There's a chapter or two about Short Creek in Jon Krakauer's recent book on Mormon extremism.

Posted January 22, 2004 1:03 AM by Bryant

That is absolutely mind boggling - and chilling as well. It puts me in mind of a snippet of Sherlock Holmes that I've always admired:

It is my belief, Watson, founded upon my experience, that the lowest and vilest alleys in London do not present a more dreadful record of sin than does the smiling and beautiful countryside. . . .The reason is obvious. The pressure of public opinion can do in the town what the law cannot accomplish. There is no lane so vile that the scream of a tortured child, or the thud of a drunkard's blow, does not beget sympathy and indignation among the neighbors, and then the whole machinery of justice is ever so close that a word of complaint can set it going, and there is but a step between the crime and the dock. But look at these lonely houses, each in its own fields, filled for the most part with poor ignorant folk who know little of the law. Think of the deeds of hellish cruelty, the hidden wickedness which may go on, year in, year out, in such places, and none the wiser.

Posted January 22, 2004 1:37 AM by Steve Taylor

Agatha Christie's Miss Marple said something similar about how people thought she wouldn't have experience of all the nasty (& nice) things people are capable of in her idyllic little English village.
<ahem> I went through an Agatha Christie stage, sometime in my early teens, I think. That would be the late 1960s/early 1970s, and the paperbacks had some wonderfully surreal covers.

Posted January 22, 2004 2:31 AM by Epacris

The Doyle quote (said the compulsive annotator) is from "The Copper Beeches." Jeremy Brett did it fine service in the television adaptation (it may have been trimmed a bit, but the sense was there).

Posted January 22, 2004 2:41 AM by John M. Ford

You would have thought that a tv movie would have solved all this:

http://imdb.com/title/tt0082169/

Child Bride of Short Creek (1981)

Posted January 22, 2004 2:55 AM by Harry Connolly

Holmes was right about the countryside, but I'm not so sure he was right about the city.

Teresa, in your opinion, is polygamy inherently abusive? Should it be legalized?

I've been getting into a discussion on my own blog in the issue of homosexual marriage. I realize now that I have come to embrace a point of view that I considered extreme a few months ago: the government should be out of the marriage business. The government should give out "civil unions" to any group of two or more consenting adults who asks for them, giving the partners the same rights and responsibilities that a married couple now has toward each other.

These civil unions don't have to be based on sexual love; they can be between two good friends. Nobody else's business.

Churches can continue to marry people, and the ceremony will have the same legal, binding effect as Bar Mitzvahs and communions: none whatsoever.

I expect this change in law would have little effect on the overwhelming majority of people, who would still continue to get married in heterosexual couples, by clergy, who would also be certified by law as being able to grant a civil union. The bride would wear white, the groom would wear a tuxedo, the bride would throw the bouqet and the aunts would sit in a corner and gossip. Highly caloric desserts would be eaten. Teen-aged guests would sneak out the back and smoke cigarettes.

But of course this law would legitimize polygamy, and, thinking about cases like the ones you describe here, I balk at that.

Of course, the situation you describe here isn't polygamy. It's slavery.

I'm used to my libertarian instincts collide with pragmatism. I'm also conflicted on the questions of legalizing drugs and prostitution. Yes, the War On Some Drugs is one of the great evils of the past several decades, but should we then go to the other extreme and simply take all the drug laws off the books, and sell heroin and crack cocaine right out in the open next to the Chivas and Pabst Blue Ribbon?

Posted January 22, 2004 3:02 AM by Mitch Wagner

Mitch, bluntly, I think while I agree with you, the phrasing is the wrong way round: churches should get out of the marriage business.

Marriage has been a matter governed by law for millennia before it was ever - ever - a matter for religion.

People should be free to stand up in church, temple, circle, synagogue, meeting, or whatever place of worship they like, and ask for the blessing of their God/s on their union.

But marriage is a matter of law, and I do not believe that any religion should be allowed to govern the law.

Posted January 22, 2004 6:05 AM by Yonmei

Mitch:

I very much agree; if some weird verbal sleight of hand wants to make "marriage" between one man and one woman, the government has no business sanctioning, outlawing, giving-of-tax-breaks, anything, for one kind or any other.

I'm curious about the opinions of those who know more about Mormonism, especially the freakisly fundamentalist type. It seems like knowing or living through a situation like that would give people a different perspective than mine, to put it mildly.

To me, on reading the above, it seems as though the problem is the power roles and the social setup, not polygyny (which, not to be anal-retentive, the above situation is) itself. Open relationships, multiple partners, polygamy, polyamory, any of those breeds of relationship, can work just fine for the people involved, and people in them can be a lot more functional than your average Heterosexual Monogamous Britney Spears' relationship.

But jeez, not with kids!

Posted January 22, 2004 7:30 AM by Varia

Yonmei:

I'm deeply puzzled by what you've written. Currently, I'm in a couple of courses talking about the earliest cultures of which we have records -- Civilizations of the Ancient Mediterranian (note: not actually about sub-aquatic civilizations, sadly), and Archaeology of Mesopotamia. So I've been at least doing some reading in the field, though I'm far from an expert.

And it seems to me that distangling religon and government in the cases of Egypt and various Mesopotamian cultures is far from simple. Pharonic Egypt doesn't seem to have had any codified legal structure at all, or at least, we haven't found any evidence of one, which is odd, given the number of texts we have found. In Mesopotamia, there are a number of legal codes, but those are far from purely secular affairs -- they tend to be presented as having been delivered to the kings by the gods.

And it's not as those are the very beginings of the state or of religion; both of those things (as well as the idea of marriage, within certain definitions of the term) came before the invention of writing, which makes it hard to understand how you can say definitively that marriage was a matter for the state for millenia before it was a religous issue -- marriage is clearly a religious issue in various Near Eastern texts that date to a period early enough that the state probably hadn't existed for millenia before then.

Posted January 22, 2004 8:00 AM by Alter S. Reiss

Well, I admit I'm no expert. But everything I've read about marriage in Egypt, for example (and we do have a fair amount of documentary evidence about marriage in Egypt) indicates that it was a legal contract between a man and a woman, with legal penalties should either partner break the terms of the contract, and legal remedies should either partner wish to end the contract with divorce. There is no indication that I'm aware of (I am certain that there are readers of this blog more learned in Egyptology than me) that the marriage contract was considered to be a sacred bond, nor that it was considered eternally binding.

Jumping forward, the idea of marriage as a Christian sacrament is also (again, that I'm aware of) a relatively late idea. We have written records of Roman marriage contracts, and as far as I'm aware, they too are strictly legal documents.

Yes, religion and government have been entangled as far back as recorded history began. But we can, and we do, disentangle them now. Alexander the Great may have invoked the gods before beginning a campaign, but we do not generally regard running a war as the business of the churches. A legal document may have begun with an appeal to the gods: but we do not insist that all lawyers should be ordained priests. Why should we regard it as the business of the churches to interfere in marriage? No reason.

Posted January 22, 2004 8:57 AM by Yonmei

As Mitch acknowledges, the situation in Short Creek (or "Colorado City") isn't really polygamy; it's slavery and kidnapping. Sixteen-year-olds are being treated as chattel; older women are being forcibly kept from contact with the world, even contact with their blood families. It's like something out of Ur.

I want to find a reference about this, but according to something Teresa remembers reading, Utah has (perhaps surprisingly) come up with a way of prosecuting this sort of thing that doesn't require the state to be in the business of prosecuting households like the one maintained by our friends Arthur, Bernadette, and Kevin. In essence, you're not allowed to purport to be married to more than one person, if (or perhaps particularly if) one of the people you're claiming to be married to is (some large number of years) younger than you are.

This is from memory and probably wrong in some detail, but it does look like the intent is to focus on what matters, rather than go after grown-ups who've decided to be unconventional.

Posted January 22, 2004 9:15 AM by Patrick Nielsen Hayden

Marriage is a complex thing, and also a lot of our ideas about it are very recent.

In England and France and some other parts of Europe, in the period between about 500 and about 1500, marriage for ordinary people was a case of literally "a kiss and a promise". Lots of people did this at the church door. Some of them did it inside the church, with a priest preaching a sermon over them and blessing their union. Other people married in woods, in their houses, in bed, in the street... Marriage didn't require witnesses, it didn't require the state *or* the church, it just required two people to kiss and promise to be married.

