Political Presence (and the benefits of...)

Salt Lake County man fails to get law banning polygamy overturned

Nice try, though...

The article doesn't say whether the guy was LDS, or 'Splinter-LDS' or neither...probably the second.

I'm always been a little confused why we (meaning society) 'should' allow gay marriages but most definitely 'should not' allow polygamous marriages.  (Gay rights supporters go out of their way to make this clear...)  Why is it that certain consenting adults on one side should be free to create a legally binding relationship if they want to despite not fitting into the 'traditional' marriage template, yet certain consenting adults on the other side should not be free to create a legally binding relationship if they want to...

(Note: this is not a pro-polygamy post.  See here for my thoughts on why (1) polygamy is not coming back, and (2) 99% of men don't want it to, either...  This is not a pro-gay marriage post, either...see here)

If anything, you could argue polygamous relationships are closer to the traditional ideal in marriages than gay pairings are, considering they are virtually all heterosexually based and have the regular child-bearing potential.

(Hmmm, what would they say if three gay men wanted to...never mind)

Gay marriage supporters are plentiful (even among non-gays), while--other than the guy in the article--proponents for legal polygamous marriages are few and far between.  The arguments for both are so similar, though, I'm thinking the discrepency in the seeming credibility of these 'causes' on the national stage comes down to an outside factor: visibility in the social/political mainstream.

Current polygamists have no 'presence' in modern-day society.  No one writes books, articles, makes movies/TV shows, or impassioned speeches outlining the 'plight' of polygamists.  They don't have national organizations constantly pushing for local and national recognition.  They don't have a multitude of supporters outside their ranks sympathetic to their cause who are willing to help them socially or politically.  In short, they are societial outcasts--invisible to most, and despised by the rest.

Gays, on the other hand, have all of the above...but the irony is--they didn't used to.  In fact, they used to be social outcasts in exactly the same way the polygamists are now!  Back a few decades, no one would have publically stood up and defended 'gay rights', let alone openly acknowledged having a gay lifestyle themselves.  There were no organizations devoted solely to gay and lesbian issues.   Now, though, they have a solid 'presence' in society which is helping them to gain visibility, public support, and legal inroads into getting what they want.   

In order for polygamy to make a 'comeback'--there would have to be the equivalent level of organization and public visibility for polygamists to gain some modicum of public support for their cause.   That means there would have to be high-ranking and well-known polygamists within society whom the public recognizes and accepts, and others who talk publically about how sad it is that such-and-so isn't allowed to marry someone he/she loves because of the 'unfair' laws restricting their marriage.  It's not just about any inherent legal argument the cause may have, because, of course, the argument supporting gay marriage and plural marriage is virtually the same.  Yet one has traction and the other does not.

This isn't likely to change, though, since polygamists in general seem to embrace their social isolation --mostly living out of the public eye in the rural areas of the southwest.  This is another reason why polygamy will not be coming back anytime soon, because without that public visibility and mainstream acceptance there's virtually no chance of gaining the political traction necessary to overturn the state and federal laws against it.  (Again...not a regret, just an analysis)