Why Mormon Polygamy Should Not Be Decriminalized

A Response to Principle Voices and their

 “Ten Reasons for Decriminalizing Polygamy Among Consenting Adults.”

INTRODUCTION

            Several years ago a Utah State Congressman by the name of David Zolman attempted to organize and lead a coalition of Utah polygamists (a representation from all the organized groups and Independent polygamists) in an attempt to eventually “decriminalize” the practice of Mormon polygamy.  He predicted that decriminalization could be accomplished by a two prong, well organized media directed advocacy campaign emphasizing (1) that the actual or true Mormon polygamist lifestyle is an innocuous undertaking, and (2) use the law of the land (primarily the First Amendment) to overturn criminal statutes dealing with Mormon polygamy. The first step was to change public opinion by portraying Mormon polygamists as a misunderstood, deeply religious group of people who only want to practice their religion without interference from government.  Zolman argued that the bigamy statute prohibiting the practice of polygamy, touted as a sacred religious belief, was unconstitutional and automatically brands Mormon polygamists as criminals.    

            In the process Zolman became an outspoken Mormon polygamy apologist and publically called for an apology from the State of Utah and Arizona for the 1953 raid on the polygamist community of Short Creek.  The “raid” was sanctioned by the LDS Church but turned out to be a public relations debacle when the media focused on children being torn from their Mother’s arms. 

            Zoman’s tenure as an organizer and Mormon polygamy apologist was short lived.  A genealogist by profession, after a brief media blitz, he was not reelected to the Utah House of Representatives.  It was a clear message from his district that they were not happy with his outspoken defense of Mormon polygamy.

            You will notice that I have specified “Mormon polygamy” as opposed to a generic polygamy or polygamy in general which is practiced by Muslims and a few radical Christians.  Zolman and his constituents were only interested in defending and decriminalizing Mormon polygamy as defined and canonized in an alleged revelation from Jesus Christ which is recorded as Section 132 in the LDS book, Doctrine & Covenants – a book of Mormon scripture containing the alleged revelations from Jesus Christ to Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and Wilford Woodruff.

            It should be noted that although the “plural marriage revelation” of Joseph Smith is still part of LDS scripture, in 1890 Wilford Woodruff issued what is called a “Manifesto” suspending the practice.  The Manifesto is the last entry in the Doctrine & Covenants.

            With Zolman’s conspicuous withdrawal from the movement the banner was picked up by Anne Wilde, a plural wife of Ogden Kraut, now deceased, who was a well known author of Mormon fundamentalist literature.   I had attended two of Zolman’s general meetings at the Salt Lake Community College, and a private meeting with Zolman at his home, and I attended the first meeting held by Anne Wilde at her home, so I’m not talking second hand. 

            Mormon polygamy is a strict, patriarchal (that is to say priesthood ruled) religious lifestyle where obedience by women is mandated.  The authority of the priesthood is emphasized in all the polygamist groups and is nonnegotiable.  I mention this because Ogden Kraut, Anne Wilde’s husband was conspicuously absent from that first meeting held and chaired by Anne Wilde at her home.  I was reasonably well acquainted with Ogden Kraut and on many occasions had interacted with him socially and religiously during my misadventure in Mormon fundamentalism.  I respected Ogden as an author, a Mormon pundit and a friend.  His beliefs, in my opinion were genuine and he did his best to portray Mormonism and plural marriage as authentically as he saw it.  Yet, Ogden and Anne were both well aware of the dark side of Mormon polygamy.  I know this for a fact because I discussed with Ogden the crimes and unethical habits of many polygamist leaders like Ervil LeBaron, Jim Harmston, Owen Allred and LaMoine Jenson.  But Ogden and Anne, as journalists, attempted to stay neutral in any controversy involving inter-politics and scams which seemed to be endemic to the Mormon polygamist lifestyle.  By remaining neutral it gave them access to people and leaders in all the groups from Alex Joseph, Ervil LeBaron, Church of the Firstborn, True & Living Church, FLDS, AUB and most of the Independents.  But in the privacy of Ogden’s office and in my home, we discussed Mormon fundamentalist miscreants.   Ogden knew I was investigating both AUB and the TLC and even helped me in the Hill vs. Allred, et. al., law suit.  While I was a deputy sheriff Ogden had even assisted me in compiling an intelligence file on mass murderer, Ervil LeBaron. 