We know about this largely because of court cases where someone broke their promise, or said they hadn't promised, or where the parents of one party wanted to deny that the promise was of the present time rather than the future. We have court cases where someone was seduced with kiss and promise and the other party later denied having promised. But we also have court cases where people are prosecuted for "leirwite", sex before marriage, which was illegal. Divorce was illegal, except for annullment, by the church, which was therefore in the divorce business before it was in the marriage business. Marriage was a real binding and hard to break contract, but it was entered into very easily. The only time the state took a hand was when money or property was involved. If a dowry was being given with a daughter, someone had to pay (sometimes the bride, sometimes her father, sometimes the groom) a fee that was similar to the fee a peasant family would pay if a son were coming into his inheritance or going into the church.

The one thing a marriage absolutely required, before the Reformation, was that it be freely entered into by both parties.

If we keep that one rule it eliminates slavery cases as mentioned above and allows great flexibility with numbers and genders.

Posted January 22, 2004 9:45 AM by Jo Walton

[Historical aside: Divorce was illegal

Not necessarily. (I grant that all the examples given are of later than 1500, but suspect that the tradition is, nonetheless, older than recorded accounts.) If I can bring myself to ignore the patriarchal awfulness of selling a woman in a halter as if she were cattle, this marketplace method actually looks like an effective and efficient means of publicly declaring a divorce and re-marriage in a non-literate culture without making children of the first marriage illegitimate and unable to inherit.]

The one thing a marriage absolutely required, before the Reformation, was that it be freely entered into by both parties. If we keep that one rule it eliminates slavery cases as mentioned above and allows great flexibility with numbers and genders.

Agreed.

Posted January 22, 2004 10:58 AM by Yonmei

PNH:

I think I'll have to do some more poking on the wording of the UT laws--my girlfriend said she had heard something about them recently changing things to allow polygamy, but didn't know much more about it. It sounds like this might be what she was talking about. In either event, nifty.

Posted January 22, 2004 11:22 AM by Varia

Steve, I've always found that observation striking.

Mitch, I have several households' worth of good friends who've been living polygamously for years. None of them set out to be polygamists as a matter of theory or religion. The polygamous arrangements were a natural outgrowth of specific relationships between specific people.

There's already a completely civil union of the sort you describe. It's called a business partnership. I have a very broad definition of marriage, but to my mind an essential component is the sense that for the people in it, this demarcated relationship is important in a way that nothing else is. Conceivably, one might be part of more than one such relationship, but it'd be like holding more than one public office, or holding down more than one job: Possible; seldom if ever an ideal arrangement; and at the point that you go from two to three, people have a right to start doubting your committment to any of them.

At bottom, I don't think governments or religions make marriages. People make marriages, and governments and religions are therefore obliged to take notice of them.

You're right that what's going on in Short Creek is better described as slavery than anything else. That includes both the girls being given as chattel, and the boys being ordered into "work missions" where their wages are paid to the FLDS. The older church members' economic subjection comes close to it.

I've been doing a lot of reading about modern slavery. One of these days I have to write about it. Even if you exclude things like abusive sweatshop operations, and the various exploitive employment arrangements you can find around the world, and just concentrate on clear-cut cases of slavery, there's more of it going on now than there was in the early 19th century. The biggest difference is that slaves are much cheaper now. (Yes, really.)

But I digress.

Yonmei, religions aren't going to get out of the marriage business, nor should they, nor do we have any right to suggest that they do so.

As for history, and your notion that "Marriage has been a matter governed by law for millennia before it was ever - ever - a matter for religion" -- well, er, um. Is there a polite way to say "Criminently Christmas, how much history have you read?" If anybody comes up with a good suggestion, I'll swap it out for what I just said.

Maybe I'm missing one or two examples, but right now I can't think of a single human culture where law, religion, and marriage customs haven't been inextricably entangled. They have to be. Marriage touches upon everything, sooner or later, and so does religion, and so does law. If you're looking at one of those societies whose formal religion doesn't much concern itself with day-to-day interpersonal behavior, you can bet there'll be social customs filling that same function.

As for our present society, our separation of religion and state prohibits us from telling religions what they can or can't do regarding marriage. All we can do is choose to not pay attention to what religions do or don't recognize.

By the way, do you have any particular reasons for thinking they should be separate?

Alter: You know a great deal more about that than I do, but everthing I know matches what you're saying. Our evidence for the existence of marriage predates anything we have for the existence of formal law. The point at which we can start claiming to understand the religious life of ancient cultures is good for at least an evening's worth of well-lubricated argument.

Patrick, I apologize for not being able to find the reference you want. I've looked at a lot of polygamy websites lately. The Utah law distinguishes everyday marital irregularity from situations where the second-or-subsequent person with whom you enter into this relationship is under eighteen, or is significantly younger than you are. It's a good place to draw the line.

Jo: Intent makes marriage, in the short version. I'm sure a lot of the girls in Short Creek would say they consented. Freely entering into marriage is another matter. They don't get to freely enter into anything, before or after they're married, so that distinction isn't going to be clear to them.

In my opinion, the first thing Short Creek needs is to have a commercial bus line making stops in town.

Varia, I don't think the Utah law legalizes polygamy of any sort. It just makes it clear that the purpose of the law is not to bust three or four people of comparable age who've been living quietly together for years.

Posted January 22, 2004 11:38 AM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

It's slavery, all right. For the boys as well as the girls. Is none of this illegal? Are there no authorities doing anything about this?

Posted January 22, 2004 11:54 AM by Chuck Nolan

TNH:

Yeah, I figured that her comment was one of those "somebody read a reference and commented on an implication and then referred to it and it trickled down" sort of situations, not an actual legalization. It's still interesting to hear more about it.

Can you amplify your comments about commitment or doubting thereof? I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

I understand your point about the business partnership, but it leaves out some very important legal questions--the most central to me being children. It irks me, and scares me, that should I die, children of me and any of my other chosen family, could legally be sent to my dysfunctional hate-filled birth family, and depending on their courts, my chosen family might not even be able to put up a fight. Clean up the laws to protect them from *that*, and I won't get so feisty.

Posted January 22, 2004 11:57 AM by Varia

“Criminently Christmas, how much history have you read?”

*g* I'll accept the intention of polite criticism of my historical knowledge.

By the way, do you have any particular reasons for thinking they should be separate?

Why, yes, I do. Different religions have different rules about who is and isn't allowed to get married. Members of a religion may respect and obey those rules, or attempt to reform their religion if they think the rules are lousy, or disobey the rules and accept or reject whatever religious penalty their religion imposes for this disobedience. But I can't think of a single rational reason why someone who is not a member of a religion should be required to obey the rules of that religion. None.

Yet, in any society larger than one family, I think it's been proven essential to have marriage laws. There are certain rights that a married couple have, and ought to have, that other people should be required to respect: there are certain obligations that a married couple take on towards each other: there are inheritance rights and tax laws and pension rights (and, in the US, health insurance access) and so on and so forth. Marriage is a matter of law.

In any society that has more than one religion, you can have either a discriminatory system, where what legal rights you have depends on what religion you are a member of, or an undiscriminatory system, where everyone has equal rights under the law. The US chose, a couple of hundred years ago, the undiscriminatory system: my own country is gradually, but slowly, working its way there.

I am not objecting at all to people who want their marriage to be religious. That's perfectly fine if that's what they want: they should be able to superimpose their religious values on the legal framework of marriage to whatever extent they wish.

But the legal framework of marriage should be freely available to everyone: it should not be ringfenced off according to the rules of one religion, privileged above others.

An adult who believes in polygamous marriage ought to be able to marry other consenting adults in legal marriage: this does not and should not affect a Catholic couple who believe that marriage is a sacrament for a man and a woman and divorce is a sin: nor a pagan couple who believe that handfasting is a celebration of life and joy. All should have the same legal marriage, with the same rights and obligations.

That's why I think that religious marriage and legal marriage ought to be separate. That doesn't mean I insist that you have to visit a registry office separately from the religious ceremony: if you can have the legal contract formally concluded in your place of religion, as part of your religious ceremony, and you want to do that, fine and dandy. But yes, Teresa: I do believe that whatever someone's religion, and whatever the religion of the person they marry, they still ought to have the same rights under the law.

Posted January 22, 2004 12:02 PM by Yonmei

I could be mistaken (and can't find a handy reference right by me), but I seem to recall that there are some Federal white-slavery laws that expressly forbid the transport of minors across state lines for the purpose of prostitution. I would think that would apply in these cases, at least the ones where it's between the two Utah-Arizona communities.

