Wait, I’m defending polygamy?

For me, it started with a question: why exactly do we outlaw polygamy?  I was reading about a freedom of religion case currently unfolding in Canada.

A breakaway traditionalist Mormon sect in Bountiful, British Columbia, has practiced polygyny for years– men traditionally marry at last 3 women, in the belief that doing so helps guarantee their entry into heaven.

British Columbia has previously tried two men from this sect under anti-polygamy laws, but failed on technicalities.  Now, prosecutors have asked a British Columbian Supreme Court to decide whether outlawing polygamy is a violation of freedom of religion.

Many Americans have heard about our own country’s well-publicized prosecutions of polygamists (think Warren Jeffs) and are familiar with TV show about the topic, both fictional (Big Love) and true (Sister Wives).  And most Americans are probably against polygamy, if they’re anything like I am: raised Christian and steeped in the American tradition of one husband, one wife.

But I read the article and started wondering: why exactly do we outlaw polygamy?  Even if my instinct is to say polygamy is wrong, I couldn’t come up with a good reason why, other than an answer based in Christian doctrine or American custom.

Let me be absolutely clear: I do not condone, in any way, the underage and forced marriages that seem all too common among ultraconservative religious groups that do practice polygamy.  I also, personally, don’t like the idea of polygamy and would never take part in it or promote it.  I don’t think it’s fair to have to share a relationship as significant as marriage, for one thing.  But that’s just my opinion.

Statutory rape, rape, forced and underage marriage and other crimes are already illegal and are already prosecutable (and should be aggressively pursued).  What’s not clear is what good it does to go one step more and outlaw polygamy.  After all, people can live with whomever they want.  They can form relationships with whomever they want (polyamory, loving and forming relationships with many people, is common around the world).  Furthermore, there are plenty of other things that are not illegal that can lead to bad things, too– should we outlaw all of them?  Of course not.

So why do we outlaw polygamy?

Some people say it’s to clear up what would be extremely complicated legal cases if someone married multiple people.  (Which wife gets to decide if a husband is taken off life support?)  But in reality, we already face those extremely complicated legal cases in regular marriages and situations (remember Teri Schiavo?).  And has anyone seen the tax code lately?  It’s thousands of page long.  I don’t think anyone can really argue complicated laws and complicated situations don’t already exist.

There’s the moral reason: in a country heavily based on Judeo-Christian values, most Americans probably recoil at the idea of polygamy because of moral or ethical values.  No major Christian or Jewish denomination endorses polygamy.

There’s also the “civilizing” rationale: marriage is the pinnacle of civilization and enlightenment, and only “backward” cultures practice polygamy.  But that’s a pretty Euro-centric view.  Some Islamic cultures allow polygamous marriages, as well as some African ethnic groups, for starters.  (For more details, see the information in the International Encyclopedia of Sexuality, or the footnote references in this Wikipedia entry).  The scenario most of us are familiar with is polygyny, when a man has multiple wives.    But polyandry (in which a woman has more than one husband) has also existed in various cultures around the world for centuries (an article from just a few years ago profiled a small community in Nepal where it had been the norm for years until economics of the region changed).

As much as it might go against my instinct, there’s no good legal reason to make polygamy a crime, and certainly no good reason that outweighs the possibility of trampling on genuine religious beliefs that proclaim polygamy a good thing, or even a required practice.  At the least, we shouldn’t pursue criminal charges against people who practice polygamy when no other crimes have been committed.

A Crack in the Wall?

Excerpts of a book of interviews with the pope have been released in which the pope is quoted as saying there are certain cases where a moral justification could be made for using condoms. While it’s not an outright endorsement of the use of condoms (in particular, the pope did not say that couples could or should use condoms), it’s viewed by many as a huge step for a conservative pontiff, and indeed a whole church, who had outright condemned the use of contraception or sexual protection in virtually any way, shape or form.  Is this the beginning of a new attitude from the Vatican?

Let’s not break out the champagne yet.

The Catholic Church’s hierarchy is still, for the most part, wildly out of sync with the views of the majority of the people it professes to lead.  This is probably true about a great many topics, but let’s just stick with contraception for the moment.  A survey in England and Wales in 2008 found 73% of Catholics had used or would consider using condoms.  Eighty-five percent of US Catholic women have had their partners use a condom.   Even in Latin America, where Catholicism is particularly strong, a 2004 study found the vast majority of Catholics in three countries thought contraception was morally acceptable.

(Yes, it’s true that the pope and the higher-ups believe that they have the moral authority to say what they say, even though in a democratic system they would never be in charge with so few people in agreement with them.  But if their goal is convince people to agree with them, eventually, they’re not doing a very good job.)