            On one occasion Ogden confided that Anne Wilde, his favorite plural wife, using his words, was “giving me fits.”  He said that an elderly lady had asked to join his family.  It was strictly a platonic proposal.  The protocol in Mormon fundamentalism mandates that if a woman desires to join one’s family as a plural wife, unless there is good reason, like poverty, you are obligated to accept her.  Ogden said he accepted this woman over the emphatic objections of Anne. She apparently didn’t want this woman as a sisterwife, for reasons I can only guess.  The same reasons a monogamous wife would not want a plural wife.    

            Shortly before 9-11, my wife and I, Ogden and Anne, and others went on a tour of Israel conducted by Israeli anthropologist, Joseph Ginat.  It was a great tour.  Ogden and I paled around together.  Although everything looked normal between Ogden and Anne, he reaffirmed while on the tour that Anne was still giving him fits over the elderly plural wife and she was so irascible she was threatening to leave him. 

            It was shortly after this Israeli trip that Anne, together with Mary Batchelor and two other female fundamentalists launched their book, Voices in Harmony, and subsequently, their Principle Voices movement – an all female Mormon fundamentalist undertaking.  Ogden confided in me that the book, Voices In Harmony, Contemporary Women Celebrate Plural Marriage – a collection of affidavits praising the Mormon polygamist lifestyle – was inspired as an antithesis to my first book, Murder of a Prophet, The Dark Side of Mormon Polygamy.

            I discerned that Anne, who had been Ogden’s favorite wife and journalistic protégé, had intellectually outgrown her intransigent polygamist husband.  Anne and her fundamentalist lady cohorts immediate grabbed the spotlight – with the assistance of Utah’s Attorney General.  Ogden, in the meantime, receded into the shadows, became sick and eventually died.

            The Utah Peace Officers Association is a Utah law enforcement organization of which I was a member while a deputy sheriff.  Each year a law enforcement agency sponsors a convention.  I don’t recall the exact year, 2002 or 2003, that the Attorney General sponsored the UPO convention held in St. George, Utah.  I was invited to speak on Mormon polygamy.  Anne Wilde and Mary Batchelor were invited to speak from a defensive point of view.  Needless to say, two women defending a lifestyle that has the reputation of subordinating and oppressing women attracted a lot of attention.  From this inauspicious beginning and with the assistance of the Utah Attorney General, Principle Voices launched their decriminalization movement.

            The Utah Attorney General, Mark Shurtleff, published the Primer with the apparent goal of “breaking down barriers and building bridges” between Mormon polygamy, Utah government and society in general.  The Attorney General then organized a Safety Net program which purports to help Mormon polygamists who need help in leaving polygamy; however, while ostensibly purporting to curb crime and abuse among polygamists, from an anti polygamy point of view, it has become a Mormon polygamy apologetic organization.

            I attended two of the Safety Net meetings shortly after its inception and couldn’t help observe that it was mostly attended by practicing polygamists or pro polygamy activists like Principle Voices.  In fact, Principle Voices has been influential in organizing both the Primer and Safety Net.  From my observation the Safety Net does more to tolerate Mormon polygamy and help polygamists in need to adjust to their fate than discourage the practice or take steps to curb abuse and corruption.  Whenever I made a remark in the meetings, I couldn’t do so without raising the hackles on the back of the necks of some practicing polygamists.  Anything I said contrary to the polygamist’s world view was received with hostility.  The last meeting I attended was held at and sponsored by Centennial Park.  The people of Centennial Park are offshoots from the FLDS.  We were entertained by some of the organizations more talented youth who were portrayed as well adjusted, intelligent teenagers on the same level as monogamous kids.  However, I quit going to these meetings because it was clear to me that the Safety Net was not going to address priesthood tyranny or the crime and corruption that is endemic to the subculture.

            Whenever someone goes public and receives public attention as a polygamy pundit, either for or against, they subject themselves to scrutiny.  In other words they become fair game for the opposition.  Therefore to set the record straight as to my own involvement in Mormon polygamy, which is a matter of public record – I make the following addendum.