I would guess that would neatly skip prosecuting the older adults making life-style choices part as well as making it clear that it's plain old slavery, but I'm no legal scholar.

Of course, maybe the Feds are too busy busting almanac readers to take up the gauntlet...

As for ancient law and marriage and religion, the laws of classical Athens were actually pretty complicated regarding marriage, with particular rules about who got which children, who counted as what heir, and how property was divided in divorce. Fascinating stuff. Religion, law, and culture were, like today, interwoven throughout.

Posted January 22, 2004 12:46 PM by Elizabeth

In my opinion, the first thing Short Creek needs is to have a commercial bus line making stops in town.

I disagree. The first thing Short Creek needs is to have the FBI come in, arrest all the adults (sort victims (mostly women) from perps (mostly men) later), and take all the children away to places where they won't be isolated, sexually abused, and enslaved. The entire town should be abolished. If I were writing a screenplay instead of recommending a course of action, I would suggest burning it to the ground.

(Warning: I have no brakes when it comes to the topic of people systematically abusing children, whatever f***ing "scripture" they quote to justify it.)

Separation of Church and State does not mean that illegal, exploitive things have to be tolerated just because a religion believes in them. If I decide to recreate Mayan religion, and my research (or "divine inspiration") suggests that regular human sacrifice is an important element thereof, I'm out of luck. I can't practice human sacrifice in a sane society.

Ditto slavery. Ditto child prostitution, which is what this looks like to me (and ALL child prostitution is a form of slavery IMO).

I can't believe that we ban peyote ritual, and let this sort of abomination (as in Stone Them Who Do This) go on.

Their "Prophet" is the pimp of a child prostitution ring. Why hasn't some law enforcement agency stepped in?

Ah, I know: they're not carrying almanacs.

Posted January 22, 2004 12:48 PM by Xopher

Rats, Elizabeth, you got in with the almanac thing while I was still writing...

Posted January 22, 2004 12:49 PM by Xopher

Yonmei: Mitch, bluntly, I think while I agree with you, the phrasing is the wrong way round: churches should get out of the marriage business.

No, my phrasing is right and it is your phrasing that is wrong-way around.

Churches have been in "the marriage business" for quite some time, and that is as it should be. Jewish and Christian churches have a set of rules as to who is permitted to marry: two people. one man, one woman. The Catholic Church forbids divorce. All of this is right and proper, so long as the members of the church are members of their own free will.

But the government has no business codifying those church rules into law. Homosexuals should be free to marry, and if churches have a problem with that, then those churches are under no compulsion to recognize those unions as binding - under religious law. Members of those churches would be compelled to recognize the union as binding under civil law.

Teresa: Mitch, I have several households' worth of good friends who've been living polygamously for years. None of them set out to be polygamists as a matter of theory or religion. The polygamous arrangements were a natural outgrowth of specific relationships between specific people.

I just want to double-check here: when you say "polygamously," you mean one man and two or more women living as husband and wives, correct? If so, I am rather surprised that polygamy is so prevalent outside of the Mormon territories (or are you talking about people in the Mormon territories?). I knew that polyamory is is somewhat commonplace - two or more women and two or more men.

Everybody I know is either single or in couples, mostly heterosexual, one or two gay couples (and I don't know the gay couples very well). I'm boring.

There’s already a completely civil union of the sort you describe. It’s called a business partnership.

Is there? I'm not an expert on marriage law but it is my impression that there are some legal ties between husband and wife that cannot be entered into through any other form of contract. I can designate another man as having power of attorney in case I become so ill or injured that I cannot make decisions on my own behalf. We can petition the state to have him adopt my children. We can sign contracts sharing our community property. But I was under the impression that there are special recognition given to marriage by law which cannot be granted through any other contract.

I have a very broad definition of marriage, but to my mind an essential component is the sense that for the people in it, this demarcated relationship is important in a way that nothing else is. Conceivably, one might be part of more than one such relationship, but it’d be like holding more than one public office, or holding down more than one job: Possible; seldom if ever an ideal arrangement; and at the point that you go from two to three, people have a right to start doubting your committment to any of them.

Here's some things that seem to me to be intuitively true:

- Group marriages and line marriages of the type posited by Robert A. Heinlein are indeed possible - provided they are a closed group. It would be possible for a person to be "married" to a group of, say, six other adults, so long as each of the seven people were married to each other.

- I'm more skeptical that there can be an open-ended marriage. If Bob says he's married to Sue, and Sue is married to Bill, but Bob is not married to Bill - that's an inherently unstable situation, and in fact none of the three of them are married at all.

- Even within a group or line marriage there will be some ties that are stronger than others. It'll be like ANY extended family. Bob, Sue, John and Mary may all be equally married in the eyes of our (hypothetical future) law, but everyone within the marriage that Bob and John have a closer relationship than either Bob or John have.

Yonmei, there are several errors of fact here. For starters: in any society larger than one family, I think it's been proven essential to have marriage laws.

Actually, no, most societies don't have any laws. A tribe of hunter-gatherers doesn't have law, they have customs and the decisions of the tribal leaders.

Likewise, we've seen elsewhere in this discussion how many earlier civilizations had no laws at all.

I was taught in high school that the Roman Emperor Justinian was the first person to set down a code of law, and that's pretty late in the civilizaton game.

In any society that has more than one religion, you can have either a discriminatory system, where what legal rights you have depends on what religion you are a member of, or an undiscriminatory system, where everyone has equal rights under the law. The US chose, a couple of hundred years ago, the undiscriminatory system: my own country is gradually, but slowly, working its way there.

Actually, the situation in the U.S. is more complicated than that. At least some of the Founding Fathers espoused the undiscriminatory system you describe, but what we now have in the U.S. is a lowest-common-denominator system where we've mostly codified into law most of the religious rules held in common by all the most popular Christian Churches along with Judaism.

If you are not an American, perhaps you don't know this: the Mormons had polygamy at the foundation of their religion, and were running their own separate country in Utah and parts of Arizona through the 19th Century. They wanted to become a part of the United States, and were required to give up polygamy as part of that deal.

Likewise, Moslem law permits a man to take up to four wives if he can support them - but not if the man lives in the U.S., he can't.

I am not objecting at all to people who want their marriage to be religious. That?s perfectly fine if that's what they want: they should be able to superimpose their religious values on the legal framework of marriage to whatever extent they wish.

But the legal framework of marriage should be freely available to everyone: it should not be ringfenced off according to the rules of one religion, privileged above others.

We are in 100 percent agreement on this point, I think the rest of it that we're disagreeing about is just wording and window-dressing.

An adult who believes in polygamous marriage ought to be able to marry other consenting adults in legal marriage: this does not and should not affect a Catholic couple who believe that marriage is a sacrament for a man and a woman and divorce is a sin: nor a pagan couple who believe that handfasting is a celebration of life and joy. All should have the same legal marriage, with the same rights and obligations.

Like I said: I agree with all of the preceding except for the polygamy part; I'm not so sure of that.

Polygamy has, in my mind, been closely associated with the kinds of abuses practiced in Short Creek - before I slap the "Legalize Polygamy!" bumper sticker on the back of my car, I'd like to see some evidence that polygamy and female slavery can be separated from each other.

That doesn't mean I insist that you have to visit a registry office separately from the religious ceremony: if you can have the legal contract formally concluded in your place of religion, as part of your religious ceremony, and you want to do that, fine and dandy.

Yup. We can imagine some process akin to becoming a notary public, which would allow people to certify others as being members of a civil union. The office of marriage-recognizer would be open to everyone - and that could certainly include priests, rabbis, shaman and, um, whatever wiccans and pagans have. :)

If you object to reserving the term "marriage" for religious bonds, and using "civil union" generally, then we can come up with other verbal tags to distinguish the two partnerships: "civil marriages" and "religious marriages," maybe - or "secular" and "ecclesiastic" marriages, which gives us the opportunity to throw around a couple of $20 words.

Posted January 22, 2004 12:54 PM by Mitch Wagner

Mitch:

Quick clarification. Polygamy, technically, means multiple spouses, and said spouses can be of whatever gender combination you desire, and marriage (however you define it) is a definite part of the equation. Polygyny is the more correct term for what's going on in Short Creek, and refers to one man, multiple women. Polyandry is the rarely seen opposite, wherein you have one woman, multiple men.

Polyamory is a whole different ball game than the other three, in that marriage (however you define it) is not a requirement. Polyamory is a belief in romantic love for multiple people.

