1

Polygamy Controversy Essay

Jordan Peterson

Many governments around the world restrict what their citizens can do, deciding huge
parts of peoples' lives; one of these restrictions is about marriages - how many people one person
should be allowed to marry. Polygamy, the marriage of multiple spouses, drives a heated debate
about what is right culturally, politically, and religiously when it comes to government control.
Before I began researching this topic, I knew very little, I only knew what the concept was and
that it existed commonly elsewhere in the world. The thing that inspired me to analyze this issue
was the fact that to an outsider, to me, restricting such a universal right as the ability to love
brings up morality issues that need to be checked to ensure that the outcome is reasonable. The
research required a great deal of synthesis and analysis, all in a neutral mind, to successfully
come to an educated decision; this challenged me, but the organization of me and my teachers
greatly aided me through it. In order to understand the nature of the controversy, one must know
that it is primarily a religious practice to be polygamous, and that often in the U.S, polygamous
relationships are kept hidden. Proponents of this issue often say that polygamy should be made
legal because it is otherwise a violation of numerous constitutional rights, whereas contrarians
argue that such relationships are ultimately destructive to society and that it should be prohibited
to prevent the destructive, competitive nature inherent in practicing polygamy.

Polygamy is a subtopic of a much larger controversial issue, one about governments and
religions and cultures and how they think they have the right to define who a person can and
love. I honestly see no reason to limit these rights, yet I am not against the idea of traditional
family structures. Perhaps that is because of how I grew up being conditioned; in a family with

said traditional structure (1 father and 1 mother), and in a country that does not permit polygamy,
and until recently same-sex marriage (and it is not permitted completely). I am a christian, yet I
now go to a church which is divergent, one that accepts/believes many things differently than
how a traditional church would. I have grown up in a changing world, one that is turning stones
that havent been touched since some religions were formed, and I personally would like to delve
into the subject of polygamy, to find not only the original causes for it, not only to find out why it
is banished through-out most of the world, not only to know about and why there is the debate
today in our modern world, not only to be emerged into different cultures, (and not only because
we read a book where it was expected), but because of all of this. I would love to discover the
purpose of such a foreign system, see why it is struck down, analyze if the perhaps extreme
things that caused its controversy are now non-problematic, and enjoy searching through a
unique societal belief.

I know that marriage rights and limitations are a problem world-wide. Most countries ban
same-sex and polygamous marriages, such as the United States. One issue here, even between
states, is that if same-sex marriage is allowed in one state, the rights of that marriage are not
necessarily carried over to the other states, even though it was legal in the place that it
happened/was initialized, but not the place that the people may be in or want to go to. The same
holds true with polygamy - if a man moves from Africa (honestly the only place I know of that
widely accepts polygamy), to the United States, he is only permitted to bring one of his wives
with him. This is debatably inhumane, or it is to be expected. Some say you should respect where
you are going; some say we should respect where people come from. I dont know much about
this topic, but I am interested in exploring it more, going in with those debated mindsets. The
limited information that I do have about these topics, I have heard from social studies classes

(same-sex marriage rights between states), a student from Africa with African friends (polygamy
restrictions when immigrating), and some other filler information from discussion in class
(English). [I only talk so much about same-sex marriage because its a very closely related issue,
but its more known about for us (generally).]

The information that I researched for this project was all located in articles found on
SIRS Online Database, a source that was suggested for use by instructors and librarians. The
most helpful sources were probably the ones that had an elaborate explanation of the whole
issue, and then after it explained that, it made its own claim in favor of one side. The ones that
did this were 'America's Polygamous Future' by Charlotte Allen, and 'In Marriage, Three or More
Is Still a Crowd, Scholar Says' by Lisa Miller. Thus the least useful sources for me were the more
biased ones, which included 'Polygamy Harmful and Must Be Fought' by Susan Martinuk and
'Why Polygamy Should Be Allowed' by Andy Ho. During research I had a lot of problems
finding neutral background that could be used by either side, but I found a lot of information
between commonly-sided articles, which made well-backed pro and con information easy to
come by. Eventually I solved this problem by looking back at old pro/con quotes I found and
seeing if they could be applied to either side; I found a few that weren't strong arguments for any
side (and I took down just to get all of the information) and used those.

Polygamy has been around for thousands of years, yet it has never been allowed in the
U.S. and the likely reason for that is because of its inherent controversy; an undisputed law
cannot be made to permit it, so nothing has changed. However, following in the path of
advancements of civil liberties, its latest in rights for same-sex marriages, many people believed
that polygamy would come to be analyzed soon after (Charlotte online). After the outcome of

many same-sex marriage cases throughout the United States, that it is not constitutional to
prohibit it, it is the next logical step for both citizens and polygamists to ask whether the same
rights will apply to people with multiple spouses, not just ones of the same gender. For the past
four years, [the show Sister Wives] has fascinated Americans by portraying - and attempting to
normalize - the polygamous life of Kody Brown, his four wives and 17 children. They are
members of a fundamentalist Mormon sect that allows polygamy; Brown is legally married to
one woman and considers his other marriages to be spiritual unions (Martinuk online).
Polygamy does happen in our country, and this show, which sparked the controversy of
polygamy, had in its own way begun to set out the defense for its position in the issue, showing
one of the core issues of the debate: religion, and whether freedom of it should be disregarded in
this situation. To further this emphasis on the importance of religion at hand, a researcher
concluded that Once any crimes or abuses are stripped away in cases like the Browns', what
remains is religious animus. Yet, polygamy is widely practiced around the world by millions of
families and was condoned by every major religion -- from Judaism to Christianity to Islam -- at
one time(Charlotte online). Though polygamy is practiced throughout the world, and condoned
by religion, it is not necessarily permitted legally; the core of this controversy really is that the
line needs to be drawn for what, at the very least, our country, considers acceptable when it
comes to the many religions present and the people and practices associated with them.

