Polygamy and Freedom of Religion

The dis-oriented author has been watching the Warren Jeffs story with interest. I knew that Jeffs was on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List. In the Jeffs case the issue was arranging marriages of underage girls rather than his own polygamy. I am glad that Jeffs is behind bars as I write these words.

But on the issue of polygamy at large, I find my views more conflicted.

I heard a radio talk show host asking people whether they could name the Five Freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment. The host was discouraged because most listeners could not name more than one. Only one? I rattled them off to myself quickly:

1. Freedom of Speech
2. Freedom of the Press
3. Freedom of Religion
4. Freedom of Assembly
5. Freedom to petition the government for redress of a grievance

The First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Supporters of polygamy, like those who held a rally in Utah last week, claim that it is a freedom of religion issue. While I think polygamy is wrong, I have trouble disagreeing with their point of view. The Mormon (LDS) Church disavowed polygamy in 1890 as a requirement for statehood. Many in the church saw this as giving up the true faith and selling out to the government.

Warren Jeff's Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (FLDS) were born because the main LDS church changed their position on polygamy or plural marriage. Clearly I am opposed to forced marriages as performed by Jeffs, especially involving unwilling minors. But from a religious freedom point of view I have some trouble saying that the government has a vested interest in preventing consenting adults from entering into plural marriage.

I guess I see it in about the same light as gay marriage. I do not believe that the government should sanction homosexuals marriage but like President I am not opposed to civil unions. If two homosexuals wish to enter into a civil relation and grant each other certain property rights and end of life decision making power — so be it. I still believe that homosexual behavior is sinful but I would not make it illegal.

I have the same view of plural marriage. I do not believe that the government should sanction it but consenting adults, even more so because of the religious freedom clause of the first amendment, should have the right to enter into such a sinful relationship.

Some may say, "Wait a minute, I thought you were a Christian political activist!"

Indeed I am but I have no desire to live in a theocracy. In fact historically when Christianity has been the state religion — the results have almost always been bad.

Now, I do not believe that the government should treat freedom of religion as absolute. At the extreme few would argue that human sacrifices should be allowed even if they are a deeply held religious belief.

But in those areas that are not critical to public health and safety — I think the government should be very reluctant to place limits on our freedoms. Catholics may exclude women from the priesthood. I still feel that Bob Jones University should not have been forced to admit blacks. And consenting Mormon adults should probably be allowed plural civil unions.

Now, personally I disagree with the Catholic Church on the whole institution of the priesthood, I think Bob Jones University was completely mis-interpreting scripture in excluding blacks form campus and I think Mormons (LDS, FLDS or whatever) are a cult.

I believe these things because as an American I support the Constitution of the United States.