               When I attended the meetings conducted by Zolman and Anne Wilde I had two wives.  I took the position that the Kody Brown family and the Darger family apparently takes, that we did not present a threat to anyone, we were self sufficient, there was no abuse and each member of the family had their free agency.  Furthermore, we paid our taxes, sent our sons to war when our Country called, and minded our own business.  Why then, shouldn’t government get out of our lives.  However, I was only then getting entrenched in the Hill vs. Allred, LaMoine Jenson, AUB, et. al. law suit and had not started the investigation into the TLC and how Jim Harmston exploited Kaziah May Hancock and Cindy Stewart.  When one of my wives left me because I was investigating Owen Allred, making me a monogamist, I became an adviser to Tapestry Against Polygamy.   It was then that I really found out how widespread abuse, crime and corruption were in the Mormon fundamentalist subculture.  And that caused me to take an introspective look at the lifestyle and my own motivation.  And what I was forced to face is that there is something innate about the Mormon fundamentalist lifestyle that gives rise to crime, corruption and abuse of women and children?  I shed myself of a pro polygamy bias and plunged into an objective, comprehensive examination of the subculture which included the doctrines, history and practices of the contemporary polygamist groups.  I could not ignore my findings.  The bad far outweighed the good.  I kept coming back to the same conclusion, the lifestyle was intrinsically corrupt and attracted corrupt people, or tended to turn otherwise civil people into corrupt people and the impetus was hardwired into the religious rhetoric – the doctrines. 

            My  involvement in Mormon fundamentalism was wrong, although good things did happen – primarily some wonderful children.  In reflecting back I understand why I became involved.  But my involvement together with my investigative background has given me a perspective that could not have been formed otherwise and I have done what I can to share that perspective with government, law enforcement, educators and the public in general.

            With the above preface in mind, I would now like to respond to Principle Voices reasons why polygamy should be decriminalized as found on their website:

“Reasons for Decriminalizing Polygamy Among Consenting Adults”

1. Remove the stigma of criminality barrier so that polygamists would feel safe when seeking services they legally qualify to receive.

            Services – what services?  Does that mean welfare, food stamps, government grants, etc.  Since when have polygamists been deprived of these services?  It seems they are doing rather well in that regard.  I understand a welfare office opened up at Hildale just to accommodate the polygamists – the need for services was so great.  I would appreciate hearing about one instance where a polygamist was refused a government service in Utah or Arizona expressly because he or she was a polygamist.  Furthermore, their actions do not reflect an unsafe image, but an image of entitlement.  As Jim Harmston once instructed his congregation, paraphrased, “apply for every government welfare program available.  Government owes us because of the way we were treated in Jackson County and Nauvoo.”

1. Enable law enforcement to focus on those more serious crimes generally occurring in all cultural and demographic groups.

            Rape and child molestation are among the most serious crimes law enforcement investigates.  Statement (2) implies law enforcement is mobilized and devoting many precious hours towards investigating Mormon polygamists just because they are polygamists.  If so, that is not true.  Polygamy per se is probably at the bottom of the list of priorities in most law enforcement agencies unless like in Texas, it is discovered that child rape is a religiously condoned practice.

1. Define the lifestyle of polygamy to be no more criminal than adultery, fornication and homosexuality (all Constitutionally protected since the 2003 LAWRENCE  decision).

            I am amused by this statement – making polygamy analogous to adultery, fornication and homosexuality – immoral behavior that Christianity has always found repugnant and sinful.  But then the analogy is accurate.  However, in reading Lawrence vs. Texas, I do not find the subjects of polygamy or adultery specifically addressed.  Nor are they mentioned in the First Amendment.  And I think it insulting to suggest that our Founding Fathers intended for the Constitution to protect polygamy, adultery, fornication and homosexuality, that is to say immorality.  Why, even agonistics and atheists find adultery, fornication and homosexuality disgusting.  The atheists I am acquainted with are much more virtuous than statement number 3 suggests.

            In one conversation with Anne Wilde shortly after Principle Voices got underway, I suggested they might use the same argument of the homosexuals.  She excoriated me by saying they, meaning virtuous, upstanding Mormon polygamists, wanted nothing to do with those terrible people.  

            I assume that Principle Voices now takes the position that same-sex marriages should be protected if it would help in changing public opinion towards polygamy.  If this is the case it is an about face because I recall when the overall Mormon fundamentalist mindset was totally opposed to the practice of homosexuality and considered it along with fornication and adultery a grievous sin.  That is where priesthood authority comes in.  Priesthood authority annals the sins of fornication and adultery.  You can do it all you want with priesthood approval. All you need to do is pay your tithing or make a meaningful donation and they will perform a ceremony authorizing sex with multiple women of any age and race, except the Negroid Race.     