Polygamy is a part of numerous religions and cultures, yet the United States, a country
made of many others, does not review its Constitution enough to see if it should really be
permissible. In one case, a judge asked the lawyer, Jensen, to clarify if what he was saying means
that a person expressing a person as a wife (or spouse), when you already had one was the illegal
part of polygamy, and Jensen said yes. A researcher analyzed what this entailed, and he noted

that This strange policy is indefensible for a host of reasons. First, it criminalizes the mere claim
to be married. Second, it doesn't actually prevent men from having sex and children with
multiple women. Third, it has been enforced almost exclusively against people who are
motivated by religious faith(Chapman online). The issues brought up by the researcher are valid
concerns, and they all seem to point to the fact that nothing said by Jensen needs to be verified
through documentation or anything, yet it can criminalize the person who claims to have done it.
As the researcher elaborated, this does not prevent the relationships, and it encourages secrecy
about them. However, there are points as to why polygamy can in fact be better, and not just
another option, as stated by Advocates [who] say there would be more warm bodies in a plural
marriage to support the household economy, which can include real companionship among the
many wives. In what is, in essence, an extended family, the children can benefit from having
more parental caregivers and half-siblings (Ho online). This would mean that not only there
could be more opportunities for each person in the family to develop relationships with at least
one other family member; it would mean that families can feel more comfortable economically,
and possibly socially if that is what the parents are inclined to. It would also help as when a
caregiver passes away, the family will receive less of a blow economically, and in some cases,
emotionally, as there would be more [parents or siblings] to help them through the times, in
every way. (Ho online [2nd half of quote above]) Additionally, the act of criminalizing
polygamists only further encourages them to keep their identities and practices hidden; taking
away that charge of felony would allow plural families to shift into society and live normal, more
honest, and more free lives (Turley online).

The nature of polygamous relationships, inspiring competition within society and the
marriages, is the primary reason to cause concern for the structural safety of families and society

as well as the protection of citizens from abuse. The United States has been changing and
accepting more and more that many never thought it would have before, but almost anything
can be considered permissible or even legal. But that doesn't mean that it results in something
good for an individual or what is right for society (Martinuk online). Many actions can be made
while politicians are misled or, truthfully, trying to appeal to more people. Not all of these are
bad things that they do, but they can be, and this decision, to permit polygamy, would overthrow
a seemingly fundamental belief in the U.S. from when it was created. A change like this could
not only cause hostility from people who dont accept the idea, but also competition in the very
relationships, because as Witte, a civil law and religious tradition researcher, says, Same-sex
marriage does not open the door to polygamy because what matters in marriage is not who but
how many.[...]the meaningful number is two. Polygamy creates competition and rivalries; it can
foster insularity and religious zealotry; at its worst, it can subordinate women and children. Two
has moral resonance, for it forces a couple to seriously consider their vows 'for better and worse;'
it shows children an example of mutual love and respect (Martinuk online). As Witte points out,
having less people in a relationship [parents] means that each of them has more of a chance to be
together with the other one, and not be split between two or more, as well as the kids; this is also
how he explains why same-sex marriage is not the same as polygamy. Competitions between not
only the superior spouse, but also people of the society in general could grow into a big issue,
where people are either abused, harassed, or taken advantage of based on their sexual superiority
or inferiority. Along the same lines, relationships dont really go both ways in regards to freedom
of family structure. They can be otherwise, but Cheerleaders for legalized polygamy should be
careful what they wish for. For one thing, 'polygamy' almost invariably means 'polygyny' -- one
man with multiple wives, not the other way around. 'Polyandry' -- one woman with multiple

husbands -- is extremely rare(Allen online). This means that even though the opportunity for
freedom of multiple spouses would exist, it would, according to studies from countries around
the world, rarely happen if it were allowed. This would cause an inherent inequality between
males and females, simply because of how society has worked out in the past. These
competitive- and dominance-inspiring ideals would likely exist in our society if polygamy were
to be permitted.

Polygamy will exist, no matter if the government permits or acknowledges it, so from
what I can see through my research, is that the government has to choose whether or not it is
okay with the practice at all. If it isnt okay with it, though it would be a limitation to the
freedom of religion, making sure it was prohibited for all would create a solid ground rule that
would halt any claims of inequality, other than perhaps that it is unconstitutional to in fact make
such a prohibition. If the government is okay with it, but only for specific cases, then in my
opinion, the government needs to be okay with it for every instance and thus everyone. Failing to
do so will cause enmity towards the people who have the right, and distrust towards the
government for failing to protect freedoms of things such as privacy, religion, and equal
opportunity for everyone. I understand the concerns about competition that could grow and
overtake the culture of our country, but that is not the governments job to protect us from - from
cultural changes. The government thus should not be able to deny a person to be in a relationship
that they are in, whether or not that relationship is recognized. And only making polygamy
illegal if the marriages are performed officially and are licensed only encourages people to lie
and be more distrustful. That is a horrible trait for the government to promote and desire (unless
it itself does it and doesnt recognize it). In conclusion, I feel that two separate things are being
fought for, one by each side legality of polygamy, and social/cultural protection which are not

evenly balanced when it comes to justice; legality concerns have far more power as the
constitution does not enable the government to protect citizens from peaceful changes to culture
that are not guaranteed to happen, but it does enable law to be overturned and edited.