Plural marriage is among consenting adults

Plural marriage is among consenting adults
Published Monday, June 9, 2008
http://www.albertleatribune.com/news/2008/jun/09/plural-marriage-among-c...

I read The Albert Lea Tribune column: “Will stimulus checks encourage polygamy?” by Al Batt, Tales from Exit 22.

I realize he was making a glib comment, but I really wish that a narrow channel of plural marriage would exist for adults. Hear me out. I don’t practice plural marriage, and I’m not connected with the fundamentalists way out in far west Texas. However, I had a great-grandfather who practiced plural marriage in the Midwest in the 1890s. His wives were adults, (repeat: adults) and they raised children who turned-out all right. This is in stark contrast to today’s society, which is marred by people claiming to be “monogamous” but carrying out serial marriages and divorces. There are many children born to parents out-of-wedlock and even abandoned children who grow-up on the streets.

For some odd reason, society admires people like Donald Trump, Mickey Rooney, and Rudy Guiliani, who have had at least three marriages (or more). Granted, some marriages won’t work and a dissolution is necessary. But a trend of several failed marriages indicates that the person in question is abusing the sanctity of holy matrimony as merely a license to bed hop. A lot of good women have been cast aside because the husband strays, finds a younger lover to be a trophy wife and does that serial-marriage-and-divorce routine to supposedly stay “legal.” It may be legal, but it isn’t morally right!

Instead of coping with a trail of discarded wives, confused kids and broken homes, I’d like to see the American people rethink the notion of legalized adult plural marriage. Repeat: for consenting adults. If all those in the relationship were consenting adults and no abuse, incest or coercion takes place, and if all the children are happy and healthy, I say: Let those people live quietly in peace. It was good enough in Old Testament days of the Holy Bible. And that scriptural precedent should be the legal foundation or precedent for revisions in America law today.

James A. Marples

Longview, Texas
Comments

Posted by kona (anonymous) on June 10, 2008 at 6:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This concept would not solve anything. I couldn't imagine any woman feeling completely loved by a man who had many wives. God made 1 man for 1 woman not 1 man for many women. It might sound like a great idea for the man, not the woman.

Posted by Montag (anonymous) on June 10, 2008 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Marples is right on! Polygamy itself is no more a solution than monogamy, but a covenant union between people who desire to live godly lives IS a solution. Doing that within the context of polygamy (or any other biblically prescibed arrangement of marriage) would go a long way toward aleviating the societal woes Mr. Marples describes. I keep hearing people talk about abuses of the welfare system by polygamists. The assumption seems to be that single women raising illegitimate children is something Americans SHOULD fund, while the children of committed wives (second or third wives though they may be) represent an abuse of the system just because their father is still around. As for the alleged biblical prohibition, there simply isn't any. Pork and shellfish eating is prohibitted, but polygamy isn't. Forbidding to marry is called the doctrine of devils, but polygamy isn't. Divorce is detestable to God, but polygamy isn't. Unjust weights and measures are counter to righteousness, but polygamy isn't. Rebellion against just authority is as the sin of witchcraft, but polygamy isn't. The truth is there is not one confirmed case of lifelong monogamy in all of the Bible. There were no doubt cases that existed, but none are confirmed. The list of polygamists, on the other hand, includes Abraham, Israel, David, Solomon, Hosea, as well as God Himself (Ezekiel 23). If you're opposed to polygamy, don't look to the Bible to support your cause. It won't.

As for it not being a positive situation for women, it certainly could be. The problem is that we have raised a generation of women in this country who think they own their husbands. And I certainly DON'T blame the women for that. I suspect many women would cheerfully be the second or third wife of a godly man . . . IF they once ever actually met one.

Posted by NormanRogers (anonymous) on June 11, 2008 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

>>>However, I had a great-grandfather who practiced plural marriage in the Midwest in the 1890s.

Mr. Maples, are you insane?

One does not freely admit that they are related to a polygamist in America, circa 2008. Does the name Mitt Romney ring any bells? The same Mitt Romney who could have been the Republican nominee for President, were it not for the fact that polygamy was in his heritage.

If your grandfather were a practicing polygamist in the American midwest in the 1890s, then US troops would have been directed to arrest him under what was called The Edmonds Act--

-- making polygamy a federal crime punishable by up to five years in prison and denying convicted polygamists the right to vote, to hold office and to serve on juries. The law increases federal pressure on Mormons to renounce their practice of plural marriage and sends many Mormon leaders into hiding.

And

--1887 Increasing pressure on the Mormons, Congress passes the Edmunds-Tucker Act, which disincorporates the Mormon church, confiscates its real estate and other properties, and abolishes women's suffrage in Utah. The law effectively destroys the political, economic and social system by which the leaders of the Mormon church have guided and governed their society, imposing federal authority in its place.

--1890 The U. S. Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of the 1887 Edmunds-Tucker Act, denying that its assault on Mormon institutions constitutes a violation of Mormon religious freedom. At the same time, Congress debates the even more punitive Cullom-Strubble Bill, designed to deny all Mormons the right to vote. In response, Wilford Woodruff, leader of the Mormon Church, issues the "Manifesto," a revelation urging all members of the church to comply with the laws of the land regarding marriage.

