The Gay Marriage Issue: Learning From The Early Mormon Practice of Polygamy

Over the past couple of days, I’ve hosted a political discussion on my Facebook page surrounding the upcoming election, that to my surprise evolved into a debate on whether same-sex marriage should be legal (see the discussion here). Here’s a summary of some of the arguments against same-sex marriage that were raised; these are the ones presented that I think may be the most difficult to resolve:

• The enforcement of same-sex marriage as a civil right can potentially introduce a violation of the rights of individuals and religious organizations who oppose homosexuality in the following ways:
1. Heterosexual families would be required by law to give equal opportunity to potential renters of their property, without discrimination pertaining to marital status, even if that status offended their religious family values.
2. Churches would risk losing their non-profit status under the law if they refuse to perform marriages for homosexuals, even if the church’s proclaimed doctrine opposes same-sex marriage.
3. Religious adoption agencies would be required not to discriminate against same-sex partners in considering their worthiness to adopt children.
• Homosexuality poses a health risk (HIV/AIDS) that not only impacts society as a whole, but the resulting costs of  healthcare associated with HIV are a burden to society.
• Same-sex marriage is considered by many to be a perversion of the fundamental unit of our American communities: the family. Allowing it to persist in our communities would introduce an element of unwelcome influence on children. It would also increase the prevalence of  unwelcome influence in literature, television, and other media, reducing the spirituality of the community as a whole.
• The civil recognition of gay marriages as legal might result in the public schools having to present homosexuality as a viable alternative in the education of children, adding to the degradation of family values within the community.
• Forcing the majority (95%) to accept the morals of the minority (5%) isn’t an equitable application of law.
• Retaliation of extremist homosexuals in flaunting their newly-won legal privileges is an affront and serious danger to the rights of the heterosexual community.

While I do not profess to understand homosexuality, I personally do not oppose it or the right of homosexuals to marry, as long as the constraints normally imposed on sexual relations (rape, trafficking, mutual consent, pornography, etc), are not violated. I believe rights of homosexuals have long been abused in many ways, and view this discrimination as a blemish on the history of our country and communities. I recall the poignant plight of one of my dear friends, who some time ago was prevented from visiting and lending succor to her lesbian partner of ten years who was in the intensive care unit of the hospital, because she was not recognized by the hospital as an immediate family member. Homosexual marriages have taken place for years, but because of the tainted glasses through which the general population views homosexuality, and because of the assumptions surrounding their character, homosexuals have been forced to go underground with matters that mean most to them. In many cases their own families have turned their backs on them, and I consider that to be a threat to family values in and of itself.

In the literature that was shared in the Facebook discussion by my Mormon family on the subject of marriage, I was pleased to learn that  the LDS Church does not object to rights of same-sex partners “regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.” (read it here). I completely agree with that. My opinion differs from that of the LDS Church, though, in that the church opposes the legal recognition of same-sex marriage, and is participating in a coalition of churches to sponsor a ballot measure prohibiting the legalization of same-sex marriage. The church is essentially working to impose its view of marriage onto a group of people who do not belong to the church, or profess the same beliefs. I believe that is wrong.

While reflecting on the many thoughts that were stirred up during this discussion, the irony of the church’s stand on this issue struck me as I recalled the tragic early history of the same church, when the tables of marriage discrimination were turned. I find this so interesting that I offer a brief summary of that history, not as a rebuttal for the issue of gay marriage, but simply to provoke further thought and consideration about the issue. While reviewing this history, consider the striking correlations between the struggles endured by the early Mormons and those of the current-day homosexual population.

In the 1830’s, a charismatic leader named Joseph Smith organized a group of devoted followers to form a very unusual church. This small church was not well received in the communities where they lived, however. First of all, the fact that Smith insisted that his church was God’s church and the ONLY church to have the truth, did not go over well with the established clergy. Secondly, the members of the church were, well, different. They practiced plural marriage. This was a moral affront to their pious neighbors, who I’m sure felt their values threatened in much the same way the current members of the church feel today regarding the moral “threat” of  homosexuals.

Because of their differences and a certain amount of arrogance they had which did not help their case, the members of the church, who called themselves “Saints”, endured a long and horrible succession of persecutions. Their homes were plundered and many were beaten. Non-Mormon residents held town meetings and passed anti-Mormon resolutions, demanding that civil authorities take action. In 1833 an armed mob of five hundred tarred and feathered two Mormons and destroyed an LDS printing office. Three days later, the same mob chased down nine Mormon leaders and forced them under threat of death to sign an oath promising to leave the community. Later, ten Mormon homes were burned, one Saint was killed, and many others were stoned.

