Utah's Polygamy Conundrum
(from the Salt Lake Weekly, November, 1998)
Utah's Polygamy Conundrum
by Christopher Smart
November 26, 1998
Following a publicity gaff in August, when Gov. Mike Leavitt embraced polygamy as something that might be protected under the U.S. Constitution, Utah Attorney General Jan Graham grabbed the chance to say her office would fight against abuses that stem from plural marriage.
Graham used the publicity to her political advantage, saying abuse of children and women would not be tolerated and that her office would lead the fight. The attorney general stopped short of saying people would be arrested for taking polygamous vows, but it sounded a lot like she had declared war again on polygamy.
The governor, caught with his pants down and his polygamous heritage showing, backtracked furiously, saying that polygamy was abandoned by the LDS church 100 years ago, is prohibited by the Utah Constitution and is flat out against the law.
In September, Mormon Church President Gordon B. Hinckley made a much-ballyhooed appearance on the Larry King Live show to renounce polygamy. Beyond that, Hinckley said there is nothing doctrinal connecting polygamy to Mormonism.
That comment seemed only to add to the confusion because the Doctrine and Covenants is part of Mormon scripture and speaks to polygamy in Section 132. That scripture seems to put polygamy central to Mormon belief.
The public is left to wonder what of polygamy?
Adding to the confusion now is Graham's chief deputy, Reed Richards; he has gone public saying that polygamy is not a crime.
In a recent speech at Utah Valley State College, Richards said that although polygamy is outlawed in the Utah Constitution, it isn't against the law.
Go figure. Didn't the attorney general say she was going to root out the abuses of polygamy? Is it any wonder that Utahns don't know what to think about polygamy?
Richards insists that polygamy can't be prosecuted effectively without proof like marriage certificates showing a man has more than one wife. Further, Richards said that if law enforcement officials were t prosecute polygamy, they would also have to prosecute adultery, too.
Nonetheless, Richards said people living in polygamous families will not receive Social Security and health benefits available to those living in monogamous families.
Apparently, he didn't read a recent series by The Salt Lake Tribune that revealed numerous women and children living in polygamy receive social service benefits through state agencies by using false names.
Will polygamy continue on in Utah as it has for the past 150 years? There isn't any reason to believe that it won't.
Certainly, the LDS church is distancing itself from the practice in an effort to move into a new era. But Utah's political leaders seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to really addressing the issue and the abuses to the women and children who live behind its veil.
It may be that polygamy can't be eradicated either by scripture or by law.