            From a rational perspective, to compare Mormon polygamy with adultery is more accurate than a mere “figure of speech.”  Section 132 “mandates” that Mormon men take as many plural wives as they can dominate and handle, and have sex with them, with or without the legal wife’s consent. In that regard Warren Jeffs did not sin when he took little girls as wives.  He was merely obeying Section 132 which does not state how old a plural wife must be.  Therefore it is hypocritical for Principle Voices to come out publically and condemn Warren Jeffs for marrying underage girls.  For example, Anne Wilde was well aware of marriages between older men and pubescent girls long before Warren Jeffs made the FBI Most Wanted List.  The infamous Tom Green had four underage wives.  I was introduced to Tom Green by Anne Wilde in Anne’s home.

1. Make Utah’s definitions of bigamy more like those used in most of the States.

            Why?  Because the bigamy statutes in other states are less stringent?  Polygamists, more correctly Mormon polygamists, inhabit Utah more than any other state.  Other states have not had to deal with crimes committed by polygamists as Utah has in the past.  But statement (4) in and of itself is misleading and I suspect was designed that way.  It implies that polygamists in Utah are treated more harshly than in other states.  Nothing could be further from the truth thanks to our current Attorney General.  Polygamists in Utah are treated fairly, even preferentially by the Safety Net.  Polygamists are more secure and receive much more sympathy in Utah than say, Texas.  As long as they don’t mess with little girls they seem to be able to do as they damn well please.  For all intents and purposes, due to the Attorney General’s policy of not prosecuting a religious tenet, in spite of the statute and provision in the Utah State Constitution that forever prohibits the practice polygamy, in essence the practice has been decriminalized in Utah.  So who are Principle Voices attempting to fertilize?

1. Establish the fact that informed, consenting adults living in polygamy are NOT felons and should not be considered to be felons.

                The only people I know that are referring to practicing polygamists in Utah as felons are Principle Voices.  I suspect that statement (5) is designed to make Mormon polygamists appear to be victims.  Portraying themselves as victims is a ploy that goes back to the Jackson County and Nauvoo years.  Wherever Mormons went back then they were victims, according to them.  Persecution then became a unifying agent.  For example, when LaMoine Jenson and Owen Allred were accused of theft in the Hill vs. Allred, et. al. law suit, they attempted to twist the facts to make it appear that they were the victims.  And that is how they have portrayed themselves before the AUB members, thereby inducing the members to come up with 6.5 million dollars to satisfy a civil judgment and keep AUB and Jenson Lumber property from being auctioned off.   

1. Eliminate polygamists’ risk of losing their employment and/or homes because of their lifestyle or creed.

                Once again we have Principle Voices stooping to hyperbole.  The only polygamist I’m aware of that lost his job because of his lifestyle is Roy Potter, a former Murray City Policeman.  And in reviewing the matter I don’t know what else Murray City could have done.  Like it or not, fair or unfair, polygamy is against the law.   After I retired from law enforcement I went into the wholesale floral business.  I hired some polygamists to help them out financially.  But whenever there was a conflict between their religious social activities and their employment, they expected employment to yield.  Sometimes they would take time off without notification.  In other words they were not dependable employees because priesthood and religion always took precedence.  The same superior attitude is applied to the laws of the land.  If there is a conflict between “God’s law” and the law of the land Mormon polygamists are programmed to choose “God’s law,” as articulated by their surrogate god, Joseph Smith.

1. Allow polygamous families to be more open about their lifestyle within society and when dealing with the government.

                More exaggerated insinuations.  No one is stopping their openness.  Some polygamists in Salt Lake County still wear the telltale garb indigenous to the FLDS - long dresses and Nineteen Century hair styles.  They shop and bank alongside monogamists and no one bothers them.  They are accepted on the same level as all other Utah citizens no matter where they go.  Take the A.G.’s Safety Net, they are welcomed with outstretched arms.  Furthermore, how open can you get?  The FLDS leaders and people in Colorado City and Hildale have received every benefit from government and society, like government grants, school money, etc. that is available. 