Would someone more familiar with healthy adult Mormon relationships care to tackle the question about polygyny? I'm pretty sure it can be, as I can't see any logical reason why not, but I must admit all of the people I know firsthand who're doing this are in polyamorous or polygamous relationships.

Posted January 22, 2004 1:02 PM by Varia

No, my phrasing is right and it is your phrasing that is wrong-way around.

That's odd, I think the exact same thing!

If you object to reserving the term “marriage” for religious bonds, and using “civil union” generally

Yes, I do. A couple who are married, are married, if the law of their country decrees them to be married. To insist that they only get to call themselves a "civil union" rather than a "married couple" if they didn't want or couldn't get a religious ceremony would be to discriminate against a fairly large group of people, ranging from atheists to gay Catholics.

Informally, people can and will say what they like. But formally, yes, I want the word marriage to be the one used for all marriages without discrimination: we can call the additional, extra-legal religious ceremony a "religious union" when we need to specify the difference.

Posted January 22, 2004 1:10 PM by Yonmei

To Mitch:
Are there lots of non-Mormons in relationships consisting of >2 adults? Depends on your definition of "lots", but I'd say yes, there are a significant number of households consisting of >2 in a romantic/sexual grouping.

If it were possible to do this legally, they would be less closeted. As it is, it sets one up for ugly battles with child protective services, if there are any children in the family, and with legal tangles regarding bigamy.

You're right about certain rights being restricted to husband/wife pairings. Insurance benefits immediately spring to mind, with the few exceptions for domestic partnership.

Posted January 22, 2004 1:21 PM by trinker

Varia - Ah. I've been using "polygamy" incorrectly throughout this discussion. No wonder I was surprised and confused by Teresa's statement that she knew a few polygamous households. I read it as if she was saying that she knew a few polyandrous households.

Posted January 22, 2004 1:54 PM by Mitch Wagner

"Are there lots of non-Mormons in relationships consisting of >2 adults? Depends on your definition of “lots”, but I’d say yes, there are a significant number of households consisting of >2 in a romantic/sexual grouping."

Works for me, as long as the parties are in voluntary consent (and are of age to give such consent meaningfully).

That's not what's happening at Short Creek.

Posted January 22, 2004 2:02 PM by Chuck Nolan

Mitch, just to further the information pool, I also know of several families which consist of more than two adults, some of whom may be legally married to each other, all of whom live together as if married. In at least one case these people are raising children together.

And these are not the same people Teresa is thinking of, though she and I know many of the same people.

Posted January 22, 2004 2:02 PM by Melissa Singer

A slight tangent here, but the following caught my eye.

Mitch wrote: I was taught in high school that the Roman Emperor Justinian was the first person to set down a code of law, and that’s pretty late in the civilizaton game.

Just off the top of my head, there is the Codex Hammurabi, the Solonian Constitution, the Lex Duodecim Tabularum. All of them predate Justinian's code (which was mostly a consolidation of existing statutes into a single code, too). Did you have an implicit additional requirement here that I am missing?

Posted January 22, 2004 2:03 PM by Reimer Behrends

Mitch - law existed as a series of individual legislation issued by the emperors, and interpreted by judges, long before it was bundled together in an organized code. Producing a legal code gave judges a single reference that they could use for all extant law, as opposed to requiring them to have access to all of the individual documents; it also resolved the problem that occurred when a judge in one jurisdiction remembered a law that had issued from the Emperor fifty years ago, while judges in the neighboring jurisdiction did not. I wouldn't say that the creation of the Theodosian Code (Theodosius, not Justinian, was the first emperor to put together a code of law) constituted the first Roman law; it took the existing law, simplified and rationalized it, and published it in one place.

There is, I suppose, an interesting debate to be had as to whether or not the edicts of the Emperor - or, in its time, of the Senate - constitute law. :)

Posted January 22, 2004 2:04 PM by aphrael

Mitch quotes:There’s already a completely civil union of the sort you describe. It’s called a business partnership.

Mitch sez:Is there? I’m not an expert on marriage law but it is my impression that there are some legal ties between husband and wife that cannot be entered into through any other form of contract. [Examples of things contracts can do.] But I was under the impression that there are special recognition given to marriage by law which cannot be granted through any other contract.

You're correct. I don't believe there is any contract which allows you to file federal, state, and local income tax jointly (not for personal income). And marriage is The. Only. Legal. Contract. that requires (or can require) specific sexual behavior (sexual contracts other than marriage are strictly illegal).

Only if we are married in the full legal sense of the word can I sue you for infidelity, in other words. This impacts people's relationships in many, many ways.

Posted January 22, 2004 2:17 PM by Xopher

Steve Taylor writes: "It puts me in mind of a snippet of Sherlock Holmes that I’ve always admired"

I was also reminded of Holmes, but in my case, of the story A Study in Scarlet (I think) which directly involves Mormons, forced marriage, and wives-as-index-of-status.

Posted January 22, 2004 2:27 PM by Jon H

Jesus Christ. I don't know what's most appalling, that there's a whole community built on sex slavery and child abuse, that it exists in America-- in Arizona, of all places, or that these kids _still_ have to flee to a shelter because the police won't lift a finger to break it up.

The articles say that the trouble is that the wives won't testify against their husbands and that what's going on isn't technically polygamy because only one of the marriages is usually legal, but neither of those should prevent prosecutions for rape, child sexual abuse, slavery, kidnapping, sexual slavery, assault and battery, and possibly violation of child labor laws.

They could also look into welfare fraud and income tax fraud, which often trip up people who can't be easily charged with the main crimes they're committing. Keeping kids from school without home schooling them. Zoning violations. Anything.

Posted January 22, 2004 2:48 PM by Rachel Brown

I think I have to agree with the people who say the right-way-'round to say this is "Government should get out of the marriage business."

[Of course, I also believe that taxes should have nothing to do with marital status. (And it has shifted over the years just what that effect is.) But I believe a lot of things about taxes that I'm probably in a minority on, and it wouldn't surprise me if this were one of them.]

The government doesn't get to regulate who I sleep with* (in either the literal or sexual senses), who I share a house with, who I share money with, who I support financially or emotionally, whose kids I choose to help raise and watch over, who I cook for, who I clean for, or other similar life decisions. It does get to regulate, though doesn't really significantly restrict, how I go about sharing ownership of certain things, or the inheritance thereof, but it certainly doesn't limit it to someone I have an official marital relationship with. So why does it get to regulate who I get a little slip of paper with declaring we're married?

(*Note: it does regulate who I sleep with in terms of consent laws, but that is, I think, a separate issue from the rest of the bundle.)

The Church of Your Choice might have rules about marriage but the church is of your choice and you choose to follow them. It isn't imposed on you in an unchangeable way. So churches' involvement with marriage isn't really restrictive; if you're that unhappy with a religion's rules, you're probably going to drift away from or defy that religion regardless of the actual topic. Church involvement in marriage itself causes no harm (people's interpration of it is another matter) and often does some emotional good for the people involved. So why should we kick them out of the process?

Which I suppose is sort of what's said above.

And, just to add to the pool: I also know people living as if they were in group marriages, some with children, and I almost guarantee they aren't the same people Teresa knows (although we do have some acquaintances in common via fandom, it's fairly far-flung).

And finally, let me sum up by quoting Mitch:

"But the government has no business codifying those church rules into law."

Exactly.

I just wrote very briefly about this in my LJ yesterday after reading the news about Ohio's new same-sex ban. I pointed out the fact that the word "sacrament" was included in discussions about the whole concept of marriage was precisely the reason why government shouldn't be making laws about marriage, and remember when we had a Constitution in this country? Could we dust that off again? I seem to recall it had some good points in it.

Posted January 22, 2004 2:53 PM by Tina

Forget what I said about Justinian, it's clear I was talking through my hat on that one.

Xopher - Ah. Thank you for clearing that up.

Posted January 22, 2004 3:09 PM by Mitch Wagner

Thanks so much for this, Teresa, although it made me feel physically ill.

If you'd like to send a check to the Child Protection Project, here's the address:

The Child Protection Project
c/o David Gould
555 South Flower Street, Suite 4510
Los Angeles CA 90071

Posted January 22, 2004 3:26 PM by Rachel

At the point that you go from two to three, people have a right to start doubting your committment to any of them.

Why then, Teresa? I mean, I've doubted the commitment to/in a large number of two-person hetero marriages (or single-political-office-holders, for that matter). Am I just unusually cynical about these things?

