with just a fraction falling on the women who are stupid enough to sleep with a man that they don't want to spend the rest of their lives with, and then birthing the child of such a tryst. Again I apologize for saying women instead of parent.
jsull
@UWL: I have no beef with polygamy, assuming it's a general polygamy rather than the usual patriarchal type. Personally. though, I think that the primary result would be a multiplying of the usual problems plagueing any marriage (which the Strict Father/Patriarch model handily sidesteps by substituting slavery for cooperation). With small community you get many of the benefits, without the in-family conflicts. I dont think adding people to the mix would make it more stable, though, just the opposite; I guess it would mean that when a partner leaves, there isnt only one person left.
@UL: "You cannot be committed to a person body and soul when you commit yourself body and soul to another. Committed implies an exclusivity that polygamy destroys".
I think this is a ridiculous statement. It certainly is possible. It wont be very easy (real damn difficult, more likely - commitment to one person is hard enough). But you'd never say that you cant be committed to more than one child, so why would you say that you cant be committed to more than one partner? Commitment does not mean making your life revolve around another person (that's obsession). To put it in more graphical terms, a marriage should be like two overlapping circles (like the "union" diagram in math), not one circle completely swallowing another (like a target). There's no reason (other than tradition, religion, or just plain difficultly) why you couldnt involve multiple partners in a successful marriage.
Oh, well, maybe jealousy, possessiveness, co-dependence, narrow-mindedness, or complete lack of interest, but those are only reasons why some couldnt do it.
@jsull: "but with 2 devoted parents there is no real need to have outside support in the raising of children". Oh, yes there is! Without a community of some sort, in whatever role that community may fill, a child will grow up with without the very important sense of empathy for the world outside of himself, leading to the every-man-for-himself kind of grasping greedyness that is so well represented by the current manifestation of the Republican Party.
If you ask me, the primary reason for instability in marriage in the modern age has nothing to do with morality or committment issues, and everything to do with longevity. These days you are not likely to die of childbirth or infection before you reach 40 years old, making it that much easier, as you grow personally, to realize that you dont share anything but a house with the person who, twenty years ago, was your soulmate. After all, how many strongly held beliefs from twenty years ago are you still passionate about.
This doesnt apply to everyone, of course, but what does? (other than No Child Left Behind).
I also suspect that the divorce rates have gone up because it's much harder now to simply run away, what with social security records, etc.
Finally, what made you contemplate this question, UWL? Thinking about expanding your household, or just thinking?
Daveaway says: But you'd never say that you cant be committed to more than one child, so why would you say that you cant be committed to more than one partner?
You are right that parents ought to be committed to more than one child. However, you do err by equivocating on the term 'committed.' The marriage commitment and the parent/child commitment are two entirely different types of relationship commitments. Also, if you include parental commitments to children birthed outside of marriage, your analogy immediately falls apart. Include children birthed outside of marriage, and you have an example of how envy, jealousy, deep hurts and rejection really do develop within the family unit in question. Call the children immature if you like, unless you have exclusivity in a committed relationship, you have no commitment; you have no glue--you have no reason to stay committed to anyone.
As to why there is so much difficulty do to multiple relationships does not necessarily mean humans have not yet come of age--you beg the question. How does lack of exclusivity in a relationship show strength and commitment? The only commitment I see multiple partners playing into is one's own sexual and romantic desires and pleasure. It's a commitment to hedonism--Narcisus was committed to himself, you know.
Having a commited marriage relationship, a family can and will flourish within a larger community. That I do agree with and would like to see more of it. I think UWL's concern for latchkey kids having no parental support or love is valid. There are too many children who are ignored by self-centered parents. There are also many families whose children rule the roost and drive parents crazy with extracurricular activities. There needs to be a balance, with parents being committed to each other and the proper raising of their children. This, of course, lends to the need of families having a moral compass that keeps the family intact.
Care to take a stab at this?
UWL: I'm still waiting on your means of determining inappropriate television programing.
Dave,
This is the biggest issue I have with the lib mindset. It isn't greed that I want my children (who need no outside support) it is personal responsibility. That is why committed relationships are in such a poor state, why the prisons are full, why 9th graders can't read, why there are latch key kids to begin with. If there were stable families and strong parents there would be no need for outside help for early education, monetary support or moral values being taught by the #1 influence every child has, their parents. I agree that in todays world in the US there needs to be support but the reason is not because that is best, the reason is that the people who choose to breed are to damn sorry to raise their own kids. I can't fathom why someone would breed if they were going to farm their kids out for someone else to raise.
Just my take
jsull
I rahter suspect polygamous relationships will have as much chance of survival ans any oither marriage in this day and age if they were legalized.