1. Help eliminate the constant fear of arrest for otherwise law-abiding polygamists.

                Polygamists who don’t steal, rape and molest little girls are probably more safe in Utah under the current government than any other place in the United States.  If there are Mormon polygamists who fear arrest it is because of paranoia – and a guilty conscious. Paranoia is common among polygamists.  It’s not because of the law, they have nothing to fear from the law.  It is a subliminal feeling that morally they are doing wrong.  Section 132 is designed to override the moral guilt imposed by the sin of adultery and fornication.  (Polygamy cannot be adulterous or sinful if that is what God wants you to do.)   

                Just as Section 132 is designed to unlock moral inhibitions, so will decriminalization – it’s human nature.  Statement (8) is a prelude to decriminalization.  The argument for decriminalization alleges that it will result in less crime and abuse among Mormon polygamists – that when abuse occurs victims will be more apt to come forward.  This is fallacious thinking.  Where there are fewer restraints there will be more acting out.  Furthermore, priesthood is superior to the law of the land.  Decriminalization will give Mormon priesthood more autonomy and control over their true believers.  For example, three high priest apostles in AUB were ostracized by priesthood courts for allegedly molesting their daughters.  Action was not taken until the offenses became so well known that they had to take action or action was used as an excuse to get rid of an undesirable or belligerent member.  In all three cases, according to the rumor mill in AUB, it wasn’t until after several complaints from mothers that the priesthood finally took action.  One of the three went to prison after one of his victims told a public school councilor.  According to reliable sources the AUB prophet had attempted to rein in the child molest acts of that particular miscreant high priests without success.  Had it not been for one of his victims confiding in a school councilor, it is doubtful that a serious child molester would ever have been prosecuted.

1. Reduce polygamists’ reluctance to report real crimes and to cooperate with relevant agencies who can provide help for victims.

                As already touched on, statement (9) suggests that decriminalization will induce victims of abuse to come forward.  The real current reluctance to come forward involves a lack of confidence in law enforcement – thanks to the Utah Attorney General.  A classic example is how Rachael Strong was treated by the San Pete County Attorney and Utah Attorney General.  She appealed to them for justice and was given the cold shoulder.  You can read all about it in Polygamy’s Rape of Rachael Strong, published by Agrega Books.

                Furthermore, Mormon polygamy is a highly authoritative religion.  The true believers are programmed to trust and seek council from their prophet and priesthood leaders, especially over law enforcement and government officials.  Decriminalization will do nothing to change that attitude which has been drummed into the psychic of fundamentalists. 

                Reread statement (9).  The context, the way it is written, is an admission that there is a serious corruption problem in the Mormon polygamist subculture. 

1. Enable social service agencies and others to address polygamous families more fairly and set aside stereotypes.  This would also remove any requirement to report them to DCFS or other law enforcement simply because of their lifestyle. 

                The Attorney General’s Safety Net seems to have already accommodated statement (10).  The implication here is that the polygamists want special treatment.  They want to control marriages as directed by Section 132 and administer the marriages in their own way – a system analogous to Sharia Law –like the Muslims they want Mormon plural marriages ruled over by their own laws, and they want government and mainstream society to accept and respect those laws  which are found in Section 132 of the Doctrine & Covenants – an inherently coercive doctrine – for it threatens to damn those who will not accept the law, and destroy monogamous wives who will not cooperate with their husband’s quest to obtain plural wives.  (See verses 4, 6, 54, 64 and 65.)

CONCLUSION

                I am rather disappointed in the clichéd nature of the ten statements.  The argument for decriminalization offers nothing new and I suspect that more than being coincidental, it is very similar to the arguments used by homosexuals.   Anne and Mary are both intelligent, creative gals and I expected more.  Statement number (3) I predict will come back to haunt them.  It is a sign of desperation.  Rather than have the courts accept plural marriage as a “sacred religious tenet,” they are hoping to sneak it’s acceptance in under the umbrella of privacy. 

                Lawrence vs. Texas is the instrument and ruling that Kody Brown hopes will give the Federal Courts no choice but to strike down Utah’s bigamy statute.  But are there no limits to how much protection privacy affords?   The Supreme Court apparently held that privacy was more important than two homosexuals buggering each other.  So where does privacy draw the line?  Privacy to do what? 