I think it would be a very good thing if there was an easy set of forms for declaring oneself near kin with someone else for whatever reasons, without having to go through all of the power of attorney, inheritance, etc. etc. etc. paperwork. Most of us should probably have paperwork explicitly filled out for our medical decisions and the disposal of our property and all that anyway, but my lawfully wedded spouse and I had to fill out exactly one form to become defaults on a lot of legal stuff. There's no way to easily designate a secondary default as far as I've been able to find out.

I don't really get why it would be a bad thing for the government to let consenting adults sign on as each other's family: "No, really, we're willing to take care of this person, too!" What harm there? And what do they care if some consenting adult members of that group have sex and some don't? It's not like we're unable to do that *without* being allowed to make medical and financial decisions for each other, for heaven's sake.

It's a horror and a shame that these children are put through this sort of thing, much less by the very people who are supposed to love them most. I save the lion's share of my indignation and upset for that. But there's a little corner of my heart that sighs, just a bit, that the situation muddies the waters on consenting, loving adult relationships by using some of the same terminology.

Posted January 22, 2004 4:24 PM by Mris

Mris, I'm not saying it's impossible; just that I'd start looking askance -- same way I would with an employee who had two other jobs, or a politician who was holding two other offices.

Mitch, now that I think about, one of the households I had in mind is technically polyandrous. The other is far more complicated. Technical, even. None of the people involved are Mormons. The relationships are serious and of long duration.

As far as I know, I'm not socially acquainted with any Mormon polygamists. You want to hear something funny? I don't have any social prejudices against gentile polygamists per se, but Mormon polygamists are another story.

Yonmei, it's also the case that different administrations, political parties, government departments, and public officials have/had different opinions and policies about marriage.

If what you mean is that government policies ought not take their cues from specific denominations' religious doctrines, I'm all for it.

Rachel, the only part of your post I don't understand is "in Arizona, of all places".

Varia, what Mormons practice is technically polygyny, not polygamy. One man, many women: fine. One woman, more than one man: scandalous, an offense before god, foundations of civilized society crumble on the spot, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

A general observation: You know all those people who go on about the Defense of Marriage? Malarkey. They just don't like gays. If they were really concerned about affronts to the institution of marriage, they'd have funded a rescue mission in Short Creek ages ago.

Oh, and Chris? That approach -- going in with fire, sword, and law enforcement -- has already been tried. Look up "Short Creek Raid". The notoriety of that episode is the reason the town renamed itself Colorado City when it incorporated.

Posted January 22, 2004 5:10 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

Ter, you're right about the Defense of Marriage people. There is not one rational argument against same-sex marriage, and there are PLENTY of rational arguments against this sort of hideous exploitation.

I'll look up the raid sometime when I'm feeling up to it. Right now I'd probably have apoplexy. And if fire, sword, and law enforcement doesn't work, how about pitchforks, tar, and feathers?

Posted January 22, 2004 6:20 PM by Xopher

A friend's grandfather (a Jessop, of which there were plenty) was in Short Creek when it was raided. He never knew the man, since his dad and all the siblings jumped ship pretty early, I think.

Note that the governor then lost his re-election bid, and you'll find one reason for the shyness. Also, the whole Waco thing runs deep in that territory, which is why they've used things like welfare fraud to go after these guys.

D

Posted January 22, 2004 6:57 PM by Murph

If they were really concerned about insults to the sacred institution of marriage, they'd have said something about Nevada's laws by now. (*cough* B.S. *cough*)

As for the polygamy issue, the one rational reason I can think of to make "civil marriage" a two-adults-only deal is the issue of tiebreaking when something bad happens (who gets the money, who makes medical decisions, etc).

Speaking of medical decisions, isn't it great that the same folks who like to quote Leviticus against same sex civil marriages are happy to ignore Genesis 2:24 ("Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.") when it comes to the Terri Schiavo case?

Posted January 22, 2004 7:08 PM by Christopher Davis

Regarding Arizona, the only part of it I've spent much time in is Tucson, which is one of my favorite cities in the US. (Bookshops, glittery sand, saguaros, writers and artists, friends, more bookshops, peeping lines of baby quail...) It's like hearing that the Hellmouth is beneath your favorite pizza place.

Posted January 22, 2004 7:10 PM by Rachel Brown

Chris, I suspect that what they're going to send in is the Mojave County Sheriff's department. That's less podunk than you might imagine. Arizona has great big counties. (No point in making 'em smaller; the contents arern't exactly concentrated.) Mojave County, at the northwest corner of the state, covers more than thirteen thousand square miles, and takes in the west end of the Grand Canyon, the Lake Mead area, the Kaibab and half the Havasupai reservations, assorted military bases, and a broad stripe of westernmost Arizona all the way down to Lake Havasu and the London Bridge. Its sheriff's department is not controlled by a bunch of ignernt polygamist peckerwoods in Colorado City.

Murph -- One of the Jessops? No kidding. A friend of mine is one of the Youngs, descended from a wife who jumped ship before the migration west. Another friend -- and here I'm thinking about the "nobody talks about it" aspect -- only found out his family had been Mormon when he got a taste of my mother's potato salad, a distinctive formulation he'd only ever run into before because his aunt made hers the exact same way. Turned out the generation before his -- two sisters and their husbands -- had been Mormon when they'd gotten married, but sometime after that Something Had Happened, and thereafter nobody ever talked about anything. And then there's that branch of my own family that We Don't Talk About; but we don't talk about that.

Posted January 22, 2004 7:18 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

As I've mentioned before, I'm descended (I'm not sure of the details) from Mormon apostates T.B.H. and Fanny Stenhouse, who wrote books about the less than admirable history of the Mormon church. IIRC their daughter (who didn't leave the church) married one of Brigham Young's sons, so I'm probably related to half the population of Utah.

I really ought to have the details ready for the next time some missionaries show up...

Posted January 22, 2004 7:31 PM by David Frazer

Teresa: A general observation: You know all those people who go on about the Defense of Marriage? Malarkey. They just don’t like gays. If they were really concerned about affronts to the institution of marriage, they’d have funded a rescue mission in Short Creek ages ago.

Clearly. If they were really interested in defending the sanctity of marriage, they'd be banging down the doors at Fox (or whichever network) demanding that all the shows like "The Bachelor" and "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire" be taken off the air because they are disrespectful to the institution.

You may have heard about the AFA's response to the unexpected result on their little marriage poll last month. It amuses me to no end.

Posted January 22, 2004 7:49 PM by Colin

Teresa wrote:
I’ve been doing a lot of reading about modern slavery. One of these days I have to write about it.

I'll look forward to that very much. I'd also be very interested in any books, articles or sites you recommend.

Posted January 22, 2004 8:04 PM by Vassilissa

Teresa - What makes your mother's potato salad special?

(signed) A Potato Salad Aficionado

Posted January 22, 2004 8:46 PM by Mitch Wagner

Why am I getting echoes of Kiryas Joel? (See letter of Samuel Rabinove; see also here.)

Posted January 22, 2004 9:02 PM by Jonathan Edelstein

Just to raise a couple complications - marriage has some strong implications for immigration and nationality laws -same sex marriage taken at declarants face value without further ado has shown some odd implications/inducements for male serial polyandry

(if that's the word - perhaps the cross tab vocabulary exists but I don't know it, else polygamy but not polygyny - set notation omitted)

in acquiring residency/citizenship rights in immigrant communities in a European country whose name escapes me (googling left as an exercise)

- could argue that the State does not interfere with property rights in less legally defined relationships but will only defend certain property rights based on simplifying assumptions amounting to accepted standards of evidence - cf. favoring or disfavoring common law marriages in different times and places in the United States mostly to achieve equity.

Posted January 22, 2004 9:45 PM by Clark E Myers

I've heard wives say, only half-joking, that they could use a wife, too. Usually referring to someone to help with childrearing or housework.

Have wives ever, in Europe, asked their husbands to buy another wife? I'm not being snide. Really wondering. And, less seriously, wondering if Free Market true-believers would support "privatizing" the marketplace for spouses?

Now that Neil Labute [spelling?] has replaced Orson Scott Card as #1 Mormon Playwright, can we get Labute to try his hand at skiffy?

Posted January 22, 2004 9:56 PM by Jonathan Vos Post

Somewhere my Jessop friend has an old Life magazine with a photo spread of his grandfather and a whole swack of wives. And I remember him telling me that they set the town on the border so that they could all hide on one side and whatever state police were doing the raiding couldn't touch them.

D

Posted January 22, 2004 10:54 PM by Murph

This is a fascinating discussion. Being involved on a first person basis with this lifestyle, I feel the need to comment.

