I recently came across a case that brings up some really interesting questions about law, feminism, and relationships, and I’d like to share some of the issues with you. This is a case about marriage, sort of, but not same-sex marriage. It’s a case about a law that interferes with privacy in the bedroom, but it’s not a sodomy law. It’s a case that’s going to make the parade of horrible folks really, really nervous.
The case in question involves a polygamous family suing the state of Utah in hopes that an anti-bigamy law will be overturned. This family isn’t asking for the right to legal marriage, but rather that the state not interfere in their personal relationships by making an additional purported marriage or marriage-like relationship illegal when someone is already legally married.
When we think about privacy law, we think about rights to do things versus freedoms from government intervention. The latter are usually easier to claim, because they require no resources. The government just has to stay out. If it doesn’t have some compelling state interest that allows for intervention, then we end up with a result similar to Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which is the case being used as precedent here to challenge the Utah law.
Of course, feminist lawyers and legal activists tend to have some difficulties when polygamy gets involved, and understandably so. I’ve seen several recent feminist critiques of polygamy, pointing to its misogynist history and relationship with the Mormon church. But this isn’t the only context for polygamous or polyamorous relationships. In my opinion, the government has no business regulating relationships between consenting adults when those adults are making no claims to legal rights based on the relationship.
There is no one true feminist position when it comes to what relationships should be “allowed,” but I tend to believe that one of the most important tenets of feminism is the freedom to develop relationships in whatever way one chooses. There are many polyamorous feminists, just like there are many queer feminists, many religious feminists, many married feminists and unmarried feminists and child-free feminists and feminists with children. There are all sorts of way to create a family outside those that are legally recognized and supported. The lead counsel in this case has it right when he describes the irrational way we pick and choose among those family types to determine public policy and law.
Eventually, I hope that the legal recognition scheme for marriage will become more sensible, but until that point, I hope that cases like this one succeed. At the very least, adults should be able to form relationships in whatever way they choose, and cement those relationships with religious ceremonies, cohabitation, or whatever else they feel is appropriate. Utah is simply out of line.
Comments 4
Pam Redela — August 1, 2011
So, you're arguing that polygamy should be made legal? Isn't there quite a bit of evidence that polygamist compounds in Utah DO in fact abuse and exploit women? Yes, consenting adults should be able to be polyamorous, but doesn't' the history of Utah's religious fundamentalism indicate that "free love" is not what this case is getting at? Sorry if I'm misinterpreting your point.
Meryl — August 1, 2011
Actually, I don't think she's arguing that at all. At least, as far as "polygamy" means the legal recognition of multiple marriage relationships. Just that, as you say, consenting adults should be allowed to be ployamourous.
The abuse argument has always seemed like a bit of a red herring to me. We have laws that prevent sex with underage girls and sex without consent and spousal abuse and so on and so forth--let's enforce those rather than limiting adult relationships.
Judy Schwartz Haley | CoffeeJitters.Net — August 1, 2011
I have a difficult time equating feminism with anything that limits a Consenting Adult woman's right to choose, whether it's what happens in her body, what she wears on her head, or how she romantically partners with others.
Amanda — August 1, 2011
I hope they win. I don't think that the government has any business deciding which consenting adults can and cannot form relationships. If everyone is of age, then there's no issues (to me).
Polygamy, polyandry, and polyamory aren't bad things in and of themselves. Yes, some people abuse the situation and do it wrong, but that doesn't mean that whole style of relationship is bad. Just as a super high divorce rate doesn't mean marriage itself is bad and should be banned :)