                Under the Lawrence ruling, I presume that in the privacy of a motel (which should apply to Kody Brown) a man may have sex with consenting women other than his lawful wife.   It should not matter if the woman is a plural wife, prostitute, mistress or whatever.  However, it may be against the law if there is consideration involved such as prostitution.  The prostitute gives sex in exchange for money.  The plural wife gives sex in exchange for a celestial exaltation.  Which is the most virtuous?  The plural wife gives sex because it is her religious duty.  Does that make her more virtuous than a prostitute?  Jim Harmston, prophet and leader of the True & Living Church had a special house for his three youngest wives.  They were expected to support themselves.  In the basement was a special room where each Saturday night Jim had sex with one of his young wives.  He made them take birth control pills.  He had sex explicitly for pleasure and completely ignored the Mormon claim that sex is only for raising up a righteous seed. 

                From a liberal point of view it is out of fashion to prosecute sodomy cases.   Therefore it should be perfectly respectful to have sex with a sheep or goat in the privacy of one’s bedroom.  Does Lawrence only pertain to matters of sex, or could other despicable events be protected under the privacy argument?  One other thing comes to mind.  It seems that Mormon polygamists want to hold hands with adulterers, fornicators and homosexuals and receive the same legal protection.  Okay, but doesn’t coalescing with moral miscreants remove the sacredness from plural marriage?  If Lawrence results in decriminalizing polygamy it will reduce the plural wife to the same level as a mistress at best and even more likely a “temple” prostitute – for she gives sex in exchange for an alleged celestial exaltation.  Furthermore it is well known that love and respect are not criteria for plural marriages.  Young girls are married off and the sealing is consummated within minutes after meeting their husbands.  Women in the FLDS, TLC and AUB are able to jump from man to man, or family to family with priesthood blessings.  It is ritualized, priesthood sexual hedonism. 

                There is a new book out, Love Times Three, Our True Story of a Polygamist Marriage, authored by the Joe Darger family.  I don’t know about you but my tolerance for reading heart-warming, propaganda books about Mormon polygamy has reached the saturation point.

                I received an email that alleged that Brooke Adams, a former Salt Lake Tribune reporter was the author, but in checking with Amazon.com, I did not see Brooke’s name mentioned as an author.  Nevertheless, Brooke specialized in writing Mormon polygamy articles and in doing so won the respect and trust of the polygamist subculture.  If Brooke had anything to do with writing, publishing or promoting Love Times Three then I suspect its objective is Mormon polygamist apology.

                The Darger name is well known in the Mormon polygamist subculture.  I suspect Joe’s family are Independents, that is they don’t belong to an organized group.  And I’m sure they think they are the quintessential polygamist example of innocuous plural marriage.   According to another email I received the Darger family thinks they were the inspiration behind the television series, Big Love.  Whether they were or not they do not epitomize the Mormon polygamist subculture.  In order to see what the Mormon polygamist subculture is really like you must look inside the FLDS, AUB, TLC and Kingston Group at midlevel and below.  In each polygamist group there is a well defined, priesthood pecking order.  That is where you will see what Mormon polygamy is really like – you will not see flamboyant, affluent (by polygamist standards), celebrity seeking narcissists.  You will see struggling polygamists attempting to make a living, feed and clothe their children, dealing with jealousy and envy and trying to overlook the elitism of their polygamist leaders and their families.  The portrayal of polygamists like that displayed in Big Love is specious propaganda that tends to anesthetize society against the abuses that are endemic to the subculture. 

                There is much more I could say but have probably said enough.  The decriminalization movement has taken the spotlight.  Hollywood types and the liberal media are making big bucks by sensationalizing the aberrant, emotional notion of one man romancing several women, and the woman approving and enjoying it.  In my opinion there is as much fiction, maybe more, in Big Love and the Kody Brown Reality show as there is reality.   There needs to be balance if the true nature of Mormon polygamy is to be told.  Let me put it this way.  As it concerns the Mormon fundamentalist subculture, I submit that there is more truth and reality in the Warren Jeffs conviction and the FLDS aberrant, polygamist culture than in Big Love, Kody Brown Reality and Love Times Three combined.

……..

                The true test of polygamy is … can it flourish and prosper without religious inducement.  Can a normal, well-adjusted monogamist wife share her husband with other, younger more attractive plural wives?  Can she share assets, meaning going without?  Can she cheerfully carry on while stifling envy, anger and jealousy knowing that her husband is spending time and having sex with other women?    Can she do all this and more which is contrary to ordinary behavior without the chloroform of religion?

