Pandora and Polygamy

[The Question]

Oh, absolutely, and I say anyone who wants to try it should -- because if it works for them, then great, and if it doesn't, then they know that for themselves.

 

[Friday]

Oh, absolutely, and I say anyone who wants to try it should -- because if it works for them, then great, and if it doesn't, then they know that for themselves.

And I absolutely agree with this. If it works for ya...hey, more power to ya.

 

[The Question]

And if it doesn't, then you feel so much more wholesome when you point and go, "HAAAAAAAAAA ha!"

 

[Caitriona]

Exactly!!!!

 

[TJHairball]

That's non-establishment of a state religion. Marriage by itself isn't a religion. Sorry, you probably hoped that would just slide right past everyone. Hope I haven't fouled things up for ya.

A vague state religion is still a state religion. You can cover your eyes as much as you like, but the issue under contention is that the state currently recognizes some religions' marriage rituals, and not others, in a very real legal sense.

And what is marriage? It's a ritual promise. An oath. A contract. A religious service. There are a lot of those running around in my extended family this year, and let me tell you... it's very much a religious ritual, and the practice and recognition of it is very much religiously based.

The state chooses to recognize a variety of religious wedding rituals and oaths as legally binding, but not others... purely arbitrarily.

Poly marriages being outright illegal (not merely not supplied with legal benefits, as we may note the fight over having marriage and not merely some sort of domestic partner status legally in the case of gays, but actually illegal and in some cases prosecutable even in the lack of "official" marriage papers) amounts to a systematic oppression of certain religions (e.g., certain varieties of Mormon and neopagans).

It's like a law barring people from observing the Sabbath on any day but Sunday.... ridiculous and clearly discriminatory, even if there's not some single denomination that worships on Sunday.

That actually goes farther toward demonstrating that polygamy or "polyamory" (sorry, but I will always consider that to be a dressed-up synonym for "sluttin' "*) is not what human biology is tuned for. Harems and Mormon-style polygamy are obviously not what Cait's referring to.

And?

There is a near-infinite variety of possibilities referred to as polyamorous, polygamous, and polyandrous. The "sluttin' around" version, as you so call it - you may think of "swinging" couples as prime examples - are transient "poly" relationships. Open marriages are already quite legal - you can have a marriage in which you sleep around legally, and if you just want to sleep around with no permanent partner, that's no big deal, legally speaking. No legal oppression to that lifestyle either.

So what? That's not what we're talking about. Obviously those sorts of transient relationships aren't going to be codified as marriages. A marriage is a stable (theoretically permanent) long term arrangement, typically lasting 5-10 years in the case of couples. By definition, we're not talking about transient relationships.

Now, the details of how you treat poly or group marriages are going to have to be done up carefully in legal terms, particularly the sections on divorce proceedings. The Muslim world's simple traditional solution to that potentially messy tangle simply won't work for a Western nation that considers men and women equal in legal terms.

 

[Caitriona]

A
Poly marriages being outright illegal (not merely not supplied with legal benefits, as we may note the fight over having marriage and not merely some sort of domestic partner status legally in the case of gays, but actually illegal and in some cases prosecutable even in the lack of "official" marriage papers) amounts to a systematic oppression of certain religions (e.g., certain varieties of Mormon and neopagans).

WOW, that's an element I hadn't even thought of, and of course you are quite correct. Bigamy is prosecutable in all the States [I think]. So, we're not just talking about extending rights to a group, we're talking about de-criminalizing the practice.

You've given this some real thought and I want to thank you for bringing your perspective to the discussion.

 

[The Question]

A vague state religion is still a state religion.

Sorry, no it isn't. For something to be a "state" anything, it has to be expressly and officially recognized by the state as such.

You can cover your eyes as much as you like, but the issue under contention is that the state currently recognizes some religions' marriage rituals, and not others, in a very real legal sense.

Coincidentally, yes. Officially, no. And either a state endorsement of religion or a state sanction against a religion would have to be official, not vague. For example, DOT has people driving on the right-hand side of the road -- the auto industry produces vehicles with the driver in the left side of the vehicle -- that doesn't mean they're descriminating against the British. Tradition is not by default discriminatory.