A lot of the problems peopel see today in the polygamous communities in southern Utah and northern Arizona arise from the fac tthat due to illegality (and certain religious obsessions)everything is hidden and doen underground. This ALWAYS causes problems.
exmi:
Running illegal activities always compounds the problem. Gee, drug smuggling families wouldn't have near the stresses they now face if drug use was made legal in the United States.
I think your explanation is oversimplified.
Cranky,
That sounds like a good setup, but I don't think I could handle the travelling. I don't sleep well when my hursband's away.
UL,
And you can continue to wait. I answer when time allows, not when you desire. There is nothing that says a committment must be between two people only. Families are extremely committed to each other and there are far more than two people within them.
com·mit·ment
1. a : an act of committing to a charge or trust: as (1) : a consignment to a penal or mental institution (2) : an act of referring a matter to a legislative committee,
2 a : an agreement or pledge to do something in the future; especially : an engagement to assume a financial obligation at a future date b : something pledged c : the state or an instance of being obligated or emotionally impelled
Jsull,
Your world is very small.
A traditonal marriage, by the way, is between two or more people, sometimes more men, usually more women, but sometimes equal, if we are to follow the path of human existance. If anyone mentions Adam and Eve on this one I'm deleting them for pure stupidity.
Dave,
I agree, it must be mutual, and everyone gets to choose more than one partner. They key here is that everyone is a consenting adult. I find it intersting that you ownder if I'm contemplting this. I think that if our goal is freedom, we should be fighting for it everywhere, not just where we have a vested interest.
Exmi,
It is true, no one benefits from having to hide who they are. If people are not physically harming anyone and they are consenting adults, to limit their choices is positively UNAMERICAN.
I am not in favor of polygamy, though when I was discussing polygamy with my better half on one occasion (we both come from ancestors who were polygamous, which was the germ of the conversation. She commented that she wouldn't mind polygamy so much if SHE could pick the wife, assign her which household tasks were most onerous, and I would build her (the new one) a shed to sleep in where she wouldn't be in the way. As a point of information, A situation where both (or all) spouses were equally able to pick additional mates (dates? spouses?) is technically called polygyny, polygamy is the old fashioned patriarchal mode (Wouldn't it be a Mormon who knew that?)
commitment:
-committedness: the trait of sincere and steadfast fixity of purpose; "a man of energy and commitment"
-the act of binding yourself (intellectually or emotionally) to a course of action; "his long commitment to public service"; "they felt no loyalty to a losing team"
-an engagement by contract involving financial obligation; "his business commitments took him to London"
-a message that makes a pledge
-the official act of consigning a person to confinement (as in a prison or mental hospital)
-A pledge, promise or affirmation of agreement.
-A pledge or promise, usually of a specified time period, given by an individual to follow a particular way of life, based on the Gospels.
(all taken from here)
@UL: I'm okay with the idea of commitment indicating excusivity, but why do you assume you that you can commit yourself only once (or to one at a time).
Then there's this statement: The marriage commitment and the parent/child commitment are two entirely different types of relationship commitments. Yes, that's true, but they are still commitments. Either you can commit, or you cant.
The issue, though, should not be the quantity of commitment, but the quality. The best environment to raise children in is one of love and caring, regardless of whether it's from one parent, or six, or mother/father, or mother/mother. Sure, two parents (man/wife) with one staying home is the best way to raise a child. So is a large house in a safe, exclusive neighborhood and the best schools with low teacher/student ratios. But guess what, most of us have to make do with what we have, because those things involve money, material resources which no one is willing to share.
Love and commitment, however, are (theoretically, anyway) in infinite supply, available to all, regardless of finacial or social status.
@jsull: Dont give me that "personal responsibility" bullshit. That's just an excuse to wrap your arms around your stuff and hiss "mine! preciousss".
You want personal responsibility? Grow your own damn food. Dispose of your own garbage, and sewage. Dont ever go to another restaurant, or engage another person to do your dirty work. That's personal responsibility. To pay someone as little as possible so you dont have to do the work yourself is simply trading on desperation. And if you think that's not true, then you've never heard the phrase "there are plenty of people who'd like to have your job".
damn, UWL, you beat me to it! These things take too long
@UWL: I asked because it seems to me that people rarely ask questions if they dont have some sort of answer already.
Dave,
I understand, but I don't think I asked a question, I just made a statement. I think that there is no reason to limit what consenting adults do, as long as it is not physically harmful to another person. I don't think what's right for one person is necessarily right for another, but that is not to say that it is wrong.
Three Score,
We have also discussed it as a theory. I think I might be okay with it as long as everyone was aware of and followed the rules we all set up together. We haven't thought of it as an actual possibility, but I don't think we would rule it out completely.
