Should multiple spouses be permitted in our society?

The term polygamy (a Greek word meaning ‘the practice of multiple marriages) is used in related ways in social anthropology, sociobiology, and sociology. Polygamy can be defined as any "form of marriage in which a person has more than one spouse. In social anthropology, polygamy is the practice of marriage to more than one spouse simultaneously. Historically, polygamy has been practiced as polygyny; one man having more than one wife.

The Nyinba people of Nepal practice fraternal polyandry. Polyandry is a form of polygamy in which one woman has multiple husbands. In Nyinbian culture, when a woman marries a man, she marries all of his brothers, too. All of the brothers have equal sexual access to the wife, and the entire family cares for the children, although the family may recognize individual brothers as the specific father of a given child. This kind of marriage structure concentrates the wealth and resources of all the brothers into one family, and also concentrates their parents' land and wealth.

Polygyny obviously rewards males who have access to greater wealth and resources than others. It takes a lot of work and money to support a large number of wives and the children they produce. In biological terms, such a man is an excellent choice for reproducing and passing his genes on to the next generation, which could be expected to be similarly successful. A man can father many children in a short period, while a woman is limited to one pregnancy every nine months. If a successful man has many wives, he can pass on his genes more often. This is also an advantage in societies where rapid and frequent reproduction is vital for survival. Early Jewish doctrine encouraged polygyny because Jews were a minority and needed to increase their numbers rapidly. Some orthodox Jewish sects advocate polygyny today, and some scholars believe that the Talmud contains passages suggesting tolerance or even encouragement of polygyny.

Islamic tradition addresses polygamy directly. The Koran states that a man is allowed up to four wives, but only if he can support them and treat them all equally. Many Islamic societies continue to allow polygamy, but usually only the most affluent men can afford multiple wives. Westernization has led many younger Muslims to view polygamy as old-fashioned.

In Vietnam, polygamy is not legal, but there's a practical reason for its practice----decades of war has left the male population severely depleted. Polygamy was also common in China before Confucianism, which supported the practice, fell out of favor. Many African tribes, Native American tribes and pre-Christian Celts practiced polygamy, often without the conservative restraints on the sexual aspects of it that characterizes Mormon polygamy

Is polygamy legally wrong?

In some Middle East countries, where men have more than one wife, it is not considered legally wrong, especially in those countries whose religious beliefs are governed by the Koran. However, in westernized countries, such as Canada, the USA, Great Britain, and other English-speaking countries, polygamy is legally wrong. In those countries, they have laws that prohibit these forms of marriage. Polygamy however is often confused with bigamy.

Bigamy occurs when one man illegally marries more than one woman while still married to another. He might marry a second wife before his divorce is complete, for example. In rare cases, men have carried on double lives, marrying two women and supporting two families, with neither wife knowing about the other. Alex Guiness stared in the 1954 movie called “Captain’s Paradise” in which a sea captain had two families at two ports his ship sailed to. According to the movie, neither family knew of the other and he treated them equally well. That is also a form of bigamy.

Practicing polygamy in a country with laws that forbids it is technically bigamy. For example, in Canada, section 290 of the Criminal Code states that ‘Every one commits bigamy who in Canada, being married, goes through a form of marriage with another person....’ This would apply to the multiple marriages that have taken place in the polygamist community of Bountiful, in British Columbia. As a matter of fact, Bountiful’s polygamist leader, Winston Blackmore was arrested and charged with bigamy on January 7th of this year. His lawyers are going to claim that the government has no right to interfere with his religious beliefs. I will deal with that claim later in this piece.

The polygamists' presence in Canada dates back more than a century. It started with breakaways who moved here after the Mormons banned polygamy, even though Ottawa had outlawed the practice in 1878. Bountiful was founded in 1947 by four families to follow the original teaching of Mormon founder Joseph Smith, who glorified plural marriages.

Under the Criminal Code of Canada, polygamy was deemed a crime in 1892. Those who enter into, reside in, or officiate a polygamous union can be charged with a criminal offence and face up to five years in prison. But the last time polygamy was prosecuted in Canada was more than 60 years ago. Fundamentalist Mormons in Bountiful, in southeastern British Columbia, have managed to get away with openly practicing polygamy, believing it to be an integral and necessary part of their faith, since the 1940s with little legal recourse against them.

Section 76-7-101 of the state of Utah states that; “A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, he purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.” That state condemns polygamy.

Utah was really the first state of the USA that originally officially sanctioned polygamy. When establishing the Latter Day Saints (Mormon Church) Joseph Smith recorded numerous revelations he claimed to receive, often in answer to questions about the Bible. He married two 14-year-olds. In answer to his question as to why many of the Old Testament leaders had more than one wife, Smith received what is now known as Section 132. Although the revelation was not recorded until 1843, Smith may have received it in the 1830s and married his first plural wife, Fanny Alger, in 1835. Polygamy was not openly practiced in the Mormon Church until 1852 when Orson Pratt, an apostle, made a public speech defending it as a tenet of the church. From 1852 until 1890, Mormon Church leaders preached and encouraged members, especially those in leadership positions, to marry additional wives.

