Rough Draft: Essay 2

Polygamy has been practiced in our world throughout most of history. Our society today seems fascinated by the idea of polygamy. We have romanticized the idea through televisions shows like HBO’s “Big Love” and TLC’s “Sister Wives” even though according to LegalMatch.com’s Managing editor Ken LaMance, “All 50 U.S. states…have made polygamy illegal.” In Texas, according to the Texas Penal Code, committing bigamy, being married to more than one person that is, is a second or first degree felony, depending on the age of said partners, if one is under the age of 16 it is a first degree felony. The punishment for a first degree felony in Texas, according to the Penal Code, is “imprisonment…for life or for any term of no more than 99 years or less than 5 years.” The polygamy related TV programs vaguely made references to the illegality of their actions, but little seemed to be done about it. The reason behind this might be that according to LegalMatch.com “Many [polygamists] simply go through the religious rites of marriage without seeking legal recognition for their unions, to avoid prosecution for bigamy.”


The measure of the justness of this law is rather difficult. On the one hand, you might have consenting adults, who for their own reasons want to be involved in a polygamist relationship, and if that is what makes them happy is it not contradictory of the constitution to impede their “pursuit of happiness”? However there is a darker side to this argument, especially taking into account religious groups like the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints, who have on many documented occasions, forced underage girls into plural marriages. The law has to be this severe to protect those cases where someone is being hurt by polygamy; therefore in my opinion the law is just.


The constitutionality of banning polygamy hasn’t been called into question in many years. According to BillOfRightsInstitute.org, in 1878 a man named George Reynolds was convicted of bigamy in the Utah territory. Reynolds didn’t argue that he had broken the law, but Reynold’s argued that the law violated his first amendment rights, because he was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and further argued that his religion required multiple marriages or he risked eternal damnation. This case was taken to the United States Supreme Court where they ruled, in Reynolds Vs. United States, that laws banning polygamy were constitutional, because religious beliefs do not excuse one from following the law. “In 1890, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints officially rejected polygamy” according to the BillOfRightsInstitute.org, which inevitably lead to the smaller group of Fundamentalist LDS members, who still in many cases practice polygamy.


In application, as mentioned before, it isn’t put into effect very much, since there are ways around these laws by not legally marrying someone. Even in the case of Kody Brown, the man with 4 wives featured on the TLC show “Sister Wives”, he literally brought his polygamy out into the open, literally on national TV. However bigamy charges may not be possible, because he is only legally married to his first wife, while the other marriages are simply “spiritual unions.” Though it can be argued that since they have all been together for so long, the other marriages are legal, through common law marriages. According to the Huffington Post, the Utah attorney general’s office has commented that “it has been [their] office’s position not to pursue cases of bigamy between consenting adults.”


This law is as practical now as when it was created. Polygamy is still in existence; therefore the law will continue to be relevant and practical until such a time when polygamy no longer exists. However this does seem to be unlikely, given the populations still practicing polygamy.


In conclusion, a law banning polygamy, such as the Texas law I cited, is nothing but just, constitutional, fair, and practical, everything a law should be. This harsh law, though hard to enforce is a necessary measure to ensure that the seriousness of the act is not mistaken.