Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Bigamy/Polygamy

I read an article this morning about the “Sister Wives” featured on TLC. It’s a story of one man and four wives (legally married to only one)living in Utah. They have since moved to Nevada, trying to escape investigation of polygamy.

 

In Utah, it is a third-degree offence to be in a polygamous relationship, even if only by co-habitation.

 

This family’s lawyer is challenging on people’s right to private relationships. See his statement below:

"We are not demanding the recognition of polygamous marriage. We are only challenging the right of the state to prosecute people for their private relations and demanding equal treatment with other citizens in living their lives according to their own beliefs," the statement reads.

Now, when you read this statement, what thoughts come into your head? One of the thoughts I think of is “what is the difference between what this man is doing and people who are engaged in extramarital affairs? The state is not prosecuting people who cheat. They just get a slap on the wrist.

 

I’m not condoning what this family in Utah/Nevada is doing at all. I’m just saying that there seems to be a major contradiction going on here.

 

The lawyer then makes another statement and this is the one that worries me, "In that sense, it is a challenge designed to benefit not just polygamists but all citizens who wish to live their lives according to their own values - even if those values run counter to those of the majority in the state," Turley wrote.

The last bit of that sentence is quite alarming. That statement suggests not only this religious belief of allowing a man to be married to four women be accepted, but it opens the door for anyone’s religious beliefs to be allowed, even if the majority of people find it wrong. What if other religious beliefs are to physically harm people? What if someone believed in torturing animals? Hitting children? Where does it end? What religious belief will then be too big? You can’t define one. By this statement alone, you are erasing the line. There is no line to be crossed.

No comments: