Monogamy has been codified into the law of the land due to a nineteenth century religious bias inherited from a state religion tradition in government dating to the Romans where there was only one church. If there had been true separation of church and state in this country, the government would have been religion neutral and freedom would have trumped any alleged harm regarding polygamy—But, as black slaves had to fight for their freedom to overturn “Dred Scott” and eventually gain civil rights equality (in this America where all men are purportedly created equal), polygamists have had to fight as well for the reversal of “Reynolds” and continue to endure oppressive bias regarding a religiously mandated monogamy. This begs the question, “In a free state, why should the religious tradition (monogamy) of the majority be imposed on an unpopular religious minority?”
It is only recently (twentieth century) that women have had any kind of parity with men and monogamy has predominated as the marriage standard for about fifteen hundred years or so—So in actuality, women in general are only now in modern times achieving a hard fought for equality. Monogamy only served to keep them unequal with men for centuries past…
Women, who wish to live as sister wives, deserve the right to participate in the legal circle of marriage, and to share in the panoply of rights that monogamous women have finally achieved. Why should these rights be the exclusive benefit of monogamous women only, discriminating against those women who wish to associate as sister wives? Remember the old cliché, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander?” No woman should be left out of the equality equation! This logical line of thinking has been used in the gay rights battle for a long time now and is winning bit by bit. It has already won in Canada where all the animals are equal except for polygamists.
In the referenced article, Craig Jones makes a false and unsupported statement when he asserts, “…all forms of polygamy contribute to the discrimination of women and the sexualization of young girls.”
The Canadian Reference Case has developed no trial record whatever wherein the polyamorist polygamists have exhibited any abuse record. Yet S. 293 proscribes all forms of polygamy. Craig Jones wants to ignore the amply liberated polyamorists and indulge in the selective prosecution of polygyny only. Selective prosecution is a twin brother to special prosecutor shopping for which polygamy charges were thrown out in the first place.
The tactic of using claims of alleged harm to restrict individual freedom is a dangerous road to travel and has proven to be faulty in regard to the gay marriage issue. Little evidence has surfaced supporting harm from legalizing gay marriage in Canada and certainly not enough to restrict consenting adult choice. After all, abuse is not unique to any religion or marriage arrangement and is the product of individuals and not institutions.
~Submitted by HJD
Merrywives' Blog 
Thanks for the link to my blog and your insightful commentary.
It is nice to see people supportive of the idea that equality and freedom extend to all people.
Trefor
It’s about time for the antiquated laws to be off the books. In this day and age of various types of relationships to be so prejudiced toward a group of people because we do not approve of it is just asinine. The media LOVES to use the term POLYGAMY because it is sensationalism and it sells!! Lets hope Canada sees the light and FREES these people from being classed second class citizens!!
It seems to me that any time rational thought is used, it is usually combatted with emotionalism like statments on abuse and inequality. Why can’t women have a say in the family style they appreciate and love? Has anyone wondered why women in this “enlightened” day and age would actually choose this family structure? Think about the security and support this might give. But the reasons are many, and love for children is right up there at the top of my list. Thanks for some good rational thought.
As a woman who believes in the principle of plural marriage, I find your thoughts right in line with my thinking.
Government has no right to interfere in the marriages of its citizens. There are already laws in place to deal with any abuses that may occur in monogamy, polygamy, same-sex marriage, or any other family arrangement. There are laws prohibiting underage marriage as well. There is no reason for laws that target a specific minority.
Well said, HJD, and thank you for your courage to stand up for the rights of others.
you compare polygamous to gay marriage and I cannot help shake my head in disagreement. Gay marriages or relationship is based on choices. The individuals in that kind of relationship choose to be in it, becasue they either prefer it or “born wiith it.” The children subjected to polygamous teaching lack that choice. They are mode from early age to be a certain kind of people and not the other; They were told that if they choose to leave, they will not inherit the kingdom of God; They were told that God will not love them anyone if they disobey. Now tell me missy, what kind of live or “normal live” is there for these children in a polygamous society? Gay marriages or relationship is different; so, if you must make a comparacing, do so accurately with every factors consider.
Everyone deserves equal rights and discrimination must be stopped. Imagine a world with freedom to the max. Abuse is something that I could never understand. How could people do it? I don’t know why they do but I think that it should be severely punished.
To say that all polygamist wives have been forced into the situation is absurd. Children in almost every religion are brought up to believe that if they go against their parents’ beliefs they will be rejected by God, but that doesn’t stop most children from eventually choosing their own path anyway. Even children in fundamentalist Mormon communities can leave and join the mainstream Mormon society which does not force polygamy (or even condone it anymore). Forcing children to marry is obviously wrong; forcing anyone to marry is wrong. But when people (women included) enter into a lifestyle by choice, that does not make it abuse. And continuing to outlaw a lifestyle because some religious fanatics have used it in abusive ways is also ridiculous. There are many, many people who for non-religious reasons would love to participate in group marriages. They are not being forced into it nor are they using it to abuse children. There are many strong and legitimate reasons for allowing these kinds of marriages, and society needs to learn to distinguish between child abuse and voluntary, healthy polyamory.
““…all forms of polygamy contribute to the discrimination of women and the sexualization of young girls.” Would MY form of polygamy do that? My husband married at 25 to a college educated woman of 25, in the ME. She is a doctor. He is now 35. He married me too. I am not 15. I am 45. How does my polygamy do any of the things that Mr. Jones stated in the opening of my post? I got a younger man, who is married to a beautiful, educated, accomplished and professional woman. And an older one, divorced, mother of several (not even an old virgin, sorry). How does this fit in their stereotypes? It doesn’t, so my situation will never be highlighted in the sensational info that we find on the subject of polygamy.
Can I ask a question here. It is a fact that on earth there are more men than women. So what if everyone wanted to get married, in theory. What would happen to the single ones. Would polygamy be the final resort?
sorry more women than men. make the correction in my question before
In theory, polygamy would be the final resort. Already, a good portion of men are gay or otherwise unsuitable as husband material. Many men who have a wife already are not husband material, others have no desire to marry at all. In a world that says anything goes, I have yet to see why the natural solution is so taboo. It doesn’t require abuse, minor children or anything evil. Just sharing the ones that are worth having in the first place.