And what is marriage? It's a ritual promise. An oath. A contract. A religious service.

Not exclusively. Your argument depends on the institution being exclusively religious, which it is simply not.

There are a lot of those running around in my extended family this year, and let me tell you... it's very much a religious ritual, and the practice and recognition of it is very much religiously based.

But, again, not exclusively, and for it to be a manifestation of a state religion, it cannot have any non-religious version. Marriages without clergy or church happen every day, which says that isn't the case.

The state chooses to recognize a variety of religious wedding rituals and oaths as legally binding, but not others... purely arbitrarily.

And again, the fact that they will recognize a variety of religious versions of the institution, and wholly non-religious versions, put the lie to your claim that the recognized forms of marriage constitute expressions of any state religion.

Poly marriages being outright illegal (not merely not supplied with legal benefits, as we may note the fight over having marriage and not merely some sort of domestic partner status legally in the case of gays, but actually illegal and in some cases prosecutable even in the lack of "official" marriage papers) amounts to a systematic oppression of certain religions (e.g., certain varieties of Mormon and neopagans).

And? So? Is the illegality of human sacrifice an oppression of Thuggees? Was the illegality of nonlicensed possession of Class III firearms an oppression of the Branch Davidians?

It's like a law barring people from observing the Sabbath on any day but Sunday.... ridiculous and clearly discriminatory, even if there's not some single denomination that worships on Sunday.

But your argument that traditional marriage is an expression of a state religion demands such specificity.

 

[Caitriona]

Sorry, no it isn't. For something to be a "state" anything, it has to be expressly and officially recognized by the state as such.

Actually I'm not sure it has to be expressed and official to 'act' like a State Religion, it only has to influence law making. We've got a separation of church and state [so technically you are right], but in practice lawmaking is influenced by what is 'right or wrong' in a specific religion.

Marriage laws are modeled after that specific religion.

While that is not a State Religion per se, we can already see how difficult it is to pass laws that are contrary to the ethics and morality of said non-state religion.

When the canon of one religion is set into the fabric of State laws, and discriminated [by statue] against other religions, that religion becomes a de facto state religion.

The state endorses the religion through it's lawmaking.

 

[Blindgroping]

Putting people in power that are of a particular religion, tends to create an accidental State Religion.
Because they tend to pass laws that are more inclined to their point of view.

 

[Caitriona]

Putting people in power that are of a particular religion, tends to create an accidental State Religion.
Because they tend to pass laws that are more inclined to their point of view.

It really depends on the religion whether or not laws are passed to support it specifically. Proselytizing religions believe they must convert everyone, so they become the major culprits when it comes to legislating to enforce 'their' morality. They believe they are 'saving' people from themselves. Religions that don't have the 'ours is the only true way' mind set, don't need to legislate morality as part of the practice of their religion.

 

[The Question]

Actually I'm not sure it has to be expressed and official to 'act' like a State Religion, it only has to influence law making. We've got a separation of church and state [so technically you are right], but in practice lawmaking is influenced by what is 'right or wrong' in a specific religion.

Marriage laws are modeled after that specific religion.

While that is not a State Religion per se, we can already see how difficult it is to pass laws that are contrary to the ethics and morality of said non-state religion.

When the canon of one religion is set into the fabric of State laws, and discriminated [by statue] against other religions, that religion becomes a de facto state religion.

The state endorses the religion through it's lawmaking.

Yeah, but the state does that when it creates any major law. That's what most of our major laws are, just expressions of peoples' idea of morality at one time or another, revised to fit any of hundreds of thousands of possible applications.

 

[Caitriona]

Yeah, but the state does that when it creates any major law. That's what most of our major laws are, just expressions of peoples' idea of morality at one time or another, revised to fit any of hundreds of thousands of possible applications.

Well, I'm not sure religion is [or should be] the only source of morality and ethics. There are many philosophies that have a high ideal as to what is ethical thought and action, and they aren't necessarily influenced by religions.

