Legalized polygamy wouldn’t bother me, by the way.

I suffer from extreme legal ignorance here, but this comment fosters the impression I have, that you can in theory be prosecuted for bigamy even if you don’t try to obtain multiple marriage licenses, yes? We could repeal those laws to keep it from going underground, and yet not provide any legal structures to actively support polygamy. Trying to do that would be a headache, though Ben’s suggestion might be a start.

C-O-N-S-E-N-T

The thing is that bigamy is notoriously difficult to prosecute, so making it illegal in cases where it involves consenting adults does nothing but push it underground. Legalization would create a paper trail that would help those who are in such marriages against their will to seek legal recourse. Logically, since marriage is a legal contract, a new legal marriage would affect existing marriage contracts, so taking a second spouse against the will of the first would be grounds to sue for divorce. This would be far more helpul (than criminal charges) for those women who want to get out of such marriages while at the same time simplifying life for those cases that are really consensual.

In the case of the FLDS — while it’s very likely that there’s some serious abuse going on — the fact that their entire community was pushed into secrecy means that the authorities were unable to find legitimate evidence and accusations against those people in the community who are most likely guilty. It looks very much like the raid — as it was carried out — was completely illegal and unconstitutional, and hence counterproductive. We’ve been having quite a heated debate about this point (among Mormons and ex-Mormon atheists) on the Main Street Plaza Blog here. It’s very similar to the problem with criminalizing prostitution: it’s harder to separate out and prosecute the cases of actual abuse or exploitation when the activities of consenting adults are lumped together in the same (il)legal category.

Along with a study to see if the coerced variety outnumbers the consensual variety within multiple unions, there should also be a study comparing percentages of abuse in multiple unions with that in binary ones.

From what I’ve seen, the Fondle Little Daughters Sect rarely bothered to obtain official marriage certificates from the state, so technically they aren’t guilty of bigamy in most cases.

IMHO the slippery slope arguments are inherently dishonest. For example,
This group has two characteristics: (a) polyamorous, (b) abusive:
(b) is bad, therefore we should outlaw (a). WTF? That sounds too stupid an argument for anyone to ever make, but substitute gay for (a), and pedophile for (b), and it sounds awfully familiar.

The slippery slope argument is a cop-out, and a stupid one, because it basically grants that the other person’s argument is correct. When Bill O’Reilly says, “I’m against gay marriage because they’ll allow polygamy next”, he’s essentially saying, “gay marriage isn’t wrong in itself, but it’s a good buffer zone that keeps polygamy at bay”. Which is a pretty stupid argument, I hope you’ll agree, even if you’re in staunch opposition to polygamy.

I’m fairly skeptical of polygamy (and polyamory as a tenable model for a long-term relationship), mainly on practical grounds of the possibility of that kind of relationship and commitment between more than two people, but I’m willing to admit my ignorance on the subject and defer to those with more experience (or better, scientific data).

There are some rights that are economically impractical unless we reinterpret “anyone married to an employee is eligible for…” as “every employee can designate one person who is eligible for…”. (Otherwise, professors would be getting hundreds of marriage proposals from students who can’t afford tuition!) Probably a lot of policies have already been rewritten in these terms, especially by the more enlightened (or at least less-troglodytic) employers.

I strongly suspect, but cannot prove, that there are many more poly families doing a good job of raising kids than there are polygamous cults screwing kids up and/or just plain screwing kids. We just don’t see the good guys on Fox News because the police don’t raid their homes. That gives a horrible first impression to most viewers who think that poly familieswith kids mean “religious nutjobs molesting kids under the aegis of marriage” rather than “Heather has two mommies and two daddies, which is awfully convenient when Heather needs to get to her soccer game”.