Polygamy in the NY Times

The most emailed article at the NY Times today is about boys being cast out of the polygamous community at Colorado City, AZ and Hilldale, UT.

(If you look at it on Google maps, you will see that it's a single town stradling two states, a fact which surely didn't happen by accident. You also have to appreciate the creativity of Uzona Ave, the north side of which is in Utah and the south side in Arizona.)

The article really puts a human face on the mathematical impossibility of a society where men are supposed to have three wives. (I previously wrote about how there are 105 boy babies for every 100 girl babies.)

The real world of polygamy isn't like a Heinlein novel. There's a good reason why it's illegal.

On the other hand, I don't think it's consistent to support complete freedom of religion but not allow this community to keep doing it's thing. But I am not in favor of complete freedom of religion. Bad religions, like polygamous Mormonism and Islam ought to be illegal.

This is a good time to mention that the great-grandfather of presidential candidate Mitt Romney had five wives. That's why I support Rudy Giuliani.

Comments

[m54321]

Great idea, let's punish people for the sins of their great grandparents.

[GMR]

You support Rudi over Mitt because of what Mitt's great grandfather did? Several candidates great grandparents or great-great or whatever owned slaves, including Barack Obama's (on his mom's side of course).

There seem to be many better reasons to support or oppose someone than what a distant relative may have done 100 years ago.

[Peter]

Today of course we have de facto polygamy, but I suppose that for all the misery it causes, things would be even worse if we had true polygamy.

[Loki on the run]

You continue to fail to point out the facts about enforced monogamy, HS. Why is that?

The fact is that women are forced to curtail their options with regard to which males they will enlist to support their offspring so that hordes of angry, unattached males will not build up and destabilize societies.

The blog entry you pointed to contains this gem:

Just in case we're missing the point here, tolerant people should recognize that polygamy means that the husband gets to choose when additional wives get added to the relationship. We need to recognize that this would allow one party of a contract to unilaterally decrease the property right of the second party in favor of an as yet uninvolved third party. Most people view that as a form of fraud.

If the woman enters the relationship with the knowledge that her meal ticket is going to take on other wives, where's the fraud in that?

[000]

"You support Rudi over Mitt because of what Mitt's great grandfather did? Several candidates great grandparents or great-great or whatever owned slaves, including Barack Obama's (on his mom's side of course)."

What do you mean "of course"? I would be very surprised if Obama's African ancestors didn't also own slaves.

[Steve Sailer]

A lot closer in time than Mitt Romney's polygamous great-grandfather is Barack Obama's bigamous father, who married Obama's 18-year-old American mother despite having a wife back home in the village, whom he took up with again when he went home to Kenya. He added another white American wife later, and had a child with a fourth woman later in life.

Obama's ancestors probably sold slaves to slave traders. All that bullshit you hear about how blacks were kidnapped by whites in ships is just that, bullshit.

[SFG]

From what I understand African chiefs sold rival tribes to white people as slaves, which fits in nicely with my jaundiced view of all humanity as equally corrupt.

Steve: enough about frickin' Obama already! You're a paleocon who doesn't want a black president, fine. I'd rather hear about how a black Democrat would be in hock to the Congressional Black Caucus and supercharge affirmative action than hear about Obama's personal dramas. Being fake and inventing new identities for yourself is what politicians are supposed to do.

[Buckaroo]

SFG, please don't engage in gratuitous race-baiting. I'm pretty sure Steve would be OK with Thomas Sowell or Ward Connerly as president.

Getting back (sort of) to the original topic: I'm surprised that no one has brought up the issue of Giuliani's pretty mixed record on the marriage front. Whatever you think about polygamy, it's pretty clear that he double-timed his second wife and then treated her rather shabbily while trying to move on to his third. So crappy was his behavior that his own children not only won't campaign for him but are officially (!) supporting someone else. And here we have the behavior of the candidate himself and not some putative ancestor.

Regarding Romney - I still think of him the way Daniel Larison characterized him: as "an overfunded joke candidate". But you can't deny one thing - being a Mormon pretty much guarantees that you will have a large, motivated army of close relatives ready to parachute in to do the ground work. If memory serves, the Times reported that Romney had 96 kin serving as shock troops in Iowa at some point. Four of them were his own sons. Sicilians would approve.

Why can't we get a man like Thomas Sowell as president?

What is it about our system that insures we get second rate leaders at best, and nightmares like Hillary at worst?

Don't even get me started on Congress....

[Rain And]

You're a paleocon who doesn't want a black president, fine.

Uncalled for. Not cool.

[The Engineer]

If Mitt were, say, a converted Catholic rather than a practicing Mormon, then the sins of his grandfather might be less relevant.

[roissy]

all signs are pointing towards legalized polygamy in the west, and it's not just gay marriage serving as the catalyst.

the seeds were planted when women started pricing themselves out of the marriage market with their entrance into the workforce.

[Turambar]

Or just as irrelevant?

Why can we judge people on their own merits? Even if you do want to use some "the apple doesnt fall far from the tree"isms going back multiple generations is way too much.

[trumwill]

all signs are pointing towards legalized polygamy in the west, and it's not just gay marriage serving as the catalyst.

Where in the west? If you're referring to Utah you're pretty sorely mistaken, but it sounds like you could be referring to somewhere else.

Plenty of polygamous muslims living in Europe and Canada. Not exactly legal, but as far as I can tell, the authorities don't seem to real eager to do anything about it(isn't that called de facto legalization or something?). If I was a French/Dutch cop, I wouldn't go into certain neighborhoods in without an armored unit. It is that bad. And Allah only knows how many polygamous muslims live right here in the US.