I am in a 3 person "marriage" which has live in the same house for almost 11 years. We own property together, including the house and all the cars, and have a sheaf of paperwork from our attorney to complete which will cover everything from medical care to being mutually heirs to each other. Our relationship consists of 1 man and 2 women. We are all in our 40s and 50s so I think we would qualify as "consenting adults". I introduce my spice (plural of spouse) as my husband and my wife. The other 2 are actually legally married to each other and have been for 25 years.

We are not the only ones in Kansas City fandom. We are good friend with a MFM group and a MFMF group.

Life would be so much simpler for us if there were some form civil marriage available to any configuration of consenting adults willing to take on the responsibilities that go with the relationship. The legal papers we are trying to interpret are extensive. I write contracts for a living and I am having problems understanding them.

Over the last few years, I have come to the conclusion (possibly false) that all of the "marriage" laws in this country are probably unconstitutional. My reasoning for this is the fact that all the State and Federal laws have a basis in Judeo-Christian religion. This is a separation of church and state issue. Probably why the Conservatives are pushing for a "Marriage Ammendment" to the Constitution. They think the laws are unconstitutional also. Unfortunately, it would take someone with a lot more money than we have to fight this issue through the Supreme Court.

My comments on the story that started this discussion are coming from my status as a Mother and Grandmother. I think the Short Creek people are disgusting. This is, indeed, child abuse and slavery. Someone needs to find a way to put a stop to this. We are, emphatically, NOT talking about consenting adults here.

Any questions? Please feel free to ask.

Posted January 22, 2004 11:57 PM by Margene Bahm

Does anyone know if Sherri Tepper was raised as a Mormon? The beginning of the first of the Mavin the Manyshaped series reminds me of Short Creek. *shuddersome*

Posted January 23, 2004 12:45 AM by Lydia Nickerson

If you want to scare missionaries, claim you know Bill Shunn, a.k.a. William Perry Shunn. Like Mad Baggins, who reputedly disappeared with a bang and a flash, and reappeared with bags of gold and jewels, he has become a mythic character.

Nice guy, Bill. You'd never guess that he's an alarming folkloric figure amongst the Mormon missionary population.

Posted January 23, 2004 12:49 AM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

I've never met Bill Shunn, but I remember him from GEnie days. Next time the boys in the white shirts, clip-on ties and backpacks come to the door, I may drop his name just to get a reaction.

What is the Legend of Bill Shunn among the Mormons? I vaguely remember something about phoning in a terroristic threat, and I know he left the faith, lived with Karawynn Long for a while, and then returned to the faith.

Posted January 23, 2004 12:59 AM by Mitch Wagner

Didn't return to the faith. Married one of the most charming women in the world (not Karawynn Long), and now lives in Queens.

Posted January 23, 2004 1:11 AM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

TNH:

I'm still trying to figure out your comment about commitment to multiple relationships, but I guess my question echoes Mris'. I just don't see, from my own life or the other polyamorous people I know, that either multiple partners or monogamy is related to commitment. It seems like you personally know other people doing this sort of thing (polygamy or polyamory), so is this based on what you've observed with them? Or is it more abstract?

Margene:

I hear you, I hear you. My family and I have yet to begin the majority of the paperwork that this kind of thing entails, but all of the legal advice I've heard makes me almost despair before we start. It all boiled down to "we'll write it as well as possible, but anything can be challenged, and it only takes one judge." This from a widely experienced lawyer and friend. I don't even hope for social *support* for my "lifestyle" any more. I just wish it wasn't screwed from the get-go.

********

My other favorite thing about polyamory is that since we're acting outside the usual ideas of love and marriage, we end up thinking about, and defining, what we're doing, much more so than your average married couple does (at least most of the ones I know). And during all the discussions, our agreements with each other have come down to two things: unity as a family, and responsibility for our children. It kind of echoes the "marriage" in Heinlein's Time Enough For Love, in that the central promise (although we have others) is to care for our children.

I keep wondering, if the "marriage" vows (if such exist) in Short Creek involved that provision, or even centered around it, would the situation have ever gotten this bad?

My optimistic side wants to say that it couldn't have, that even people who don't *mean* it are at least given pause by the wording of the oaths they take, and that this might have given more power to early dissenters. My pessimistic side points out all the nice normal het people (ahem, Britney Spears, not to flog a dead meme) who can blithely recite vows they have no intention of keeping. Don't know. It's a nice hope, I guess.

Posted January 23, 2004 1:29 AM by Varia

I got the return-to-the-faith thing from something Karawynn wrote online. I wonder what she meant when she wrote that? Did I misread it?

Google to the rescue! William Shunn: Inhuman Swill. His bio. Terror on Flight 789. Hard to tear myself away but alas the bed beckons.

I only vaguely remember when Bill Shunn posted his story to GEnie and yet it appeared it threw all of online fandom into turmoil. Of course, online fandom was being thrown into turmoil twice or three times a week back then, so it was quite possible to become distracted by offline life and miss a turmoil-throwing or three or four.

Posted January 23, 2004 1:38 AM by Mitch Wagner

The discussion of unusual marriages reminded me of this article about Elizabeth Marston, wife of William Marston, the psychologist who created the comic Wonder Woman ('In your satin tights, fighting for your rights'). Besides apparently being a pocket rocket all her life, and inspiration for WW, she and William lived in a trio with another woman called Olive (there seems to be some discrepency in these accounts about her last name), the women had two children apiece, and when William died the two women continued living together until Olive's death.

Posted January 23, 2004 2:09 AM by Hil

If you want to scare missionaries, claim you know Bill Shunn, a.k.a. William Perry Shunn.

I've seen his website, skimmed Terror on Flight 789 and introduced an ex-Mormon online acquaintance to his glossary of LDS-speak. Does that count?

Posted January 23, 2004 5:42 AM by David Frazer

Yonmei:

I remain unconvinced by the ability to draw distinctions between church and state in cultures like Dynastic Egypt, where the head of state wasn't just the supreme pontiff, but was, rather, a god, a not a minor one either. The state is the church, working to fulfill the wishes and bring glory to the name of the God, be it by raiding Nubia, or by building large things with limited practical function. It may well be that the justice system that commoners turned to when their contracts were not being fulfilled was not affiliated with the state at all, and was thus at least somewhat secular. But that doesn't improve the argument that marriages were of concern to the state before they were a concern of religion. Oh, and. Most of the written evidence that we have about the lives of the common folk in Egypt comes from the New Kingdom and later -- 1570 BCE is the start date on that, so it's practically modern, and somewhat less than relevant.

As far as the spirituality issues goes, if you look at a traditional Jewish Ketubah, which is the documentary part of a marriage, you'll discover that it's in Aramaic, which you probably won't be able to read. However, if you get a translated version, you'll see a good deal that amounts to a legal contract, and relatively little about spirituality. Nonetheless, there is a certain amount of evidence that current and traditional Jewish practice assigns at least some spiritual value to the marriage process. Absence of evidence, evidence of absence, and so on.

Even if you're going to posit that the marriage as a contract was lacking a spiritual dimension on the basis of that evidence, there's still going to be the usual pile of custom and religious taboo as to who can marry whom, at what ages, when different parties are to be held, or not to be held, and so on.

On another subject, to the best of my recollection, the Ur-Nammu code (2050 BCE) is the earliest legal code that we've found traces of. It would be foolish to assume that it's the earliest code ever, of course, but there were communities larger than families or even clans well before that; Jericho as a city, for example, is a Pre-Pottery Neolithic A site, which dates back to four thousand years before Ur-Nammu. It's not just earlier than writing -- it may well be earlier than agriculture.

Oral traditions are, of course, imperfectly preserved, and it's highly possible that they had what amounted to an oral legal code. But distinguishing between that, and tradition, and religion is beyond me. And beyond you, as well. I'm getting the impression that your model of a religious marriage seems to be one in which marriage is seen as a sacred bond, and one in which marriage is supposed to be eternal. I'm freely willing to admit that this is a fairly late view of marriage. It's also a fairly Christian view of marriage. Well, actually, it could also be a traditional Hindu view of marriage, but I'm far from expert in that area, so I'll ignore that possibility. Babylonian, Hittite, Jewish, and other Near Eastern legal codes all allowed for the possibility of divorce.

I'm not a hundred percent clear on what delineates a sacred bond, so I'll pass on that half of the model.

