Mormons: Same-Sex Marriage vs. Polygamy

Oh, I figured *you* likely knew but I thought it important to make the distinction as not everyone does.

You are correct that polygyny is a more accurate term, although polyandry historically is much less common-- I seem to remember it used to be practiced in areas of Tibet and Mongolia for the purposes of keeping land holdings in a family, but don't quote me on that.

Actually though, I looked up polyandry at Wikipedia and it quoted this:

In Mormonism it was practiced by Joseph Smith and other early leaders of the Mormon movement as part of its doctrine of polygamy. Dr. Todd Compton, of Brigham Young University, in his celebrated work "In Sacred Loneliness", a depiction of Smith's polygamous marriages, asserts that Polyandry was an integral part of Smith's polygamy rather than an anomaly: “A common misconception concerning Joseph Smith's polyandry is that he participated in only one or two such unusual unions. In fact, fully one-third of his plural wives, eleven of them, were married civilly to other men when he married them. If one superimposes a chronological perspective, one sees that of Smith's first twelve wives, nine were polyandrous. So in this early period polyandry was the norm, not the anomaly." (Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, pp. 15-16)

And, as I've said here and elsewhere, I think the government needs to get out of the business of meddling into the personal relationships of consenting adults altogether.

Yes, I'm aware, and it is also a commonly stated position on this issue. However, this entails that people understand that divorce and custody would have to be re-defined. If there is no legal basis for marriage anymore, then no judge can rule how stuff is split or who takes care of the kids unless there is still a legal definition on any relationships. Seriously. This is one reason why I think common law marriage is relevant. As wonderfully libertarian as no government involvement sounds, I'm not sure everyone will be comfortable with that.

I have also said in my space and a number of places that individuals should not expect religion to change their stance. They cannot and should not be forced to sanction unions they don't want to. In this manner, I would say that religious stances on propositions like Prop 8 are more of a statement that said denominations will not sanction them. Now, we can continue to go on and on about what their memberships intended, but I am talking about how I see it, and so anything else will more or less be ignored.

Well, government seems to do just fine deciding child support and ensuring the welfare of children born to parents who were never married to one another

Well, yes. But custody *still* remains a problem as legal precedent still favors the biological mother who gave birth. Consider legal precedent between two women having a child. When such a pairing dissolves-- let's say a woman who carried a child decides to leave a relationship with a woman to have a relationship with a man, that other woman usually loses out on custody. Or said woman leaves the other way around-- leaving a relationship with a man to be with a woman-- the man usually loses out. These are actual scenarios that have happened, and dissolving a legal definition of marriage would unlikely change it.

I suppose matter relating to divorce, which tend to revolve around property could be handled by civil suit in cases of dispute.

Again, when courts have no legal interpretation of a union (as in right now, if a couple splits but have not been married), they still have no basis on how to determine who gets what. It's still the same horse, but of another color; some sort of legal definition must still remain.

The state is only concerned with the civil understanding of marriage, as the religious part is none of the government's business. Conversely, religious understandings of marriage have no place in legal marriage.

That's still based on a Jeffersonian view of separation of church and state. The interpretation is not a given, therefore people still debate on it. While "the family business" is much, much less a norm than it used to be, it still will hold sway. Nepotism is strongly frowned upon by mainstream U.S. culture, but many immigrant cultures still regard and follow it to a degree. What I mean to say is that while Jeffersonian ideals are still romantically vivid in the collective U.S. psyche, Federalist views still dictate more than many will admit. In particular, family based tax breaks would go away and there would be substantial debate on whether couples can claim children working for them as deductions.

That is properly up to religion and whatever ethical beliefs those involved may have and is a totally optional and private thing, as far as the government is concerned.

Look, I am already intimately familiar with the pressure same-sex couples and sometimes their families put on religion to acknowledge them. It is more likely that they will pressure their respective denominations harder to accept their pairings under spiritual definition, as it were, regardless of whether the matter is fully separated between civil and spiritual definitions. While you and I tacitly agree that religion should not be expected to change, the political struggle will remain regardless. While secular individuals, who have no invested interest in religion, have no problem with such an arrangement, I can guarantee you that religious individuals will continue to fight for religious approval, and I sincerely doubt that the government will enforce said separation of church and state in this case. There will be those who will want civil and religious aspects to be unified, no matter what, and they aren't all patriarchial fundamentalists-- trust me on that one. If you don't think non-patriachial, non-fundamentalist types will try to get the government involved, I think you would be mistaken.

I can think of worse things to be called.

It wasn't meant as an insult!

And my remarks were about marriage in general, not about same-sex relationships in particular.

Yes, I was specific in terms of custody, but as far as divorce in general, it still broadly applies. Also, the issue hasn't been about marriage in general-- it almost entirely pivots on same-sex marriage. While common law marriage doesn't universally exist, it's still a tacit acknowledgment of cohabitation, where expectations per se marriage are applied after a certain period of time. Even when common law does not apply, I think the implication is still the default in most cases.

But so far as same sex relationships go, there are already churches who will bless such unions, even without the legal backup, so I don't see this changing once they add the civil part to it. And there's an entire denomination that ministers to the LGBT community, the Metropolitan Community Churches.

Well, yes. I've known about all this for years through family and friends-- please do not assume that I do not. They are still in the minority, though, and so the rift will still remain. Those that do not wish to belong to these churches or the Metropolitan Community will still fight against their denominations. Some of these groups do so in a civilized manner, and some very specifically do not. I give Affirmation as an example-- the L.A. chapter in particular. They are known to attack church leadership quite regularly. I've spoken with members that were bitter, disillusioned, or both. I suspect that they will continue to rail and rant whether civil marriage is granted or not-- they will still demand the whole package. Generally, I think it healthier they break off or join aforementioned denominations that will bless such unions, but they nevertheless remain.

All these aspects cannot be neatly sidestepped. They remain relevant to the issue.