This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2004, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
There's an old joke that in Utah, marriage is between a man and a woman and a woman. Unfortunately, three plaintiffs in a lawsuit want to make that joke a reality. They are asking a federal court to strike down the state's anti-polygamy laws as unconstitutional limits on the freedoms of religion and privacy.
For the good of this state and its people, we hope that this lawsuit fails.
It is beyond irony that people would argue for polygamy based on civil rights, because plural marriage is itself based on inequality and exploitation. It aggrandizes the power of men in multiple sexual relationships at the expense of women and girls and young, less powerful men. As Andrea Moore-Emmett's new book, God's Brothel, makes clear, fundamentalist Mormon polygamy can lead to pedophilia, rape, domestic violence, other forms of sexual and emotional abuse, incest and welfare fraud.
This is not to say that all polygamists commit these crimes. Since the practice is illegal, it is also secretive, and undisputed facts are difficult to come by. But there is enough information in the public record, such as the testimony of the 18 victims of polygamy in Moore-Emmett's book, and the recent prosecutions of Tom Green and members of the Kingston clan, to raise grave concern.
So why not bring polygamy out of the shadows by legalizing it? Offenses such as domestic violence or pedophilia would still be illegal, regardless of their marital context, and should be vigorously prosecuted in any case.
Our reply is that polygamy is inherently destructive of the human rights of women. As with slavery, government must ban it to promote a just and equitable society. While the state should be careful not to place burdens on people's religious beliefs, in this instance the fundamental rights of women and girls weigh more heavily than freedom of religion in the Constitution's balance.
Just as the state should not legalize adultery, though it is rarely prosecuted, it should not give its blessing to bigamy. Both offenses destroy the family bond that is essential to human society, and government has a compelling interest in protecting that bond.
The plaintiffs' other main argument relies on a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned as unconstitutional a Texas anti-sodomy law. In that case, the nation's highest court ruled that private sexual conduct between consenting adults was protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
But Utah's bigamy laws are not about private rights to sexual conduct. Rather, they are about the state's legislative power to define and regulate what marriage is and to protect women and girls from sexual exploitation. There is a profound difference.
The polygamy debate, no doubt, will be dragged into the feud over gay marriage. While we do not believe that Utah should redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, we support civil unions that would extend certain legal benefits to gays.
However, Utah's long and painful experience with polygamy should have taught us that under no circumstances should the state give legal force to unions that are not monogamous.