So your grandfather, knowing all of this history PRIOR to the 1890s, just went ahead and did whatever he wanted to, in violation of the law?

Why, if I were the constable, I would arrest you and put you on trial. How many wives do you have stashed around your homestead? Is there a homely girl living in your attic?

You are preposterous beyond belief.

Posted by Montag (anonymous) on June 11, 2008 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow. It is fascinating to me how worked up people get on this issue. In many states cohabition is also against the law, but when do you hear about anybody going to jail for that either? I find Mr. Rogers' ad hominem attacks very telling. Acknowledging you own heritage is "insane?" Theoretically allowing for and proposing a biblically prescibed solution to widespread societal problems is "insane?"

And then he practically threatens Mr. Marples with prosecution for merely BRINGING UP the topic. As I understand "preposterous" I would have to say Mr. Rogers is more that than is Mr. Marples . . . and exponentially so.

Posted by albertleacitizen1 (anonymous) on June 11, 2008 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I just got done reading "Shattered Dreams: My life as a polygamist's wife", a great memoir by Irene Spencer.

Posted by NormanRogers (anonymous) on June 12, 2008 at 6:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You are quite right--I favor a life of moderation, a life of living with one woman whom I love, a life living the word of God as modern Christians understand it--

"I'm the insane one!"

I forgot that the Internet was the playground of sickos and deviants.

Posted by Swordman (anonymous) on June 12, 2008 at 8:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The usual drone of socially engineered theologies, parroted as being the very word of God is a littany akin to the sound of whipping a dead horse. That's what comes to my mind when I read the usual misrepresentation about God creating one woman for Adam in the garden, thus the prime defense on the side of "monogamy-only" dogma.

If one were to make the effort to apply even a little critical thought to that argument, they just might realize that God gave Adam one wife for a very good reason, which He nowhere stated as being His supporting model for the idea of "monogamy-only" advocacy. The term monogenism clearly defines the reason behind Adam having been given one wife in the garden.

Professing Christians who poo-poo the idea of polygyny as allegedly being opposed to the will of God routinely make use of arguments that contradict the Bible they claim to believe as being the source of authority for our faith. Simply put, God created one wife for Adam in the garden, but He later gave king David several wives after David already had at least five in 2 Samuel 12:8.

There are many healthy, loving, godly, and polygynous families all across North America who are not a part of some cultic group that has isolated itself within a compound...where corrupt, dirty old men take young, under-aged little girls as their wives. Unfortunately, many point at those bad examples as a reason to hate polygyny.

Interestingly, these same people turn a blind eye in the direction of the multitudes of horrors played out on a daily basis within monogamy. The vast majority of the Patriarchs of our faith had plural wives, and yet many today declare polygyny the sin of fornication, adultery, and whatever else they can think of as a label for sin. Never mind that they have not one shred of biblical backing for such a sentiment.

Let's apply a little more critical thought to blind usages of socially engineered theologies. Rational thought seems to be a thing of the past. Far too many people fail to think through the logical conclusion of their blind beliefs that originated from within the socio-cultural construct that has been drilled into all of us throughout our upbringing. Do as Paul demanded when He said, "Prove all things..."

Posted by NormanRogers (anonymous) on June 12, 2008 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There are many healthy, loving, godly, and polygynous families all across North America who are not a part of some cultic group that has isolated itself within a compound...

Uh huh. Sure there are.

They're breaking the law, sir. THis is a nation of laws, not men. And I could also cite in the Bible where I am allowed to kill a man with the jawbone of an ass--but does that mean I get to do it?

You sick polygamists are an offense to decency and the American way. I will fight you and your evil to the end of my days, whether it is in the good town of Albert Lea or the rolling hills of West Virginia or even in Texas. I will never tolerate or surrender to your wish to live with three fat girls and a hectoring old hag to rule over the sister wives with an iron fist. I will never, ever let you rest. You and your evil must run, and hide, and look over your shoulders for ever more. I am holding a big, bright flashlight and I am exposing you for the deviant, sick and illegal animals you really are.

Good people, fear not. I am willing to fight the evils of polygamy! Won't you join me?

Posted by kona (anonymous) on June 12, 2008 at 10:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why do I feel that "Montag", "Swordman" and "Mr. Marples" are one in the same?

I am with Norman Rogers on this issue.

Posted by NormanRogers (anonymous) on June 12, 2008 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am with America on this issue. Were I of military age, I would join our armed forces and volunteer to round up polygamists. I would even bring my own horse, sir.