Teresa:
I'm actually not all that expert in this particular sub-area. If we were talking about, say, the Ma'agen Mikhael wreck, or the mortise and tenon system on the Ulu Burun wreck, or so on, that I'd concede to being at least somewhat expert on. However, I've sat one course that talked about Egypt, and that was focused almost exclusively on trade ties, and evidence thereof. My background in this area is a hobbyist's, albiet a hobbyist who's looking to go into a related field.

One of my favoritist memories on a similar subject was listening to one of the people who excavated at Catal Hoyuk talking to a neo-pagan Goddess type about the finds. He was being very polite, to the Goddess type due to a desire for the precious, precious funding, and to a certain degree his part in the conversation could have been replaced by a tape recorder that interspersed, "yes, that's possible, but we don't have much evidence on the subject" with "if we had more funding we could do more DNA work, and maybe get some evidence." Only a tape recorder couldn't have captured that look of pained horror that he kept trying to hide in the face of firm convictions as to the meaning of finds on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.

Jonathan:
Kiryat Joel has its own problems, as a theocratic township, but I've not heard any allegations of systematic child abuse anything like what's being reported about Short Creek. It would probably be at least polite not to suggest that people are handing out teenage girls like party favors, and driving unwanted boys away without at least some supporting evidence.

Posted January 23, 2004 6:45 AM by Alter S. Reiss

Kiryat Joel has its own problems, as a theocratic township, but I’ve not heard any allegations of systematic child abuse anything like what’s being reported about Short Creek. It would probably be at least polite not to suggest that people are handing out teenage girls like party favors, and driving unwanted boys away without at least some supporting evidence

Sorry, I was being unclear. I didn't mean to suggest that child abuse was common in Kiryas Joel, only that the methods of social control there (including enforced isolation and resource monopolies) were similar to those used in the FLDS communities.

Posted January 23, 2004 7:00 AM by Jonathan Edelstein

I totally agree with Xopher on this one. If I lived near that town, I'm afraid I'd have to start up an "Undergound Railroad" with a huge bus and big signs saying "THIS WAY TO FREEDOM AND THE 21ST CENTURY". But then, I'd probably be the one to get arrested.

I like the idea of burning the place to the ground (and I've actually been through Waco, and know exactly what that means). But I'm not sure I would let the slave-trading bastards in charge out first.

I'm horrified that this is happening, and even more so that the legal authorities aren't doing anything about it, even though they clearly are aware of the problem.

Is there anything legally that concerned adults who aren't nearby can do? Yes, I see the link to where we can donate money, but are there letters that can be written or Oprah's to be notified?

Posted January 23, 2004 9:29 AM by Kim Wells

Lydia: No clue about Sherri S. Tepper, but her book The Gate To Women's Country has a polygamist society in it that resembles Short Creek to no small degree. Weirdly enough, right before I happened across the Colorado City story, I had just finished re-reading Gate for the second time in my life--the first time being in my mid-teens. It totally slid by me then as being representative of Southern Utah polygamist society. Then as I started reading about Ruby Jessop on ex-Mormon recovery boards, my interest in the CC/Hildale polygs was piqued. So a few weeks ago, when I ran across Gate to Women's Country in a used bookstore, I snagged it and re-read.

I'm at work, btw, so can't follow the whole thread, but hopefully I can catch up this weekend. :)

Posted January 23, 2004 10:24 AM by PiscusFiche

You aren't allowed to have a single marriage with someone who isn't of age or capable of consent, so I don't see how this has anything to do with my views on polygamy. This is a group of pedophile child slavers, and they can call their system feeding carrots to little fluffy bunnies if they want, it still doesn't make them polygamists. They're pedophile child slavers.

There is no private relationship (other than parent-child, which is fairly closely regulated) which is valid when it's not based on consent. I'm an absolutist about that.

I shy away from private vengeance, but it would not keep me up nights if these men ended up in the general population of a federal prison.

Posted January 23, 2004 12:53 PM by julia

I'm not sure Kiryas Joel's internal problems are primarily theocratic, or that they're any more serious than those in a comparable gated community or in Williamsburg, honestly. The people of Kiryas Joel bloc vote and their leaders are bullies. That's not something that's restricted at all to religious communities.

Posted January 23, 2004 12:57 PM by julia

One of my favoritist memories on a similar subject was listening to one of the people who excavated at Catal Hoyuk talking to a neo-pagan Goddess type...

[cringe]As a "neo-Pagan Goddess type" myself, I'm aware that we have bozos like the one you describe in our community. The problem is that while absense of evidence isn't evidence of absense, it's not proof of existence either. Some of our more fringy types fail to draw that little line in the mental sand. Or are missing some mental sand outright.

Also, they miss the second part of "If you don't have the story you want, make one up -- as long as you remember that it's only a story." We have lots of 'em.

But there are also lots and lots of Christians who have trouble making this last distinction; in fact, if you call the Bible "just a story" (or worse yet, "Christian mythology") they get all huffy. One would think that if their stories weren't all literally true, it would completely invalidate their religion. Far from true, IMO.

Or maybe it's just that they don't have as much respect for stories as we have. Stories shape our lives; it's good to be able to separate them from scientific fact, but both fact and story have value.

Posted January 23, 2004 1:49 PM by Xopher

Varia: My other favorite thing about polyamory is that since we?re acting outside the usual ideas of love and marriage, we end up thinking about, and defining, what we?re doing, much more so than your average married couple does (at least most of the ones I know). ...

And this is precisely something that has turned me off about polyamory when discussing the matter with polyamorous persons: it seems to me that there's a multiplication of the work parts of the relationship that might well be all out of proportion to the multiplication of the good parts of the relationship.

You're right: my wife and I don't think much about or talk about the nature of our marriage. We are done with that, we already decided it. We talk about individual issues that might be bothering us, or making us happy, but the overall nature of the relationship is already decided.

When I hear about the polyamorous pleasures of relationship discussions, I think back to when I was single. I'd be dating a woman for three months or so, we'd be getting along pretty well, and she'd say, "Where is this relationship going?" She wasn't apparently talking about whether we should get married, or date each other exclusively, or move in together, or have children - I'd have been happy to talk about those things. I was not some commitment-phobic young bachelor - I was willing to make commitments. There seemed to be something else these women wanted from me, something I did not quite understand and was unable to deliver. It wasn't commitment, or affection, or attention, or listening to their feelings, it was something else.

And yet polyamorous persons seem to love those sorts of discussions.

If I wanted to be really cynical and offensive I'd say that polyamory represents more birthdays and anniversaries to forget! More people who have food preferences different from yours, thus making meal selection and preparation even more complicated! More obnoxious in-laws coming by to visit! Good thing I didn't say those things, though.

Posted January 23, 2004 2:39 PM by Mitch Wagner

In my opinion, the first thing Short Creek needs is to have a commercial bus line making stops in town.

In my opinion, the first thing Short Creek needs is a column of Federal tanks making a stop in the town.

The next thing it needs is mass arrests and trials under anti-slavery and treason statutes, just for a start.

Posted January 23, 2004 2:59 PM by Ken MacLeod

Just wanted to backstop the Holmes observation with of all people Lovecraft. I think this is from correspondence, but with whom, I know not:

But the true epicure in the terrible, to whom a new thrill of unutterable ghastliness is the chief end and justification of existence, esteems most of all the ancient, lonely farmhouses of backwoods New England; for there the dark elements of strength, solitude, grotesqueness, and ignorance combine to form the perfection of the hideous.

Varia? If I might be so bold: I think the confusion is that Teresa's referring to someone being committed to more than one relationship-set. Not their commitment to more than one person in a single, coherent relationship.

Posted January 23, 2004 3:01 PM by --kip

Ken, I've expressed similar sentiments, but why treason? Not that it doesn't sound good.

Actually, I think they're Enemy Combatants. JUST KIDDING.

Posted January 23, 2004 3:17 PM by Xopher

Mitch Wagner: ...it seems to me that there’s a multiplication of the work parts of the relationship that might well be all out of proportion to the multiplication of the good parts of the relationship.

I'm not poly, so I can't speak directly to your concerns.

Still, your overall attitude in this quote is baffling -- do you really perform cost-benefit analysis when you're in love? I don't say that it's impossible, but it does seem inconsistent with a romantic view of love.

Posted January 23, 2004 5:27 PM by novalis

Varia posted

"My family and I have yet to begin the majority of the paperwork that this kind of thing entails, but all of the legal advice I’ve heard makes me almost despair before we start."

I have copies of the legal paperwork electronically. If you would like a copy for comparison purposes, let me know and I will send them to you privately.

