Philosophy 325
Dr. Sher
05/1/2018
Polygamy
th
In the 19 century, bigamy was made a federal offense, in order to target the Mormon
social practice of plural marriage. Not only was it made illegal, but people that practiced
polygamy, lost many rights like the ability to vote, to serve in public office, and forcing women
to testify against their own husbands. Many people argue that this marriage bar was similar to
the ban of same-sex marriage in that its core foundation lied in Christian fundamentals that
were supposedly not in favor of plural marriage. However, as Cheshire Calhoun points out,
polygamy has a history in the Judeo-Christian tradition, just as same-sex marriage does
(Calhoun – The Meaning of Marriage). While appealing to tradition may not be a valid argument
for or against polygamy, it is important to recognize the faults in the most often used
justifications of why marriage should only be between one man and one woman.
For a country that supposedly prides itself on freedom and small government, the
amount of laws limiting minorities that want to carry out non-mainstream practices is quite
suffocating. The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints is commonly known for its sects
that still practice plural marriage. With their largest settlement in Utah, the rest of the country
is left with an outsider’s perspective that unfortunately does not usually offer leniency in their
opinions of the matter. Many say that polygamy oppresses women, but I would argue that
much of marriage oppresses women. Marriage is a decision that one must make on their own,
and if they choose to enter an oppressive marriage, while it is unfortunate, they should still
have this choice.
While things can certainly go wrong in a polygamous relationship, as they could in all
types of relationships, there is nothing inherently bad about plural marriage. If a woman
decides she wants to enter a family that already has a husband and multiple wives, that should
be her prerogative.
Even though I personally don’t believe marriage is a suitable means for companionship, I
recognize that others do and that they would also like to receive the same benefits that
heterosexual monogamists have. There are very few things that the government should be
involved in and marriage should not be one of them. Polygamy does not directly affect any
outsiders, just like interracial marriages and homosexual marriages. The two latter examples
have come to be deemed legal over time, and I’m sure many would agree that these two bars
were wrong and unfair. With that being said, plural marriage should bear the same result,
seeing as though restricting the marriage desires of individuals is far too controlling in a country
that claims to provide its citizens with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Dr. Sher
05/1/2018
Polygamy
th
In the 19 century, bigamy was made a federal offense, in order to target the Mormon
social practice of plural marriage. Not only was it made illegal, but people that practiced
polygamy, lost many rights like the ability to vote, to serve in public office, and forcing women
to testify against their own husbands. Many people argue that this marriage bar was similar to
the ban of same-sex marriage in that its core foundation lied in Christian fundamentals that
were supposedly not in favor of plural marriage. However, as Cheshire Calhoun points out,
polygamy has a history in the Judeo-Christian tradition, just as same-sex marriage does
(Calhoun – The Meaning of Marriage). While appealing to tradition may not be a valid argument
for or against polygamy, it is important to recognize the faults in the most often used
justifications of why marriage should only be between one man and one woman.
For a country that supposedly prides itself on freedom and small government, the
amount of laws limiting minorities that want to carry out non-mainstream practices is quite
suffocating. The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints is commonly known for its sects
that still practice plural marriage. With their largest settlement in Utah, the rest of the country
is left with an outsider’s perspective that unfortunately does not usually offer leniency in their
opinions of the matter. Many say that polygamy oppresses women, but I would argue that
much of marriage oppresses women. Marriage is a decision that one must make on their own,
and if they choose to enter an oppressive marriage, while it is unfortunate, they should still
have this choice.
While things can certainly go wrong in a polygamous relationship, as they could in all
types of relationships, there is nothing inherently bad about plural marriage. If a woman
decides she wants to enter a family that already has a husband and multiple wives, that should
be her prerogative.
Even though I personally don’t believe marriage is a suitable means for companionship, I
recognize that others do and that they would also like to receive the same benefits that
heterosexual monogamists have. There are very few things that the government should be
involved in and marriage should not be one of them. Polygamy does not directly affect any
outsiders, just like interracial marriages and homosexual marriages. The two latter examples
have come to be deemed legal over time, and I’m sure many would agree that these two bars
were wrong and unfair. With that being said, plural marriage should bear the same result,
seeing as though restricting the marriage desires of individuals is far too controlling in a country
that claims to provide its citizens with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