UWL:
I'm not needing a definition of commitment, and as to families committing to each other, well, I am a part of one. You miss my point and I'm not sure it's worth the effort to repeat myself, but, I will.
A marriage commitment is different than familial commitment. It is expected for family members to receive, love and nurture each other. Marriage is a commitment WITH exclusivity; it is the foundation of the family. That foundation is tampered with by innovative ideas that are sure to cause harm. It is not to be done. Exclusivity is the glue that holds families together and allows for families to interact with other families without disintregating (sp?). Viva monogamy!
My GAWD... I have never been able to get along with ONE women for more than a few years.... I can't imagine trying to get along with several at the same time.
UL,
Seeing as how you believe that one can only be committed to another person, I think you do need a definition of commitment. I will answer your TV question in a post, since it is a good one, and man parents have no idea what kids of certain ages should or shouldn't be watching.
What ever happened t zero population growth?
I'll give you the real reason UL, jsull and other conservative males dont want to admit that polygyny (thank you, 3score) is a viable option: because marriage = sex, and extended marriages imply extended sex, which most red-blooded conservative males dont want to even think about, let alone advocate. Hell, I dont even want to think about it, but I'm willing to let those who want to go ahead and do it, which is the difference between me and the Republican Party.
@UL: "Marriage is a commitment WITH exclusivity; it is the foundation of the family". I'll grant you that this is true, what I wont grant you is that this commitment can be made between only one man and one woman. If 6 people sincerely want to make a commitment to each other, then how is that any different than two people doing so (other than because you just dont think it should be that way).
It's probably harder, but would that indicate strength of character for making such a commitment, or lack of sense? (see greatwhitebear)
Daveaway:
I appreciate what you are saying, though I will say it is impossible for one to make a full commitment, body and soul to more than one spouse; you will be divided between two or more people. That is not a full commitment, other than to your own sexual/personal desires.
I think it's a mistake, and historically has been a source of heartaches and headaches for spouses and children respectively. It may sound avant-garde (sp?), but it is detrimental to relationships.
Greatwhitebear:
ROF, LOL
Great Scott, man! You gave us the comic relief we needed!
Dave,
How did you miss the first post here? Hell I'm all for it 100%, I haven't said it was bad, hell I agreed with the thought here. Dave I think your away from thought. First you totally missed my take on polygamy. I can't fathom any self respecting human being could possibly be against personal responsibility. Thats a sorry place to be, I am very glad that I have never been there. Sounds just like a rich persons stance, I of course am not rich and was raised low middle class so I wouldn't know. But I am positive that I don't and have never needed support from anyone outside my immediate family. Where I live Dave we do have to carry off our own garbage, we do grow and can our own veggies and fruit and we do raise and hunt our own meat. Not 100% of it but 60% or so. I do work on the road so I do eat at restaraunts when I am working. Also the very rich seem to have the same stance as you. The very rich have some guilt about having drive and being successful so they want to share, good for them, but just as I would never force anyone to involuntarily give up anything they have please don't steal what I work damn hard to earn.
It's very easy to see why folks hate the thought of personal responsibility but I for one am for it, I want to be paid for the work I do, and I surely don't mind paying for the mistakes I have made, I don't want to be paid for the owrk anyone else does and don't want to pay for mistakes made by others.
js
(the personaly responsible one)
Let me get this straight, JS you think we should let children starve in poverty because their parents may have made mistakes? You don't think that we as a society have a collective responsibility to take care of those among us who are not able? What about the elderly? Do we not have a responsibility to provide for those who work their whole lives building this society? Suppose they work and save their entire lives and find themselves penniless due to medical cost. Are they not owed, at a minimum, medical care by the same society they built?
Selfish people like you are the ones who don't belong in society. You cry about our taxes, which are ridiculously low, but you'll be the first the whine when the fire department doesn't show up fast enough to save your precious "stuff" in the event of a fire.
I hope you never find make the mistake of being seriously ill and unablke to work, but if you do I'm glad my tax dollars are their to help you when you are in need, I mean pay for your mistake.
UL,
It makes me laugh that you think committing to flesh and blood people is impossible, and yet you think someone walked on water, raised the dead, was resurrected, etc... You believe the laws of science can be manipulated by an invisible being, and yet reject the notion that people can decide what is best for them and their families and do it.
UWL says: "It makes me laugh that you think committing to flesh and blood people is impossible, and yet you think someone walked on water, raised the dead, was resurrected, etc.."
If we are going to have a discussionj about what I believe, let me be clear as to what I believe. Your statement misrepresents what I mean. I am speaking of a full commitment in the context of marriage. Polygamy is being married to several wives. I am simply stating from a logical standpoint that it is impossible to commit fully to one person in a marriage when your attention is diverted to other spouses. And, if two spouses need the love and attention of their mutual husband, which one does he pick? My argument is one of practicality.