In the cold of November that year, the Mormon settlements were attacked, and 1200 Saints were brutally driven from their homes. They crossed the river into another county to try to build new lives.

But their new neighbors didn’t like them either, and persecution continued. They were insulted by members of their community, and accused of being horse thieves, liars, counterfeiters, and dupes. The Saints endured the insults and discriminations without retaliation, appealing to the magistrates, judges, the Governor, and even the US President. But persecution continued, and one fateful day in 1838, one Mormon, Samuel Brown, was beaten and the outnumbered Mormons who came to his defense were barely able to fight off the attackers. This incident enraged the persecutors even more, who escalated the level of harassment and violence against the Saints, forcing most of them to flee their homes once again. Finally, Joseph Smith had had enough and urged his followers to fight back. The now extremist Saints began raiding the towns of their persecutors. They stole food and livestock, and burned their homes.

While the discriminations against the current homosexual population have in no way (to my knowledge) come close to the extreme crimes against the early Mormon Saints, I want to pause here and note that the tensions experienced by any group of people as a result of discrimination can be a very dangerous thing. So yes, the threat of retaliation by homosexuals mentioned above may be a very real threat, in the same way the Mormons became a threat to their persecutors. Discrimination plunges society into what can escalate into a vicious cycle of discrimination, rights abuse, and retaliation.

Eventually, as the conflict between the Saints and their neighbors worsened, Joseph Smith was killed by a mob, and his successor, Brigham Young led what became a monumental migration of the Saints to the unsettled desert in the Salt Lake valley.

Although many of those Saints who practiced plural marriage were sincere and maintained what might be considered healthy marriages, some extreme cases of abuse and manipulation did exist under this paradigm. Some of the wives involved were very young; indeed we must face the evidence that some of those who entered into marriage relationships with Joseph Smith himself or with Brigham Young, were very young.  Helen Mar Kimball wrote the following describing her marriage to Joseph Smith at age 14:

“[My father] asked me if I would be sealed to Joseph … [Smith] said to me, ‘If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father’s household & all of your kindred.' This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward. … [After the marriage] I felt quite sore over it … and thought myself an abused child, and that it was pardonable if I did murmur.” (Read it here)

Many of the marriages that took place, however, were probably godsends for some women, who were put under the protection and care of one of the few remaining men surviving the years of persecution.

Several years passed as the Saints, secluded in their valley, practiced their religion in relative peace. The Mormon leaders sought to obtain statehood, which would give them a certain amount of independence in local affairs, something they did not enjoy as a territory. But the Saints’ practice of plural marriage got in the way time and again as moral outrage from their opponents perpetuated the hostility, and the Saints’ petitions were denied several times over the course of four decades.

It was only when the leaders of the Church called for the eradication of plural marriage in 1890 that the Church was able to obtain Statehood for its community, stop the torrent of passionate objection of the public towards their way of life, and establish themselves ultimately as an accepted religious organization in society. One might call this a moral victory for the advocates of monogamous marriage.

Whether plural marriage is moral or not remains a big question though, as big as the one regarding same-sex marriage. Under both paradigms, isolated examples of misuse and abuse can be identified which truly are immoral. But likewise, many instances where healthy, loving relationships thrive really do exist under both paradigms. This poses the question whether there is some other quality needed in a marriage to determine whether it is morally right. Perhaps it is joint respect between the partners. Undying love. Forgiveness. Sacrifice. Give-and-take. To me, these elements of a marriage are far more important than its sexual nature or civil structure. These are the values that will provide the best environment in which to nurture children. These values cannot be achieved nor destroyed through legislation, and nor will they be destroyed if someone’s neighbor is gay or polygamous. Those values are established and protected only by the individuals within the partnership, and to me they are the only values that define whether a marriage is moral or not.

I am grateful for the early practice of plural marriage by early pioneers, in a very personal way, because without it, I would not exist. My great grandfather, Robert Sherwood, took his third wife, Alice Schoenfeld, in an illegal plural marriage eleven years after the prohibition of polygamy. His second wife had already passed away, so the polygamous marriage included only two wives. They were obliged to move to a polygamous community in Mexico, which is where my grandmother, Irene, was born. Without this act of defiance (they called it faith) in the face of opposition, my grandfather Lurtis would have had to marry someone else, and the generations following would not have included me. So I am glad for this one case of underground marriage that was considered by the mainstream to be immoral, because I am glad to be alive.