This blog post from “Progressive Proselytizing” caught our attention:
On the Morality of Polygamy Law: Freedom vs Harm
Should polygamy be legal? This question is at the core of the landmark polygamy case slowly working its way up the Canadian justice system. To answer this, we look at the balance between harm and freedom. The balance in this case is contrasted to the case of gay marriage.That restricting the ability to legally engage in polygamy is restricting freedom is obvious. That it is often a religious freedom doesn’t specifically matter to me – although as a practical matter this will be argued in court as explicitly religious freedom being infringed on – for I think that whatever the justification, if people have a desire to do something then restricting that desire is a restriction of freedom.
On the other hand, there is the potential that polygamy leads to harm. As Craig Jones, a lawyer for the BC government puts it, “all forms of polygamy contribute to the discrimination of women and the sexualization of young girls”. Now polygamy has been heavily stigmatized as well as poorly represented by the occasional – but much publicized – genuinely predatory people or in very different cultures and so it gets a perhaps poorer representation as harmful than is justified. However, for the purpose of discussion let us just accept at face value all of this alleged harm.
The result is we now have to balance these two sides. On the one side, we are restricting freedoms and on the other we are preventing harm. It should be noted that the burden of proof is firmly in the latter camp to establish harm. That polygamy is sufficiently rare in Canada that this case is just now coming up is not a sufficient reason to objectively restrict freedoms; indeed, we should attempt to never do this unless clearly justified. The harm must be clearly proven to exist otherwise we default to the position that freedom must be allowed.However, this still isn’t sufficient. One must further demonstrate that simply restricting the alleged predatory components is not sufficient to eliminating the harm. This is important because a lot of the harm gets conflated in this way. Is the problem consulting adults engaging in polygamy or sex with young girls, because the latter is illegal and polygamy laws don’t change that.
My view is that it should be legal. Polygamy has a very large cultural stigma that is impeding the legal freedom of people to marry how they choose. The alleged harm it does I think is both overstated and not at all obvious that restricting polygamy is fixing the specific problems we wish to address.
All of this has an interesting consideration with respect to gay marriage which has the same background of a cultural stigma and then an argument of freedom versus harm. With gay marriage however the alleged harm was very tenuous at best. People have argued things like that it breaks down the family unit, is bad for kids etc etc yet these statements have been proven wrong in study after study. Even if one falsely believes in a net harm, the freedom trumps the harm almost regardless; I don’t care how much harm gay couples might do it is still the right thing to do for them to have the right to marry. Even if the studies were wrong and one could demonstrate a small difference between, say, gay and straight parents as aggregates, the enormous diversity within either populations would utterly dominate this difference and allowing gay marriage is still unequivocally the right thing to do.
Returning to polygamy, we can learn something from the gay rights struggle. We can learn how this tactic of claiming harm to restrict freedom has been used before and proven false. We can learn how activities that are stigmatized as socially deviant get attacked on the basis of unjustified harm. We can deduce that thus is more than likely the case here as well and hence that we should support polygamy. I accept the framing of harm vs freedom for this is the framing by which we should consider all government impositions on freedom (such as locking up murderers, say) but what I don’t accept is that the balance in this case is on the ‘harm’ side.
A careful reading of the polygamy laws discloses that being in a plural marriage relationship is **NOT** illegal. What is illegal is **CLAIMING** (to others) to have entered into a second (or later) marriage while already married to someone.
This all zeroes in on the co-opting of words like “marriage”, “wife”, etc., that trigger provisions in bigamy laws. These words should be left to the idiots who zero in on them.
Why even bother speaking banned words? This is just looking for trouble, as there is no potential gain in it. All that is needed is to use even better words that have NOT been co-opted in the law. “Here is my 1st perpetual life partner, and here is my 2nd perpetual life partner,” etc.
Turn the tables. Disparage “marriage” and “wife” as limited relationships that are taken and then discarded like used cars. Yours are perpetual relationships.
There are 10’s of 1000’s of people who choose this alternative lifestyle. Why in the world should they not be able to live an open, healthy relationship without any persecution or prosecution? They should!! Some folks use the argument that it should not be decriminalized or legalized because of what they have heard through the media. They say it should not be considered their right because what if you had a religion that had human or animal sacrifice in it as a tenet. This would not be allowed so polygamy should not. This is such a lame argument. Polygamy is about family, life, freedom!! NOT DEATH!! We need to realize there are people in the world we do not agree with, but their right and freedom to choose what is good for them is their business.
Polygamy should be legalized just as long as they cannot collect welfare for more than one wife & also it should not be “forced “on anyone & no underage wives.
Thank you for any other fantastic article. Where else may anyone get that type of info in such an ideal means of writing? I have a presentation next week, and I am at the look for such info.
Having read this I thought it was really informative. I appreciate you taking the
time and energy to put this article together. I once again find myself personally spending
a significant amount of time both reading and leaving comments.
But so what, it was still worth it!
Pretty great post. I simply stumbled upon your weblog and wanted to say
that I have truly enjoyed surfing around your weblog
posts. After all I will be subscribing in your feed and I
am hoping you write again very soon!
Generally I don’t read article on blogs, however I wish to say that this write-up very
pressured me to try and do so! Your writing taste has been amazed me.
Thank you, very great post.