So, in the face of all this, the pope has finally come out, for the first time in the history of the papacy, and said something positive about contraception!  This should be great news!  Except that the one (and ONLY) example that the pope gave about when it might be permissible or morally justifiable or something to use contraception was for….. male prostitutes.  What?  Since when does the pope even acknowledge male prostitution, except to say it’s a no-no? (That was my first thought).

On second blush, it appears the pope just can’t budge more than an inch at a time on something so monumental in Catholic doctrine.  Or at least, that’s the only thing I can figure out.  But despite the fact that this was really not a big announcement, if you think about it (couples still have to submit to God’s will to have as many children as possible, basically), it made headlines all over the world.  Essentially, that’s how stubborn the pope and the Catholic Church has been: one little announcement that doesn’t actually change any church doctrine, or even apply to the majority of its congregants, and people are tripping all over themselves in awe that the pope even mentioned the world “condoms” in a positive way (this is the pope who, after all, said using condoms could make the AIDS epidemic worse).

Here are Pope Benedict’s exact words, as related in the NYTimes:

In the book, Benedict said condoms were not “a real or moral solution” to the AIDS epidemic, adding, “that can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.” But he also said that “there may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility.”

Punching a Priest

Most Americans have never heard of Fr. Jerold Lindner, but Will Lynch is on a mission to change that.  So Lynch went to Fr. Jerry’s retirement home, full of other retired priests, and beat him up in front of onlookers.  Then he ran.

Later he turned himself in, and plans to use the publicity surrounding his assault case to bring attention to Fr. Jerry.  And truth be told, if anyone ever deserved to be given a good sucker punch in the face, it’s probably Fr. Jerry.

Fr. Jerry is a 65-year-old retired priest in Los Gatos, California.  What did he do to deserve the beating?

Well, what didn’t he do, is the better question.  For many years, Fr. Jerry sexually abused young children in his care, including Will Lynch and his brother (whom he also forced to abuse each other.  I can’t even type the details here, it’s so disgusting).

Unfortunately, as we know, child abuse and sexual assault, like almost all crimes except murder, have a statute of limitations. So Fr. Jerry was never charged with the abuse of Will Lynch, although several years ago, Lynch did reach a large monetary settlement with the priest and the diocese.

It’s not quite clear what prompted Lynch to head down to see Fr. Jerry when he did recently, but Lynch has been quite clear about what he plans to do next.

“I think there’s an opportunity here with this media attention that I can possibly … help people seek justice,” Lynch told the AP.

It appears he may have a lot of supporters.  Signs held outside the courthouse where Lynch was attending a hearing included slogans like “Free Willy” and supporters have said they’re starting an online fund to raise money for his defense.  I’m waiting for the “LYNCH mob!” signs next.

But wait a minute.  Since when  do we not only condone but encourage individuals to attack, 35 years later, the person who abused them?

Probably when it seems, over and over, that the Catholic Church repeatedly covered up allegations of abuse and refuses to punish the priests within the church legal system, except to move them around or ask them to retire.  Probably when adults, who were abused as children and take years to recover, finally come to grips with incidents decades later– and find they have no recourse because of the statute of limitations.

Lynch may also think that this is the only way for the church to take notice of how frustrated its victims have become at a system still failing to take much concrete action against alleged child abusers. He may actually make some progress this way.

Just taking a cursory look through some comments online gives you a taste of the popular sentiment out there:

“Tell me where to send my donation to the Free Will Lynch Fund.”

“Beating up a cultist is no different than beating up a Nazi.”

“I’m normally not into vigilante justice, but to hell with that this serial baby fucker deserves to find out what it feels like to be on the receiving end as there is NO LEGAL RECOURSE.”

“Pity. He should of killed the bastard and then he would have a defense of justifiable homicide.”

“Thanks Will, for punching one of these perverts for all of us.”

Eye for an eye?

However much we sympathize with Will Lynch and all the other victims out there, though, we can’t possibly sympathize with what he did to Fr. Jerry.  No matter how much the priest deserves punishment, no matter how little justice Lynch can realistically get at this point (or how good it felt to punch the priest in the face), the answer is never to take justice into your own hands.

It’s difficult to defend a priest who did such horrible things, and I’m afraid that’s what Lynch will accuse his detractors of doing.  But, quite simply, if we allowed people to decide on their own form of justice every time they’re wronged, we would have a society of chaos.

It’s true that a statute of limitations has run out in this case– but then that’s a good reason to go fight for a change to the law, not to punch a man in the face on a whim.