Intermediate Debate Competition R2: State Legislatures should decriminalize Polygamy

RE: this argument has no impact, unless Pro can prove that polygamy shouldn't be illegal in the first place. This can be applied to Pro's legitimacy argument as well. That's not the way democracy works, is it? Citizens are not obligated to show why any activity shouldn't be illegal, rather the burden of law is always on the state. I think we've already seen that current polygamy law is archaic and redundant. We should note that Con made no rebuttal to my argument that mid-19th century polygamy laws are antiquated and outdated, so I take she does not disagree. Supreme Court Justice Kennedy wrote in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialea:“When the State enacts legislation that intentionally or unintentionally places a burden upon religiously motivated practice, it must justify that burden by showing that it is the least restrictive means of achieving some compelling state interest.’”My opponent has argued that polygamy should be illegal because women share less marital power and may be less happy. Of course, women today have the option of never entering a polygamous marriage and they also have the power to abandon a polygamous marriage at will. Polygamy laws are redundant because women are now empowered to avoid any dissatisfaction with a polygamous arrangement at any time. If any and every woman is dissatisfied with plural marriage, they can opt without ever relying on the current polygamy laws. Women belonging to polygamist religions therefore have at least one less right than their counterparts belonging to monogamist religions: they are not free to marry in accordance to their faith and are therefore less equal under current law. Since polygamy laws are redundant and more restrictive in the achievement of women's equality than more recent law, the polygamy laws must be set aside.RE: It's also important to keep in mind that though these people may be law-abiding in other respects, they are still doing something that is illegal. When polygamy laws were first enacted, adultery and indeed any sex outside of marriage was generally viewed as criminal behavior. Although some adultery laws remain on the books in some states, prosecutions are rare and convictions considered virtually impossible since Lawrence v. Texas. That 2003 Supreme Court decision found that intimate, adult consensual conduct was part of the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's due process protections and that "the Texas [anti-sodomy] statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual."Justly, we Americans no longer prosecute citizens for sex outside of marriage. We do not convict people for maintaining an affair outside of marriage or co-habiting with multiple partners. That would be considered an unwarranted intrusion into our personal lives. How then, is polygamy considered an unacceptable practice when the only substantive difference between illegal polygamy and legal adulterous co-habitation is a religious ceremony or a piece of official paper? In truth, American law no longer sanctions the act of polygamy, we only sanction those religions who wish to define such conduct as sacred.I don't need to establish that polygamy ought to be legal because co-habitation and adultery are already considered lawful, private, protected conduct. The question is what gives the state the right to call such conduct illegal just because the practitioners seek religious recognition? In this respect, Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association and Reynolds vs. US are firmly on my side of the argument: the action of adultery now being lawful, the state legislates only against the private, religious opinion.RE: First Amendment does not protect human sacrificeIrrelevant. We are discussing consensual relationships between adults. Can't we agree that comparing such conduct to the abduction and murder of humans is absurd?I provided examples in the previous round demonstrating the many aspects of inequality that exist fundamentally within such a structure. And while not being unreasonable, we do provide limitations to prevent an unfair balance of power. Such is the case for placing term limits on presidents.Con confuses civil equality with the balance of power within a relationship. A woman in a plural marriage possesses rights equal to those of her husband before the law. The state is not empowered to fix the balance of love and power within a marriage any more than a state is empowered to make sure that parents treat all their children with equal love. RE: we know that the likelihood of divorce can be from 40%-50%. With numbers that high, trying to jam more people into an already unstable structure can only hinder it.Like marriage, divorce is a private matter between consensual adults. The state has no business getting involved in the divorce practices of its citizens. It is an inconsistency that favors a male-dominant society, where women will be placed in a position of inequality due to the structure such an institute naturally holds. So long as women are free to abstain from plural marriage and remove themselves from plural marriage (laws that are already in place), women should be as free to enter in an unequal relationship as they desire. Prohibition against this option, limits women's right to practice their religion. In Mormonism, a religion that is known to enshrine polygamy in its belief system, polygamy is limited to a man marrying multiple wives. The Church of LDS explicitly forbids polygamy. [3] Nevertheless, the private beliefs of some fundamentalist Mormons is really none of our business and irrelevant besides. I do not argue for making Mormon marriage practices a civil template for marriage. My argument is polygyny and polyandry are equally of no interest to the state. Likewise, a marriage of three men or a marriage of four women is none of the state's business. I say let the Mormons do what the Mormons like so long as they don't interfere with my choices. Anybody who doesn't want to be a Mormon can easily ignore that belief system.RE: the case for gay marriage, polyamorous marriage, and inter-related marriages each one has to also be discussed on a separate level. Referring back to Lawrence v. Texas, to the extent that all are private, intimate conduct between consenting adults, the Supreme Court has already determined that states have no compelling interest. Instead of discussing each separately, we citizens have a responsibility to stop interfering with conduct that does not concern us. RE: Let's say we have 10 men and 10 women. Now, one of those men marries four women. That leaves six women and nine men, leaving three men, 30% of that group partner-less.It's none of our business and it is conduct that takes place lawfully outside of marriage all the time. We need to stop caring. RE: It's interesting to note that among the reasons for practicing polygamy are 'it allows men to have more children'.Again, none of our business.I only have a few words left, so I will simply re-iterate my central argument.CONCLUSION: US states should legalize polygamy so long as rational limitations are provided to ensure fair tax, custodial, and property rights.I have demonstrated that polygamy laws are antiquated and made redundant by modern civil rights. I have demonstrated that prohibition causes harm to some outlaw religious groups and interferes in the private lives of citizens where no interference is warranted or desired. Therefore, the resolution is upheld: we should decriminalize polygamy.Thanks to Con for a fine discussion. VOTE PRO![1] http://www.law.cornell.edu...[2] http://supreme.justia.com...[3] http://www.boap.org...