I'm not saying that religions don't influence the culture of Nation and by extension influence its laws. What I am saying is that when ONE religion [in an alleged non-theocracy] influences law over other religions, then it needs to be adjusted. The religion itself then creeps into the fabric of the culture and discriminates against any contrary religious tenet.

In a recognized theocracy, it's to be expected. It's unfair, but to be expected. In a Democracy with a non-Establishment clause written into its constitution, it needs to be closely monitored so that religious freedoms remain in tact for everyone.

Not to mention other freedoms that can be threatened when one religion enforces its morality on an entire population.

 

[TJHairball]

Sorry, no it isn't. For something to be a "state" anything, it has to be expressly and officially recognized by the state as such.

Like an official form of marriage?

TQ, the state need not admit it is failing to separate church and state when it does so. In fact, in every case that I'm aware of, the state has claimed that it is not, up until it loses the court case.

Coincidentally, yes. Officially, no. And either a state endorsement of religion or a state sanction against a religion would have to be official, not vague. For example, DOT has people driving on the right-hand side of the road -- the auto industry produces vehicles with the driver in the left side of the vehicle -- that doesn't mean they're descriminating against the British. Tradition is not by default discriminatory.

And the laws against polygamy are quite official - and, in practical terms, highly targeted. There was, in the 19th century, a substantial effort in promulgating and enforcing bigamy laws in order to persecute Mormons in the US. The "tradition" is - as a matter of historical fact - discriminatory in every sense of the word.

There is nothing religious about which side of the road you drive on, and no comparison with marriage.

Not exclusively. Your argument depends on the institution being exclusively religious, which it is simply not.

No, it does not depend on that. All I claim is that its treatment and nature be primarily religious, which it clearly is.

The idea of relaxing one day out of the week isn't solely religious either, and the fellows who like to sit back, drink beer, and watch football on Sunday could be construed as observing a secular sabbath... but that wouldn't change the fact that making laws against observing the sabbath on any day but Sunday would be highly discriminatory.

There's no compelling public interest at work here.

But, again, not exclusively, and for it to be a manifestation of a state religion, it cannot have any non-religious version. Marriages without clergy or church happen every day, which says that isn't the case.

Religious practice with no clergy and outside of a church also happens every day. Prayer isn't limited to those with a specific religious affiliation either.

There are even secular "churches." I point you again to the above.

And? So? Is the illegality of human sacrifice an oppression of Thuggees? Was the illegality of nonlicensed possession of Class III firearms an oppression of the Branch Davidians?

I'll note for you loud and clear that there are no laws - to my knowledge - specifically banning the practice of human sacrifice.

Human sacrifice is illegal incidental to other regulation, e.g., that barring murder. And you're going to have trouble convincing me that the Branch Davidians had, as a central tenet of their theology, "thou shalt keep and bear assault rifles."

But your argument that traditional marriage is an expression of a state religion demands such specificity.

It does not - neither by the principles of Jefferson, nor the precedents.

Prayer-behavior is not exclusively the province of the religious, yet the state faces substantial bars in regard to it, no matter how "non-denominational."

"Intelligent design" does not explicitly refer to any particular religious creation story, but teaching it as fact has been ruled to amount to indoctrination into some vague nebulous "state" religion, and thrown out on those grounds.

The fact of the matter is, the disestablishment clause is stronger than you might like it to be in aiming to keep church and state separate, and was intended as such by the Founding Fathers.

Now.... yes, there are also other constitutionally-oriented grounds for poly marriages being legalized. You may wish to cite privacy, or you may return to the first amendment, noting that the actual practice of marriage is nothing more (or less) than the long-term association of people with one another.

 

[Blindgroping]

It really depends on the religion whether or not laws are passed to support it specifically. Proselytizing religions believe they must convert everyone, so they become the major culprits when it comes to legislating to enforce 'their' morality. They believe they are 'saving' people from themselves. Religions that don't have the 'ours is the only true way' mind set, don't need to legislate morality as part of the practice of their religion.

I live in an area where there shitloads of Mormons.
They have stopped bus service on Sundays in their part of town because they believe that noone should be working on a sunday.