A majority of the Latter-day Saints never lived that way. The number of multiple marriages involved varied by community; for example, 30 percent in St. George in 1870 and 40 percent in 1880 practiced polygamy, while only 5 percent in South Weber practiced the principle in 1880. Rather than the harems often suggested in non-Mormon sources, most Mormon husbands married only two wives. The wives usually lived in separate homes and had direct responsibility for their children. Where the wives lived near each other, the husbands usually visited each wife on a daily or weekly basis. Eventually, polygamy was declared illegal in Utah as it was a condition of being granted statehood that polygamy be declared illegal.

In 1854 the Republican party termed polygamy and slavery the ‘twin relics of barbarism.’ In 1862 the United States Congress passed the ‘Morrill Act’, which prohibited plural marriage in the territories, dis-incorporated the Mormon Church, and restricted the church's ownership of property. The nation was in the midst of the Civil War, however, and the law was not enforced.

In 1882 Congress passed the Edmunds Act, which was actually a series of amendments to the Morrill Act. It restated that polygamy was a felony punishable by five years of imprisonment and a $500 fine. Unlawful cohabitation, which was easier to establish because the prosecution had to prove only that the couple had lived together rather than that a marriage ceremony had taken place, remained a misdemeanor punishable by six months imprisonment and a $300 fine. Convicted polygamists were disenfranchised and were ineligible to hold political office.

Pro-polygamists argue that, as long as polygamists currently do not obtain legal marriage licenses for additional spouses, no enforced laws are being broken any more than when monogamous couples who similarly co-habitate without a marriage license.

This is a valid point. Multiple co-habation in Canada is not against the law. For example, if two or three women choose to live with a man in one residence and have sex with him, it is not against the law in Canada. The late Prime Minister Trudeau said most aply that the government has no right to be in the bedrooms of its citizens. Many years ago, four women choose to live with me. I finally chose one of them to marry and we have been married for over 32 years and have two daughters and four granddaughters. The other three women went their own ways and they carried no children of mine when they left my home.

Are polygamists protect by the right to freedom of religion?

The Mormons originally continued to practice polygamy despite their laws prohibiting piolygamy, because they believed that the practice was protected by the ‘freedom of religion’ clause in the American Bill of Rights. To test the constitutionality of the laws, George Reynolds, Brigham Young's private secretary, agreed to be tried. In 1879 the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld the Morrill Act when it ruled; "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinion, they may with (religious) practices."

In Canada, section 1(c) of the Canadian Bill of Rights guarantees everyone in Canada freedom of religion. This right in Canada is a constitutionally protected right, that allows people in Canada the freedom to assemble and worship without limitation or interference. The key word here is ‘worship’. Is polygamy, a form of worship? I doubt it. The word, ‘worship’ as a noun means; the act of adoring, especially reverently. All followers of religions worship a higher being.

While religious freedoms are protected from state interference by the Canadian Charter of Rights, the actions of private individuals are largely governed by the provincial Human Rights codes. These codes prohibit discrimination in the marketplace, accommodation, and employment on the grounds of a variety of personal characteristics, including religion.

In a 1985 Supreme Court case involving the Lord's Day Act, ‘R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd.’ , Chief Justice Brian Dickson said that religious freedom in Canada includes freedom of religious speech, including ‘the right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses, the right to declare religious beliefs openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal, and the right to manifest religious belief by worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination.’

Obviously, there has to be a limit in the rights to freedom of religion. For example, the right to torture cats or dogs or any other animal as a form of a religious rite would never be sanctioned or approved of in any community in Canada or elsewhere. It is beyond me as to how polygamists can justify their practice of polygamy based on their religious beliefs since there doesn’t seem to be any acceptance of polygamy in any religion that is based on Christianity or Judaism.

The illegality of polygamy in certain areas creates, according to certain Bible passages, arguments against it. Paul of Tarsus writes "submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience" (Romans 13:5), for "the authorities that exist have been established by God." (Romans 13:1) St Peter concurs when he says to "submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right." (1 Peter 2:13,14)

Is polygamy morally wrong?

Recently, child welfare officials allege in court documents that the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints outside of Eldorado, Texas, was rife with sexual abuse, with girls spiritually married to much older men as soon as they reached puberty and boys were groomed to perpetuate the cycle. In 1997, Warren Jeffs, the former church leader, was prosecuted and found guilty on two charges of rape by accomplice.

In its final report on the raid at the Yearning For Zion Ranch, the Texas Department of Family Services said it found evidence that 12 underage girls had been married to older men. On the first day of the hearing, the state released copies of photographs of Warren Jeffs, the imprisoned leader kissing a 12-year-old bride. Another young girl was apparently spiritually married to FLDS leader Warren S. Jeffs in 2006 when she was 12. The marriage was not consummated, but widely circulated photos entered in court show Jeffs giving her a passionate, on-the-lips kiss to seal the deal.

Jeffs is in prison for life on two counts for being an accomplice to rape for arranging the marriage of a 14-year-old girl to a 19-year-old cousin.