[Buckaroo]

Where in the west?

I am too lazy to look for links but some quasi-governmental "human rights" commission in Canada came pretty close to advocating legalized polygamy within the last year or so. Also, I vaguely recall reading about a (white) guy in the Netherlands sort of legally marrying two women a year before that. And it's pretty well known that the French know that many of their Muslim imports practice de-facto polygamy but choose to look the other way.

That's still some way from "all signs pointing too...", etc. Nevertheless, once you have successfully argued that there is nothing special about the sexes of the participants as far as marriage is concerned, it becomes harder to maintain that there is something magical about the number 2. As a bonus, there is clearly a multimillion-strong worldwide constituency for polygamy and a long, broad tradition of same. Unlike gay marriage, which seems to be just one of those late decadent psychoses that the West is exhibiting.

[Three Holes one Pole]

I'll never understand what causes prudes to be so concerned over how other people agree to live together.
It's not like you guys think you are morally justified to engage in social engineering through government fiat, right?

If Republicans go along with Giuliani, it will be a disgrace. They will never be able to talk about traditional morality and decency again & be taken seriously. Certainly, their alleged contempt for Clinton's behavior will be shown up as the sham that it apparently was.

His "moderate" immigration stance will make him no better than Bush. However, despite libertarian enthusiasm for immigration, I can't imagine how they can vote for a man who is so deeply enamored of government power.

In short, Giuliani is a great candidate for people who are indifferent to traditional morality & small government, but are in favor of gun control, immigration, abortion, government expansion, and invading the world. You know, "Republicans" like that.

[bbartlog]

I'm curious - what do you think of Giuliani's choice of Norman Podhoretz as adviser? In my eyes choosing someone who thinks we're fighting WW IV against Islamofascism as an adviser suggests a radical foreign policy stance that I don't like. But maybe you have a higher opinion of Podhoretz.
In any case I can't support Giuliani. He can make vague claims to being socially liberal and fiscally conservative, but he also appears to be stupid, authoritarian, and personally immoral.

[Half Sigma]

"If Republicans go along with Giuliani ... their alleged contempt for Clinton's behavior will be shown up as the sham that it apparently was."

As long as Giuliani doesn't receive blow jobs in the White House (from women other than his wife), and then lie about it, I don't really see the hypocrisy.

If you have too many muslims, there will be nothing to be prudish about. "Alternative lifestyles" are punished by death under sharia.

I don't really see the hypocrisy.

It is hypocrisy because social conservatives' harping on Clinton's personal morality was supposedly not restricted to disapproval over him receiving oral sex in the White House - do you mean they would be indifferent if it had happened at the Four Seasons & are equally indifferent to his repeated adultery prior to Lewinsky?

Of course, if that's the case, then social conservatism is a sham. The defense of family values is a sham. Their talking points about the immorality, the selfishness, the utter lack of shame (e.g. Giuliani parading around NY with his mistress while he was still married), & lack of concern for their own children - the "ME-ME-ME"ness - that characterizes people with multiple divorces, repeated adultery, etc. are apparently BS as well. This was merely a club to beat liberals with & rile up the base, not due to real conviction.

In reality, we apparently don't care about traditional morality & that writ large, people who behave like Giuliani have been a disaster for our society. Conservatism is dead. We're all liberals now.

[A rude dude]

roissy says:

all signs are pointing towards legalized polygamy in the west, and it's not just gay marriage serving as the catalyst.

the seeds were planted when women started pricing themselves out of the marriage market with their entrance into the workforce.

The law of unintended consequences combines with a lack of knowledge about human behavior.

Women did not start pricing themselves out of the marriage market, they simply responded to incentives, as most humans do.

The reality is that something on the order of 50% of males are of no interest to all females. If the state makes it look to women at the bottom of the heap that they can go it alone, why put up with worthless males when they can bring in the same amount of money themselves. These same women would probably be perfectly happy in a plural marriage with a male who earns much, much more, if that option were available.

If Republicans go along with Giuliani, it will be a disgrace. They will never be able to talk about traditional morality and decency again & be taken seriously.

Which is why I'm all for it. If Giuliani is selected, conservatives will no longer be able to yammer on about godless, immoral, perverted, selfish liberals. All libs have to do is point to the moral pygmy Republicans selected to represent them and the trad values crowd will just have to STFU. Giuliani 2008!

[Jack]

Barack Obama is irrelevant. He will not be the nominee for president. We are instead looking at the prospect of Hillary Clinton becoming President, the feminist fascist herself. She supports illegal alien amnesty, gay marriage (though she won't admit to it), government health care, and has been a radical feminist for 40 years. Whoever her opponent is, he deserves our support.

What Romney's grandfather did doesn't matter. Giuliani hasn't convinced me he will be tough on the border or he will appoint conservative judges.

[M. Hodak]

Interesting how no-one took your bait about "bad religions." Your readers must know you too well.

[bbartlog]

Whoever her opponent is, he deserves our support

I'd vote for Clinton over Giuliani purely on grounds of competence and mental stability. Giuliani is like a stupider, less mentally stable version of George Bush.
Romney versus Clinton or Thompson versus Clinton would be a tougher choice.

[Jack]

I'd rather have a proven leader like Giuliani any day over a manipulative, programmed socialist like Hillary. Competence? He ran the largest city in the country; she never ran anything in her life.

Were some posts deleted from this thread? Weren't there a couple people joking that HS comment that "Bad religions, like polygamous Mormonism and Islam ought to be illegal" might lead to a Muslim...or Mormon...jihad?