DiscussMormonism.com

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 30, 2020 11:08 pm

Well, I am not a proponent of polygamy, but in general I think consenting adults should be able to marry as they please. So, no, I don’t think the government should have infringed on the religious freedom of Mormon polygamists.

I think this is an important point. Mormon polygamists routinely had underage girls married off to grandpa. I don't think these girls consented.

Government has a legitimate interest in limiting marriage to between two people. Marriage is a pre-defined contract (perhaps altered by pre- and post-nuptial agreements). Divorce and the process of separating joint property and whether there ought to be alimony paid by whom to whom, and in what amount and for how long, are decisions that burden the courts' resources. Complicating that by allowing 3 or more to marry, where the complications could grow exponentially with the addition of each person beyond 2 in the marriage, would further tax the public resources. Child custody and visitation could get extra complicated as well. The divorce court system has generated, through trial and error, sets of rules for such, that barely work for when there are just two legal parents, not 3, 4 or however many. Then there is also the issue of who are the consenting adults? If it is a wagon wheel polygamy (e.g., the man is the hub, each spouse a separate spoke and no relationship between the spokes), is the consent of prior spouse(s) required? Joseph Smith did not bother to get Emma's consent (cf. D&C 132). Should her consent be necessary, or just Joseph Smith's and his new "wife"? In three way marriages, it is easier to sort out that all three's consents are necessary. How far should "adaptations" be permitted (ob. Mr. Bradley)? Allowing legal marriages between two people is nightmarish enough in trying to unwind in divorce, but that would be nothing compared to the implications if 3 or more are allowed to get married.

Holy Ghost wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 02, 2020 7:16 pm

Government has a legitimate interest in limiting marriage to between two people. Marriage is a pre-defined contract (perhaps altered by pre- and post-nuptial agreements). Divorce and the process of separating joint property and whether there ought to be alimony paid by whom to whom, and in what amount and for how long, are decisions that burden the courts' resources. Complicating that by allowing 3 or more to marry, where the complications could grow exponentially with the addition of each person beyond 2 in the marriage, would further tax the public resources. Child custody and visitation could get extra complicated as well. The divorce court system has generated, through trial and error, sets of rules for such, that barely work for when there are just two legal parents, not 3, 4 or however many. Then there is also the issue of who are the consenting adults? If it is a wagon wheel polygamy (e.g., the man is the hub, each spouse a separate spoke and no relationship between the spokes), is the consent of prior spouse(s) required? Joseph Smith did not bother to get Emma's consent (cf. D&C 132). Should her consent be necessary, or just Joseph Smith's and his new "wife"? In three way marriages, it is easier to sort out that all three's consents are necessary. How far should "adaptations" be permitted (ob. Mr. Bradley)? Allowing legal marriages between two people is nightmarish enough in trying to unwind in divorce, but that would be nothing compared to the implications if 3 or more are allowed to get married.

Yes, that's great. I am not a proponent of polygamy. If we want freedom of religion, then polygamy as a matter of religious belief should not be prosecuted. If we are fine with the state telling people what they can and can't do in their religion to this extent, then anti-bigamy laws should be upheld in these cases. I doubt there are a whole lot of people lining up to enter into these kinds of marriages, but I could be wrong.