Re: [UUPoly-L] Poly reality

["Catherine Deville" <catdeville@cox.net>]

Bill said: 
<< Oh I don't think I'm denying them anything - except my support. They can
have their religious beliefs. If women have similar beliefs and want to
marry them, I would not deny them their beliefs.>>

I think some clarification to get us back on point is in order.  When the
conversation began, what Dave was referring to, and what *I'm* referring to
when we say support is political support for their legal rights.  Dave was
referring to UUPA, as an organization, supporting the right of
Fundamentalist Mormons (although the way he states that is a bit confusing,
as LDS Mormons *do not* practice polygamy, it is actually forbidden by their
faith now, and was part of the trade off required for Utah to gain statehood
- what he refers to as "Old LDS/Mormons" are generally referred to as
"Fundamentalist Mormons", those who left the LDS church when it changed
dogma to match what the state required vs. what Joseph Smith taught, are the
ones who practice polygamy) So, in that context, if UUPA, as an
organization, does not voice support for the Fundamentalist Mormons (and
Muslims for that matter)'s *legal* right (as a group - not as individuals)
to marry as they will, then we are cutting our legs off at the knees in
trying to demand our own rights to marry as we will. 

<< But should I be expected to support men in forcing girls to marry them
against their will? I don't think so.>>

And, again, from a political viewpoint, supporting the legal rights of
individuals to free exercise of their religion is a different issue,
legally, morally and politically from the issues of consent. The state has a
compelling interest in protecting minors.  The state also has a compelling
interest in preventing non-consensual enslavement (since we have prohibited
slavery as being against human rights), but the slave has no compelling
interest in interfering in consensual relationships or imposing specific
power dynamics into interpersonal relationships. 

<< I will agree that we must be very careful if we try to impose cultural
values on other people.
 
 But I have my own cultural values -- and I don't have to support everybody
else's. *Not supporting* their values is not the same as *imposing* my
own.>>

In the context of this conversation it is the same thing, as the context of
this conversation was framed as why we should support their *legal* rights
to marry as their religion says they should.  It is the same thing when the
context of the conversation is whether or not to support the legal rights of
individuals to be able to express their values.  If you fail to support the
rights of people who are having their rights abridged, then you, by default,
lend your support instead to those who are abridging their rights.  In
existing laws prevent someone from exercising their values, then they have
to be examined for whether or not the state truly has a "compelling
interest" in abridging personal freedoms.  Let's take an extreme case, for
example.  In the case where a religion advocates human sacrifice, for
example, the state has a compelling interest in preventing murder, but it
becomes less ethically clear if the 'sacrifice' is willing & consensual,
since the state's interest in preventing suicide is less compelling and
therefore creates a gray area (preventing suicide is actually a religious
value from a limited religious perspective, whereas preventing murder is a
moral value taken from a much broader socio-religious perspective, and also
is necessary for the maintenance of social order.)

   
<< The question I have is, how do *you* decide what society can impose or
can't? You say sexual slavery should *always* be illegal -- but claim that
is a "totally different topic".>>

Actually, first of all, you've misquoted me - I said "non-consensual sexual
slavery should always be illegal."  There's a difference between
non-consensual sexual slavery and *consensual* sexual slavery.

And second of all, yes, it is a different topic.  When we're talking about
so-called 'religious polygamy'(and actually mean abusive religious polygyny)
we are talking about several different topics, actually.  Allowing multiple
marriages is one issue.  Requiring that marriages be consensual is another
issue.  Insisting that marriage between a man and a woman be "equal" is
another issue.  And determining age of consent is yet another issue.  When
you're talking about the abuses of certain (*NOT ALL*) Fundamentalist Mormon
sects, you're not talking about multiple marriage being abusive in and of
itself.  You're talking about a combination of issues creating an abusive
situation, and the main abuses stem from things which not only we, but most
societies define as clearly 'wrong' & against human rights (i.e., sexual
abuse of "minors" and non-consensual enslavement.) So the answer is to
support their right to marry, but not to support non-consensual marriage or
the marriage of minors below the age of consent (assuming you've established
an age of consent, as we have in most cases.) And as has been pointed out,
it's actually easier to prosecute the *right* people, those actually guilty
of abuses, if you remove the non-abusive elements from the equation.

It's a relatively simply liberal ethics problem, when it comes down to it.
It comes down to which 'values' the state has a compelling reason to impose
upon its citizens and which it does not. And in general, from a liberal
ethics point of view, the society only has the right to interfere with the
free exercise of religion when life & liberty are at issue. 
 
<<I'll concede, if the wives (or husbands) don't want to be equal, I
wouldn't force them to be. >>

But in the context of the discussion, it sounds like you *would* force them
to be.  If you fail to support their legal right to marriage unless they
meet your standards, then you are "forcing" them to either adhere to your
values or to continue to live outside the law. 

Which was the whole point of the topic to begin with.  Where do we, as
people asking, politically, to have free exercise in our relationships
without fear of legal harassment, believe that it's right not to support the
right of others to the same thing?  How do we, morally or ethically, say,
yes, us, but not them?

<<But I don't think these are "totally different topics". The question is,
how do people decide what can or can't be imposed, while respecting
religious and philosophical freedom and differences?>>
 
In a truly free society, the only things imposed are those things which are
required for the orderly operation of that society and which protect the
life and liberty of those citizens.  

There's a difference in not agreeing with something, and supporting the
right of others to disagree.  When it comes to politics, if you don't
support the rights of others to disagree with you, then you may eventually
be faced with people infringing upon your rights because they don't agree
with you.  And it's likely to be sooner rather than later.