 

[The Question]

Like an official form of marriage?

TQ, the state need not admit it is failing to separate church and state when it does so. In fact, in every case that I'm aware of, the state has claimed that it is not, up until it loses the court case.And the laws against polygamy are quite official - and, in practical terms, highly targeted. There was, in the 19th century, a substantial effort in promulgating and enforcing bigamy laws in order to persecute Mormons in the US. The "tradition" is - as a matter of historical fact - discriminatory in every sense of the word.[/quote]

But it's not discriminatory against a religion, only against a practice associated with one. Bigamy is illegal, but bigamy isn't practiced exclusively by a single religion, so I'm having a hard time seeing where the illegality of bigamy is aimed exclusively at a single religion.

There is nothing religious about which side of the road you drive on, and no comparison with marriage.No, it does not depend on that. All I claim is that its treatment and nature be primarily religious, which it clearly is.

Anglo-Saxon law is based on either theist or deist principles. The entirety of modern Western law is composed of relative expressions of religious principles. So are you proposing doing away with all law just because every law on the books more or less parallels a religious ideal?

The idea of relaxing one day out of the week isn't solely religious either, and the fellows who like to sit back, drink beer, and watch football on Sunday could be construed as observing a secular sabbath... but that wouldn't change the fact that making laws against observing the sabbath on any day but Sunday would be highly discriminatory.

Thank you for indirectly supporting my argument -- no such law exists, because the law isn't being used that way.

There's no compelling public interest at work here.Religious practice with no clergy and outside of a church also happens every day. Prayer isn't limited to those with a specific religious affiliation either.

Again, you're indirectly supporting my own argument here. In order to support a state religion, a law must be tailored explicitly and exclusively to favor one chosen religion. This simply is not the case.

There are even secular "churches." I point you again to the above.I'll note for you loud and clear that there are no laws - to my knowledge - specifically banning the practice of human sacrifice.

I should think that kidnapping, conspiracy and murder neatly cover such events, just as you've noted, which makes human sacrifice de facto illegal.

And you're going to have trouble convincing me that the Branch Davidians had, as a central tenet of their theology, "thou shalt keep and bear assault rifles."

Likely they did have some scriptural bases for that activity, though absolutely not phrased that way.

It does not - neither by the principles of Jefferson, nor the precedents.

Doesn't it? How do you establish a state religion without specificity and exclusivity? Without specificity and exclusivity, you don't have a state religion. You may have a cultural commonality of religious thought, but that's not an official anything.

Prayer-behavior is not exclusively the province of the religious, yet the state faces substantial bars in regard to it, no matter how "non-denominational."

I'm having trouble buying that. I've never seen an atheist pray.

"Intelligent design" does not explicitly refer to any particular religious creation story, but teaching it as fact has been ruled to amount to indoctrination into some vague nebulous "state" religion, and thrown out on those grounds.

I had always thought that it was thrown out on the grounds that it's pseudo-science.

The fact of the matter is, the disestablishment clause is stronger than you might like it to be in aiming to keep church and state separate, and was intended as such by the Founding Fathers.

Again, you're proving my own argument. The strength of the disestablishment clause counters, very effectively, the argument that traditional marriage is an exclusive or specific expression of religion.

Now.... yes, there are also other constitutionally-oriented grounds for poly marriages being legalized. You may wish to cite privacy, or you may return to the first amendment, noting that the actual practice of marriage is nothing more (or less) than the long-term association of people with one another.

They don't win out on either of those, I'm afraid. Not for court-recognized marriage, at any rate, because the official "benefits" of marriage, in things like tax benefits and insurance benefits, are a matter of public, not private, record. And free association doesn't guarantee those privileges, either.

 

[Caitriona]

Anglo-Saxon law is based on either theist or deist principles. The entirety of modern Western law is composed of relative expressions of religious principles. So are you proposing doing away with all law just because every law on the books more or less parallels a religious ideal?