Posted January 23, 2004 7:34 PM by Margene Bahm

Novalis - I'm baffled by your bafflement. Have you never heard of a relationship being referred to as "high maintenance"?

I think we all do a sort of cost-benefit analysis when relationships get rocky. Ann Landers used to get these letters from women whose husbands were alcoholics, but who were really great guys and perfect husbands when not drinking. The women wanted to know whether to leave their husbands. "I love him but I can't stand his drinking," the woman would say. Anne would respond: "Are you better of with him or without him?"

As to my being "in love" - we've been happily married 10 years, and I don't know if I could say we're still "in love"; that seems to be a phrase best suited to the first flush of infatuation. And as to my not having a romantic view of love: you're damn right I don't.

Romance is fine when you're in the beginning of a relationship, but after a while you reach a point and you start thinking about the long term. You say to yourself: this person is funny, charming, sexy and considerate, but also has some incompatibilities too. Maybe their religion is different. Maybe their family is always in trouble (marry into that family and they're YOUR FAMILY TOO, and their problems are your problems). Maybe one of you wants kids and the other doesn't. If you're smart, at that point you sit down and do some hard thinking and you ask yourself the question that Anne Landers asked those women.

Hmmm.... I suspect that when women used to ask me, "Where is this relationship going," it's quite possible that's what they meant - not did I want to get married but did I think that we were the kind of people who COULD get married?

I didn't have to think about that decision with my wife; I made the decision subconsciously. We'd been on two or three dates and were getting along pretty well, when I went on a two-week business trip. I called her once or twice from the road, and then I got busy and tried once or twice more but we didn't connect. When I got back, I discovered she'd had a medical emergency and had been in the hospital. I went to visit her a couple of times, brought her books and did all the things that people do when friends and family are in the hospital.

Looking back a while later, I realized that was the turning point in our relationship. A lot of people would have cut an SO loose after he or she went into the hospital. There would have been nothing wrong if I had cut Julie loose; we had only been on a couple of dates, we had no commitment. I could've just said, "When will you be out of the hospital? A week? Okay, I'll call you then," and not called. Maybe sent her get-well flowers if I felt particuarly classy. But it never even occurred to me to cut Julie loose; I cared about her already and she was in the hospital. I wasn't particuarly worried - it was minor surgery, she was already on the mend when I heard where she was - we didn't have a tearful and emotional reunion. I just came to the hospital and hung out and told jokes and asked her if she was going to eat her Jell-O. Still, it was a signficant transition.

The preceding two paragraphs are relevent to this discussion; I'm just not sure how.

Posted January 23, 2004 8:20 PM by Mitch Wagner

As sorry as I feel for the kids in Short Creek, it's just another example of the ways people mistreat their children. Thousands of kids are raped every day by parents, other adult or juvenile relatives, trusted friends of any age - and we only know about a fraction of them.

At least the kids in Short Creek have the comfort of a lifelong religious belief system when they are finally of an age to realize what their life has been and will be.

The ones who don't find a coping mechanism turn into Mansons or worse. My years as a Child Protective Caseworker have given me a rotten perspective.

Posted January 23, 2004 8:55 PM by Karen Junker

At least the kids in Short Creek have the comfort of a lifelong religious belief system when they are finally of an age to realize what their life has been and will be.

Respectfully, Karen, I'm going to have to disagree here. They had a lifelong religious system that explicitly condoned what was done to them. They'd been handed a universe-view that was most emphatically not on their side. I have extreme doubts that that will be of any comfort whatsoever. I think it's worse than if the kids had been raised with no explicit or coherent religion, philosophy, or worldview at all. A lifelong religion designed to make you believe you're worthless? Not on my comfort list.

Posted January 23, 2004 9:43 PM by Mris

Karen: At least the kids in Short Creek have the comfort of a lifelong religious belief system when they are finally of an age to realize what their life has been and will be.

I am baffled by this attitude; it sounds to me like "At least they're so brainwashed that they can think what's happening to them is right." (I doubt that's what you intended, but that's what it sums out to.) And as for "what their life has been and will be" -- why? Why must their life be nasty and brutish if not short? (Some women can survive bearing many children; many can't, especially when they're abused and surviving on food stamps.) And if they do realize what their life has been and make it as it should be -- how comforting can a belief system be that put them in such a life? Yes, I understand some people try to find good in such beliefs, and some find others.

Posted January 23, 2004 9:53 PM by CHip

Mitch--

And this is precisely something that has turned me off about polyamory when discussing the matter with polyamorous persons: it seems to me that there's a multiplication of the work parts of the relationship that might well be all out of proportion to the multiplication of the good parts of the relationship.

You're right: my wife and I don't think much about or talk about the nature of our marriage. We are done with that, we already decided it. We talk about individual issues that might be bothering us, or making us happy, but the overall nature of the relationship is already decided.

You know, the same is true of my relationships. Yes, there's more work in that sense, because what I work out with one person isn't going to be the same as what I work out with another. But we don't keep redoing the same work in the same relationship. Or at least I don't, and most of the polyamorous people I know don't. But my partner and I know what we want the nature of our relationship to be. The continuing work, if you think of it that way, is that we continue to talk to each other, not only about Deep And Meaningful Things, but about the ordinary parts of our lives. Because we want to. Because, before and along with being partners, we're friends, we like each other, we enjoy spending time together.

Yes, if and when circumstances change--and that doesn't necessarily mean a new love, it's at least as likely to mean job changes or other financial issues--we'll discuss what to do. Just like you do, really.

Posted January 23, 2004 10:01 PM by Vicki

I find the violently passionate responses of many people to the words "child abuse" to be disturbing. I'm about to get my ass kicked by most of the people here by saying that I think our attitudes about minors and sex are too black and white, and that we have too little compassion for adults who mistreat children, their own or someone elses.

What's happening in Short Creek is horrible in so many different ways, but the biggest way in which it is wrong is that it steals free choice from children and adult women. In a more subtle way, it also restricts the choices that men make in that society, but since they are the beneficiaries of the system, by and large, that seems much less important.

As a society, we tend to totally freak out at sexual child abuse. I don't think that the primary component of that freak-out is sympathy for children, but an inability to deal with the sexuality of children.

I am not saying it's all right for adults to screw kids. The issue of consent becomes more and more complicated, the younger the child is. A sixteen year old may very well know her own mind, but it is also possible that she's succumbed to the sophisticated blandishments of a 30 year old man. The younger the child is, the more likely that he doesn't understand what he's consenting to.

However, what it seems to me that adults just fucking freak when they deal with teen sex in any configuration. Teens with teens, teens with adults, teens masturbating, teens buying pornography, teens buying vibrators, lord lord lord, you'd think the world was going to end. Somehow, even though we all know that teenagers actually do screw, when it comes right down to it, we freak. When I lost my virginity, my father threatened to send me to a nunnery -- and we weren't even Catholic. He wasn't joking, either, just irrational.

Twenty years ago, there was a genuine witch-hunt which centered around sexual child abuse. Did you know that some of the people charged in the McMartin School case are still in jail -- even though we know they are innocent of the things for which they were accused and convicted? I can't remember the name of the scary DA in Wisconsin who went after whole towns, but it was not a pretty sight. This came picturesquely dressed up with Satanic Ritual Abuse, and suspiciously close in time to our cultural admission that parents really did sometimes sexually abuse their children. I thought then, and think now, that the hysteria was a way of derailing a growing understanding of the problems of incest within families by externalizing the threat and literally demonizing it. (Come to think of it, there was a similar way in which concentrating on incest and sexual child abuse seemed to function as a way of distracting people from the problem of garden-variety wife beating and child abuse, something that we only really admitted was a bad thing, rather than paternal privilege, in the 70s.)

The idea that we should kill anyone who's ever commited child abuse of a sexual nature scares me. Not because I condone the crime, but because of the implications and ramifications. Here's one problem: the person was almost certainly a family member. That means that the problem is almost certainly a systemic problem, rather than an isolated one. If it's an isolated problem, it's probably easy to deal with (comparatively speaking) and it would be a terrible thing to tear the family apart for something that is bad, but can be healed. If it is systemic, then just offing the offender isn't going to fix the problem. How often does a woman move from one abuser to another, all her children in tow, all of them potential targets? Real answers have to involve working with the way in which these problems are intertwined in daily life. Sometimes, the best way to do that is to work for forgiveness and reconciliation.

Posted January 24, 2004 12:54 AM by Lydia Nickerson