Now, as to the person who walks on water...do you really want to bring Christ into the picture? I didn't think He matters to you in this. Am I wrong?
I want to make another point. It seems you are treating me or what I say with derision. Now I ask you, have I misbehaved with this posting. If not, why the negativity? Was it for something I said or did in the past? If so, I'd like to know to make it right. If not, why the ridicule?
I wasn't being negative, I was actually pointing something out. If you point out to someone that they are on fire, is that considered being negative? I was amused by your definition of impossible given your beliefs.
I'm not sure why it is amusing, yet I will leave it at that.
I was fuzzy brained last night, and I think I know what you mean. The term impossible is possible (chuckle) given what I believe. For instance, it is impossible for God to sin, since our faith teaches, since you brought Christ up, God is love. So for God to do something contradictory to love would mean God would be denying Himself, which is impossible. Truth never contradicts. The mysteries of faith may seem paradoxical or contrary, but never contradictory.
Some try to create discussion by asking if God can create a rock that he could not lift is a play on the contradiction posed against His omnipotence. Those are some examples.
So in context with polygamy, since Christ taught marriage between one man and one woman, for he to advocate something as you suggest would be contradictory, hence impossible. It's not that people haven't attempted it, for they have. Some people (the happy ones in the love clump) think it's the best thing since sliced bread. To assume the unhappy ones are not "of age" begs the question.
But that's what Christ taught, and not everyone believes in Christ.
You are correct, not everyone believes. However, now you know why it is impossible for men and women to fully commit to more than one person in marriage from a Christian perspective. It is against all the Christ believed and taught. This "impossibility" is not based on a lack of faith, but because of faith.
You may have the last word on this if you wish.
crank,
I don't know where you got all those takes. I never said anything about the elderly and I never said toi let children starve. And just for the record the closest fire department is 20 miles from me, I buy insurance. And again for the record I am worth much more dead than alive and I have, and pay for all by myself, disability insurance. I am a nationwide salesman who doesn't fly, odds are eventually I will be maimed or killed on the road so I take the needed precautions to protect my family. I realize that some need help. I am 100% for helping all those that need it, what I am against is taking them to raise. If they can't raise their kids then the kids need to be placed with a family that can raise them. I have 2 people that I graduated high school with that had to go overseas to adopt children, they would have both preferred to adopt american children but they weren't available. Thats my stance. The elderly are not to blame they believed in the raw deal. oooops new deal. What a FUBAR idea. Why not give the people all they earn and allow them to invest it as they choose?? I am not against local or consumption taxes. The ONLY good tax for the poor is a consumption tax, a national sales tax, that would cure all ills.
jsull
js - read this
Social Security and Medicare are the two greatest things we as a people have ever done. To deny that exposes your greed based world view. It really is sad.
Crank,
I think I posted op your blog last night but I will read your take here after this. I can't fathom why libs, dems, the left, don't want p[eople to be able to invest their own money. I assure you I have far exceeded what the goverment will do with my money. Where we differ is that I believe in my own ability to provide for my family and provide for my future and the libs/dems believe that the general population is to stupid to do so. Social security is the #1 worst thing that has ever been done in the history of America in my opinion. Anytime you allow people to defer their own responsibility then they often become dependant on the system. I realize that when the raw deal was made it was made by the rich to keep the poor down and the beck and call of those in power, thats the same reason that the rich are for welfare, it makes certain that the poor will always be poor, always.
jsull (going to your post now)
I'll let your last comment waft in the air for everyone to enjoy.
This comment is so behind times that probably it will go unnoticed, but this seemed to be the place where it belongs. In the past week, Jeffs, the leader of a 10000 plus member polygamous sect headquartered in southern Utah and Arizona was captured. He has been on the FBI most wanted list for some time. The charges against him are not specifically for polygamy, but are for arranging marriages for older men with underage girls (accessory to statutory rape, if I understand correctly). If the charges were modified (and they could be)to involve polygamy itself, and if Jeffs were convicted it would almost certainly be appealed. THe appeal would go to the Ninth Judicial Circuit, a most unpredictable judicial body, and "could" result in a legalization of polygamy. There are other cases in the pipeline involving a Nigerian who holds dual citizenship and who came to the U.S. with both of the wives that were legally his wives in Nigeria. Of course Islam approves more than one wife, and I have met men from Muslim countries who had wives in the U.S. and other wives in their home countries. They might be pleased with the legalization of polygamy. Believe me, as a Mormon, I wouldn't be so pleased, but aren't the potential unforseen consequences of Jeffs capture and trial interesting?
Post a Comment