Some people suspect that a desire for numerous sex partners is built into basic human biology, a factor that would explain the almost its universal occurrence, but not the exceptions or variations. Other theories based on population and ecological factors explain it as a response lengthy periods of sexual abstinence that women must follow after child birth in some cultures. This practice reduces population growth, but drives husbands to acquire additional wives to meet unfulfilled sexual needs. Demographic theory suggests that polygyny may occur because of a surplus of women that results from a high incidence of male warfare. However, polygyny occurs in many situations of relatively balanced gender ratios or even, where males outnumber females. Accordingly, some men accumulate two or more wives only at the expense of others who never marry, or, much more usually, marry at a later age than women do. As such, the society becomes divided between young bachelors, who may remain single into their thirties and older polygynists. This arrangement may occur informally or may become a marked feature of the social structure. For example, in some South African societies, such as the Zulu, all young men in their twenties were organized into military “age regiments” and were not allowed to marry until their term of service ended. As we have already suggested, differences in marital age are also created by bride wealth requirements.

There was a time in Canada when Eskimos (now called Inuit) lived so far apart from one another, it was the custom that if a stranger came across an igloo in which a man and woman living as man and wife resided in, the husband would permit his wife to sleep with the ‘guest’. Do do otherwise could result in the husband being murdered. As a result of this practice, murder amongst Eskimos was a rarity.

On January 15, 2003, when Winston Blackmore was interviewed by the radio station CBC in his capacity as the Bishop of Bountiful, a secretive and secluded community living in the Creston Valley of British Columbia, his first wife Jane claimed that he had 26 wives and 80 children. Since then, he has more than a 100 children. Let me say from the get go that he can afford to care for them considering that he is a multi millionaire. His father was also a polygamist and sired 30 children.

When Larry King interviewed Blackmore in 2006, Blackmore said in part; “Well, most dinner days I’m not there. I mean, but I can have breakfast with my children then I go to work and my family goes to work about their various things and we have, you know, when our children go to school, they go to school. When they come home, there’s people that tend them.”

The father figure in a family is just as important as a mother figure. I cannot fathom 100 or more children sharing one father and getting the kind of attention that fathers give to their children when there are that many. Back in the 1950s when I was a senior supervisor in several Indian residential schools, I had to be a father to as many as a 100 boys. All of the boys had access to me any time they wanted but it was difficult for me to deal with all of their problems in a timely fashion.

The police in British Columbia say some of the wives in Bountiful were as young as 15 years old when they were married. If that is so, marriage at that young age is unacceptable. This is not to say that the wives were uncared for. I am sure that they were treated properly. However, I am convinced that a certain amount of pressure was put on them to marry at that young age. Orson Pratt, another leader in Bountiful married 16-year-olds girls; one when he was 57 years old. He conceived immediately with her. These girls were threatened into these arranged polygamous marriages according to the police. That in my opinion, is very wrong.

For anyone to marry while they are still immature is not only foolish, it is illegal in Canada. I would be remiss however if I didn’t mention that up to very recently, the age of consent with respect to girls having sex with a man in Canada was only 14. Now it is 16 years of age. Where it would be an offence is if the man having sex with the girl was in a position of control over her, such as a teacher or an employer. I am not going to add a comment with respect to the possibility of the girls in Bountiful who married as young brides did so because their husbands excerted a form of control over them prior to the marriages as I don’t know what their relationships were prior to their marriages with the girls.

Girls in Bountiful are taught that the more senior and polygamous their husband is, the better their and their children's chances are of a happy afterlife. Debbie Palmer, who had a number of husbands in Bountiful but left the community said in a telephone interview "There's a kind of power attached to that when you're looking at the next life and the eternal perspective, while you're in the daily trenches and up to your arms in dirty diapers."

Summary

This issue of the legality of plural marriages or plural common-law relationships is going to be a very interesting one when it finally reaches the Supreme Court of Canada. Unfortunately, I may never see that day since I am already 75 years of age and considering that appeals work their way up so slowly, its speed would make a snail’s movement seem like that of a formula race car.

If it turns out that the men and women are living together in a plural common-law relationship, I doubt that the court will say that such a relationship is illegal since there is nothing in the laws of Canada that state that plural common-law relationships is illegal. Further, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in December 2005 that it was not illegal for men and women to participate in group sex. That means that if a man is living with more than one woman and wants to have sex with them all at the same time, and they consent to participating in group sex, it is not illegal for them to do so. Canada is very firm on its policy that the government, the police and the courts have no business being in the bedrooms of its citizens.

Where I see the existence of a problem for people participating in plural relationships is if after living together for more than one year, they are considered as being married to one another. The issue before the court will then be, ‘does living common-law with more than one spouse over a period of a year, constitute bigamy?’ If so, that is stretching the law.

I see another problem facing people coming into Canada as immigrants. I am speaking of those men who by the law of their own countries, are permitted to have up to four wives. If the Supreme Court of Canada rules that it is illegal to have more than one legally married wife at any one time, then these men and their wives and children may not be permitted to live in Canada since bigamy is not permitted in Canada. To permit them to move to Canada would be a slap in the face of other Canadians who cannot live in a bigamist relationship, especially when you consider that the Charter of Rights in Canada guarantees that everyone in Canada is to be treated equally.