Posted by Montag (anonymous) on June 12, 2008 at 8:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Holy smokes!! Stormin' Norman's on a rampage. He seems to have a few fundamental problems though. The first is illustrated in his words,"I favor a life of moderation, a life of living with one woman whom I love, a life living the word of God as modern Christians understand it." His assumption is that "modern Christians" understand the Word of God. Another fundamental problem is his inability to differentiate between illegal and evil. It's illegal for a school nurse to give a sixteen year old an asprin; it's not evil. It's illegal to go 56 mph in a 55; it's not evil. The Creator reserves the right to define good and evil and He has done a right smart job of it in the Bible. History is replete with examples of "law breakers" who are now considered heroes. This Rogers fellow is apparently ignorant of the Boston Tea Party and the Underground Railroad. Both of these were founded upon the flagrant disregard of the laws of men and IMO both sanctioned by The Father. Thirdly, being "with America" on various issues is less and less an assurance of morality as the years tick by. And forthly, if one wishes to offend a student of Scripture with terms like "sicko" and "deviant," one ought to avoid placing the would-be victim of his vitriol in the same catagory as Abraham, David, Moses, Jacob and Yahweh. It waters down the effectiveness of the insult.

His words do certainly amuse though. Can you imagine some self-appointed, monogamaniacal kook crusader riding off like a hormonally imbalanced Don Quixote and running into the likes of King David? I wonder if the man about whom it is written, "David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite" would much fear our Mr. Rogers. BTW the man who "turned not aside from any thing that [Yahweh] commanded him all the days of his life" had about 2 dozen wives.

Apart from it being "illegal" (which BTW it practically isn't) what "evil" is polygamy? I know you already addressed this Swordsman. It's no evil at all.

As for Swordsman, Mr. Marples and I being on in the same, I think you are just noticing a Family resemblance. We have the same Father and Teacher even though we've never met. And it would seem that The Father has also blessed each of these three of His sons with noteworthy eloquence. Blessed be His holy Name.

My wife (my only one for now) thinks Rogers is posting as a parody of red-neck ignorance just to be funny. She may be right, but I know there are such folk out there. Maybe southern Minnesota has its own Borat. If so, the jokes on me.

Montag, out.

P.S. It's the Edmunds Act, not the "Edmonds" Act.

Posted by NormanRogers (anonymous) on June 12, 2008 at 9:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

>>>My wife (my only one for now) thinks Rogers is posting as a parody of red-neck ignorance just to be funny.

Oh, so you're too ugly to get that second wife you've been pining for.

In point of fact, I am a 65 year old retired investment banker with ties to the Albert Lea area. My second wife was from a town called Manchester, which lies on the outskirts of Albert Lea, and I find the area to be charming and friendly.

Second, I am Episcopalian, and my understanding of the word of God is probably vastly different from yours--I don't use scripture to justify illegal activity, philandering, eating large amounts of cake, using recreational drugs, being weird with the farm animals, and everything else you're in to.

Third, I am right with the law, and you are not. When the Federal marshals take you away, we'll pray for you. We're good people. I'll line up with anyone and everyone from a place like Albert Lea any day of the week because they are, fundamentally, Americans who do what you're supposed to do in this world.

You? Enjoy prison, sir. You'll have the opportunity to have plenty of "prison" husbands yourself when they take you away.

Posted by trapperkcmo (anonymous) on June 12, 2008 at 9:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

well, well, the true colors of the pseudo faithful are shown. what difference does it make what kind of sex another has? what did jesus(your professed example) do? he said to forgive 7x70. he stopped a capital punishment in its tracks. and he told the accused that he did not condemn her.

sounds like somebody risks getting cut off if they dont have a fit over this. aaahhhhh.

Posted by NormanRogers (anonymous) on June 12, 2008 at 11:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

>>>what difference does it make what kind of sex another has?

Good Lord, are you actually defending the right of the polygamists to bed down with their animals?

What on Earth happened to Albert Lea, Minnesota?

My apologies to the moderator of this site--you have your hands full with these sickos, sir! Make certain you get paid well for you work!

Posted by Montag (anonymous) on June 13, 2008 at 2:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OK Norm,

What is "sicko" about having two wives? That is two adult women who voluntarily elect to live committed 'til death do us part with the same man.

And help me out here, how do you get from polygamy to beastiality? I have thought at length about taking a second wife, but I never once made the leap to farm animals. I'm curious how you connect these two.

And as for my being ugly, I would always look for a woman who wanted more than good looks in a man. Rest assured, any woman who marries me will get a distractively good looking man, but she'll get a godly man too.

And another thing, are there people in Albert Lea who "shack up?" You know, live together without a license. Will they be my cellies when the US Marshalls come?

Now here's a delicate one and I sincerely mean no offense. You mentioned you have a second wife. Are you widowed or divorced? In all sincerity, if you are widowed, you have my deepest sympathies. Losing a beloved wife is a horrible thing and I'm sorry for your loss. But if you're divorced for any cause but adultery and subsequently remarried, NEWSFLASH you're a polygamist (biblically speaking, of course).

And BTW the law of the land does not supercede the Law of Yahweh . . . ever. If you can't open your mind, at least open your heart. If you can't open either one, your only hope is to open your Bible . . . with fear and trembling.

Posted by NormanRogers (anonymous) on June 13, 2008 at 6:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

>>>What is "sicko" about having two wives?

Say no more--you made my point for me, sir.