Under The Olive Tree

Our National Acceptance of Serial Polygamy

I personally am relieved to see the children of US Citizens living in a small west Texas village being returned to their parents. We will all be watching the continued harassment of these children and their parents with great interest. The latest twist is that the State is waiting for DNA testing to determine the parentage of these children - I suppose with the hope that they can then criminally prosecute someone, and regain custody of the children.

World Net Daily is doing a poll on its readers response to the ongoing investigation - you can find the news article link below called “WND Forum”. As of this writing a full 35% of respondents believe that these families should sue the state of Texas for damages. I agree 100%.

Since polygamy seems to be one of the central issues in what has been taking place there - we might want to ask ourselves whether we believe in polygamy or not? I believe we do - and in a resounding way - we have just limited the definition that we find acceptable.

It might be somewhat unfair to give an example of serial polygamy (officially termed serial monogamy)- and it could be considered taking a cheap shot at a single individual - however, an example is necessary for reference. Elizabeth Taylor - a much applauded and loved actress was married 8 times - (7 if you count her 2 marriages to Richard Burton as being a single marriage - marriages which by themselves would make Richard Burton a serial polygamist with just one woman - although he also qualifies being married to 3 women besides Elizabeth Taylor.)

To say that we as a society believe in serial monogamy would be misleading at best. Again, examples are necessary. The most famous recent example would be Bill Clinton and Monika Lewinsky - you couldn’t say that Bill and Hillary’s marriage was monogamous since it included, at least for a time - Monika. Any sexual activity outside the monogamous relationship nullifies the “mono” in the term.

We accept men and women who marry, divorce and remarry as many times as they want - and we even accept other relationships that do not include marriage - even “sleeping around”, casual sex, one time encounters, and complete promiscuity - “girls gone wild.”

The statistics with homosexual relationships are even more revealing. In an atmosphere where we are being given the impression that homosexual “marriage” is an important institution - the actual statistics point to relationships that are anything but monogamous. An article in the Washington Times dated 2003 reports, “The Dutch study — which focused on transmission of HIV — found that men in homosexual relationships on average have eight partners a year outside those relationships. Earlier studies also indicated that homosexual men are not monogamous, even when they are involved in long-term relationships.”

And does it stop there? How about sharing your monogamous partner with the family pet? Again, World Net Daily Reports that the US Constitution is now being cited as basis for individuals to pursue sexual relationships with their pets as and “unalienable right”. In fact, the person promoting the idea is someone who is presently honored by both the Smithsonian and The National Museum of American History. (see article: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66060)

The families in Texas are not being investigated for multiple marriages or sexual relationships - they are being investigated for simultaneous multiple marriages, with the supposition that these relationships are taking place with minors and are forced. I think they are very wise to officially limit marriage to those of legal age.

With those safeguards in place - would it make sense to prosecute them for practicing concurrent polygamy - actually keeping, protecting and providing for additional wives and children - and not prosecute those who do not keep, protect and provide for additional wives and children, or additional sexual partners outside their “significant other” relationship (IE: most of the rest of us?)

In the final analysis - it is the pot calling the kettle black.