Of course not, but that doesn't mean that the principles of a particular religious group haven't become part of the social landscape through law. Blue Laws are a perfect example. No liquor sold on Sunday. In some places they had no businesses open at all on Sunday [or public transportation]. You can't say that these are religious laws, but they certainly support only one religious doctrine. Only Christians observe Sunday as a day of worship. Blue laws are laws written into a charter [in the case of cities and counties] specifically to support a religious doctrine.

While I agree that it doesn't speak to the non-establishment clause in the Constitution, it certainly does give us an example of how purely religious doctrine has found its way into law. These aren't laws that are crimes against man [Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal] these are laws aimed at the strictly religious behavior of one particular religious group.

While I agree that there is no specific Christian group that is singled out as "The true religion' by the State [Like Catholicism was during there Middle Ages for example], still the doctrine of Christianity is supported in more than philosophical ways. Perhaps one of the reasons no single Christian sect is proclaimed 'the only path to salvation' is because there are so many of them and all claim that the path to salvation is through Christ.

But the fact that we can't point to a specific denomination and say "That's the State religion' doesn't mean that the law of the nation hasn't been used to support the practice of Christianity. [again Blue Laws are the best example] Blue Laws have nothing to do with complex concepts of social discourse and cooperation. They are specifically targeted to support the observance of the Sabbath of one particular religious group.

The same can be said of marriage laws. While the state can and does take an interest in the unions of people and the care of children [and should] the targeting of only one combination of marriage partners [one man and one woman] is discriminatory. The opposition to allowing multiple partners to enter into legal marriage contracts or gay partners to enter into legal marriage contracts is primarily religious in nature.

Law makers are reluctant to change laws because of religious beliefs, not social ones. [well that and getting re-elected] That amounts to using a religious doctrine to discriminate against a portion of the population that does not agree with said religious doctrine. When religious canon is used to discriminate in that way, that is a blurry line between church and state. If gone unchecked the line can become even more murky.

It's not establishing a State Church, but it has a similar result on the population. Benefits of the State are only granted to the members of a particular religion [through law].

 

[The Question]

Of course not, but that doesn't mean that the principles of a particular religious group haven't become part of the social landscape through law.

If that's the case, it seems to me it happened in exactly the opposite way -- they were already part of the social landscape, which is the reason they were eventually codified as law.

Blue Laws are a perfect example. No liquor sold on Sunday. In some places they had no businesses open at all on Sunday [or public transportation].

These laws are new to me -- and I wholeheartedly support their abolition.

You can't say that these are religious laws, but they certainly support only one religious doctrine. Only Christians observe Sunday as a day of worship. Blue laws are laws written into a charter [in the case of cities and counties] specifically to support a religious doctrine.

That's different, though, from a state religion.

While I agree that it doesn't speak to the non-establishment clause in the Constitution, it certainly does give us an example of how purely religious doctrine has found its way into law.

Except this begs the question of intentionalism versus eventualism. Did the lawmakers draft these edicts based purely on religion, or based on the wishes of a predominantly religious constituency?

These aren't laws that are crimes against man [Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal] these are laws aimed at the strictly religious behavior of one particular religious group.

Well, I agree -- and as I said, these laws should be abolished on that basis.

While I agree that there is no specific Christian group that is singled out as "The true religion' by the State [Like Catholicism was during there Middle Ages for example], still the doctrine of Christianity is supported in more than philosophical ways. Perhaps one of the reasons no single Christian sect is proclaimed 'the only path to salvation' is because there are so many of them and all claim that the path to salvation is through Christ.

But the fact that we can't point to a specific denomination and say "That's the State religion' doesn't mean that the law of the nation hasn't been used to support the practice of Christianity. [again Blue Laws are the best example] Blue Laws have nothing to do with complex concepts of social discourse and cooperation. They are specifically targeted to support the observance of the Sabbath of one particular religious group.

Except that marriage doesn't follow the specific and exclusive nature of Blue Laws, which was my point -- marriage can have had all the religious origin in the world, but the fact that it's long since become secular as well means that it is no longer in violation of any application of the nonestablishment clause.