                Religious polygamy is an innovation of Joseph Smith.  A historical analysis of polygamy reveals that women consent to plural marriage out of security and economy - or when compelled to become sex-slaves in harems ruled over by men like Genghis Khan.  Muslim plural wives are gifts of Mohammad, limited to four, and has little to do with exaltation.   Consequently, Muslim women are oppressed servants, mothers and sex objects.   In the Mormon version of polygamy it is all of the above except Joseph Smith placed no limit on how many wives the true believer may have, or how old they must be.  Nor did Joseph specify how plural wives are to be obtained or that the husband had to support them.  At least Mohammad stipulated that each wife must be treated equally.  Joseph placed no such financial or ethical burdens on Mormon polygamist husbands.

                In rereading the above paragraph I may have errored as it regards a Muslim’s exaltation.  Apparently there awaits in the Muslim terrorist’s celestial heaven 72 virgins – which makes about as much sense as the Mormon’s celestial heaven.   On Earth the Muslim can only have 4 wives but in heaven he can have 72, providing he kills some infidels.  …  And some people wonder why I became an agnostic.

**************

                But, has this essay been convincing enough for a court to uphold Utah’s bigamy statute when challenged by the Lawrence ruling involving privacy.  Under Reynolds vs. United State, the paramount question was … does government have the right to control marriages?  And I would think that question should come into play in the Kody matter more than the moral aspect because it is the right to marry more than one woman at a time that is the goal of Kody Brown, not just to have private sex as in Lawrence.    

                The traditional marriage in the United States has been between one man and one woman.  Reams of law have been written around that relationship dealing with the responsibility of the husband and wife, father and mother – especially concerning divorce and child custody.  Think of the legal nightmare over a marriage involving one man and three to fifty wives.  Equality under the law dictates that in the event of polygamist marriages each wife should have equal protection, equal rights and equal consideration.  Kody might claim that he is treating each wife equally but in the Mormon subculture very, very few plural wives are treated equally. 

                I suggested to Anne Wilde that while fighting to decriminalize polygamy they should go a step further and see that each plural wife has equal protection under the law, the same as the legal wife.  She said no – they want government completely out of marriage.  And I believe her sentiments are shared throughout the subculture.  Imagine the chaos that would cause.  Right now government is subsidizing plural families via food stamps and other entitlement programs.  So why is there such a need for government assistance?  It is because testosterone induced competition for plural wives have caused men to take more wives, and sire many more children than they can adequately support or nurture.   

                We have laws against erratic and irresponsible driving, therefore, government should be duty bound to regulate mercurial and irresponsible marriages as well, especially for the sake of children.  There are laws against contributing to the delinquency of children, and other laws protecting children.  However, I find it interesting that no parent has been found punitively responsible for the irresponsible and egregious dumping of pubescent “lost boys” on the streets of St. George.

                Society has an invested interest in our children and is duty bound to protect them so that they grow up to be mature creative, productive citizens.  Mormon polygamy is more apt to produce dysfunctional children than educated, sophisticated, creative and productive adults.  In all fairness, there have been some very talented and intelligence children come out of Mormon polygamy.  In most cases it has been in spite of the dysfunctional lifestyle or it has been the children of the elite, the blue bloods that have received priesthood blessings and support.  The majority of kids, as in AUB, get out when they are old enough to strike out on their own.  Those secondary kids that stay in AUB become fodder for priesthood approved machinations. 

                Simply put, the court needn’t concern itself with the religious aspect (Section 132), which it would be prohibited to do anyway.  And it needn’t be concerned with the moral aspect.  Who cares if two gay guys bugger each other as long as they are out of sight?  Who cares if Kody has sex with women other than his legal wife as long as they consent?  Our liberal society has made infidelity, homosexuality and promiscuity fashionable.  And now it seems the liberal media is attempting to make polygamy fashionable.  The real question is marriage.  If polygamy is decriminalized, meaning it would no longer be against the law to marry from one to one hundred wives at the same time, what impact would it have on society?  Would society become more civil?  And what affect would it have on the nature and nurturing of children?  Would nihilistic marriage reduce or increase the social burdens on government?  You don’t have to be a lawyer, social worker or politician to know the answers.  Just take a good look inside the FLDS, AUB, TLC or Kingston polygamist group.