The same can be said of marriage laws. While the state can and does take an interest in the unions of people and the care of children [and should] the targeting of only one combination of marriage partners [one man and one woman] is discriminatory. The opposition to allowing multiple partners to enter into legal marriage contracts or gay partners to enter into legal marriage contracts is primarily religious in nature.

I can see how you might think so, but if you think the objections are exclusively religious ones, I have to disagree.

Law makers are reluctant to change laws because of religious beliefs, not social ones. [well that and getting re-elected]

Indeed. Law makers, as representatives of the people, have to and ought to concern themselves with the will of the people. If legalized bigamy isn't something the people want, it's something the people won't have.

That amounts to using a religious doctrine to discriminate against a portion of the population that does not agree with said religious doctrine. When religious canon is used to discriminate in that way, that is a blurry line between church and state. If gone unchecked the line can become even more murky.

I agree, but I've also been pointing out that unless the breach of seperation is clear, we could choose any number of motives to ascribe to their unwillingness to change the law. The fact is that we don't know whether they're reticent to change it because of their own religious objections, or because of the religious objections of the constituency they represent. If they were to change the law despite the religious objections of their constituency, they would be just as much in defiance of nonestablishment because they would be prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

It's not establishing a State Church, but it has a similar result on the population.

But having a similar result isn't enough. It has to actually and literally be a state establishment of religion.

Benefits of the State are only granted to the members of a particular religion [through law].

That's just not so -- benefits of the state are only granted to participants of a single formula of marriage, but that formula is legally recognized irrespective of religion. If a gay man marries a lesbian with a Buddhist priest officiating, it's still a legal marriage. It has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, only with an established formula.

 

[The Question]

Found this interesting message on the subject:

From [email protected] on the evol-psych email list:

All hunting/gathering peoples have some form of marriage, formal marriage. Moreover, sexual dimorphisms in hominid skeletons dating some 3.4 million years ago suggest that some form of human pairbonding was already being practiced by then. Some 3% of other mammalian species also practice pairbonding, and scientists have begun to find some of the brain circuitry involved: monogamy is, at least in part, associated with receptor sites for vasopressin in the ventral pallidum, part of the brain’s reward system. So, the brain circuitry associated with attachment and bonding (the anticedents of human marriage) can be found in other mammals. And pairbonding in these other species is not a means of males dominating females and treating them as property. In short, we hominids probably have a long history and prehistory for pairbonding, as well as the brain circuitry for pairbonding and monogamy (as well as clandestine adultery, but that’s a different story).

Moreover, in most hunting/gathering societies, women tend to be quite powerful; they contribute a considerably amount of food to the family daily. And having traveled with one h/g society for a very short time myself (the Hadza), it was apparent to me (and would be apparent to you) even in this brief space of time what women were not the property of men. Indeed, there is a great deal of literature on marriage in primitive societies and in the vast majority of them, men are not treating women as property. A vast anthropological and zoological literature just does not support your thesis that human marriage emerged in the post Christian era as a male scheme to keep women as property.

With the beginning of the farming tradition, however, monogamy (or pairbonding) took a turn toward long term bonding and constriction of both sexes. And I would agree with you that with the development of plow agriculture (by at least 5,000 BC), women in many agrarian societies lost a great many economic, social and sexual rights. In fact, I have written about this at length in my four books.

But what you call “traditional” is actually relatively recent in terms of human evolution. For millions of years, the sexes were relatively equal, and there are at least a hundred or more treatises that discuss marriage in h/g societies, and the transformations of marriage in agrarian societies, that will support the fact that for a long, long, long time in the EEA marriage was not associated with male domination of women. Very best wishes to you, Helen Fisher

As I've said elsewhere, religion may be many things, but it mostly boils down to imaginative attempts to anthropomorphize real truths, to put a human(ish) face on the unknown. God didn't dictate a man and a woman should cleave to each other -- the human brain does. Biology does. It's built into us, and whether or not you think God put it there or Nature did, it's there. The institution of marriage may have been religious in the details at one point, but it hasn't always been and it isn't now.

 

[Caitriona]

Except this begs the question of intentionalism versus eventualism. Did the lawmakers draft these edicts based purely on religion, or based on the wishes of a predominantly religious constituency?

Well, it's being argued now by Neo-cons that in fact the Founders did intend to draft law that was Christian in nature. That means [using that argument] that the Founders intentionally violated their own non-establishment clause. I don't agree with this argument, I believe the Founder's had Freedom of Religion in mind from the get go. They were rebelling against the Church of England and were religious refugees intent on their own freedoms.

Did they draft law based on the morality of their constituents? Yes, I'd say they did. But even using that doctrine, as the make-up of an electorate changes then so [to some degree] should the law. Basically the law has to embrace the entirety of an electorate or it is discriminatory. Segregation laws in the Deep South are an example of this. The majority would have never changed segregation laws. The will of the majority would have continued to discriminate against a portion of the population because of their majority and their prejudice.

Except that marriage doesn't follow the specific and exclusive nature of Blue Laws, which was my point -- marriage can have had all the religious origin in the world, but the fact that it's long since become secular as well means that it is no longer in violation of any application of the nonestablishment clause.

Well, I'm actually not arguing that it does, I'm just discussing this as it comes up with you. You bring interesting notions to think about.

I would say, that just because a law has long since forgotten its roots, doesn't mean it no longer has the religious foundation. Sure state laws governing marriage have become distinctly non-religious. A marriage performed by a Justice of the Peace, or at City Hall certainly cannot claim to be a religious ceremony. That doesn't remove the religious foundation, and it's the religious foundation of the laws that appear to be difficult to set aside when it comes to legalizing gay marriage or even contemplating plural marriages.

When Utah petitioned to join the Union they had to revise their position of polygamy or statehood would have been denied. Can we say to a moral certainty that the religious beliefs of the majority [in the rest of the union] didn't dictate to the Utah Territory, which did hold that plural marriage was legal and had religious sanction, how they would structure the laws of their state? After all, the majority in Utah agreed to and lived in polygamous marriages. It was the will of those people. No, it was one religious belief dictating to another religion what state laws it could and could not have.

I can see how you might think so, but if you think the objections are exclusively religious ones, I have to disagree.

No I do not believe the objections are strictly religious, but I do believe that the religious foundation 'colors' the social consideration of many, many lawmakers and the electorate. It is NOT a state religion, but laws are influenced by religion in a discriminatory manner in some cases.

Indeed. Law makers, as representatives of the people, have to and ought to concern themselves with the will of the people. If legalized bigamy isn't something the people want, it's something the people won't have.

To a degree, but again the Segregation laws illustrate how the composition of the majority [and their will] can still be unconstitutional, as well as the Utah model. Why is the will of some majorities of concern to lawmakers and not others? This is where bias and prejudice live and function in our lawmaking.

But having a similar result isn't enough. It has to actually and literally be a state establishment of religion.

Oh I agree. It isn't literally a State Religion. I've given you that point. And I don't believe that any new law would be passed [or modified]using the non-establishment clause. It would have a better time passing [if at all] using privacy as the underpinning of the argument.

That doesn't negate the very real presence of one religion and its doctrine and its influence on law in our country.

 

[Caitriona]

Found this interesting message on the subject:



As I've said elsewhere, religion may be many things, but it mostly boils down to imaginative attempts to anthropomorphize real truths, to put a human(ish) face on the unknown. God didn't dictate a man and a woman should cleave to each other -- the human brain does. Biology does. It's built into us, and whether or not you think God put it there or Nature did, it's there. The institution of marriage may have been religious in the details at one point, but it hasn't always been and it isn't now.

Oh, I don't disagree with pair-bonding and the urge of most humans to do so in the male to female model. I just don't see why those who fall outside the norm should not be allowed to enjoy the same benefits socially as the normal pair-bonding model.

I certainly don't think that people should be prosecuted for bigamy unless their was fraud involved. Promising one woman she is in a monogamous marriage and then marrying another in secret is fraud. Informed consent is the key here. But if informed consent exists, why waste tax payer money and resources on prosecuting a man for having more than one wife?