ABC’s “Boston Legal” regularly raises ethical and moral questions, and this week’s topic was polygamy. Two sharp and attractive clients babysit each other’s kids and share groceries, lawn equipment… and Ray Anderson. “We’ve done nothing wrong, there is no victim here,” said Mrs. Anderson #1. “In this chaotic world we live in, where there is no stability, we have found a way to raise a family in a cooperative and loving way,” said Mrs. Anderson #2.
Denise, the Boston Legal attorney whose own escapades have included affairs with a dying man and a pretend policeman, reminds them of this current fact: “Guys, the law on polygamy has been settled for a long time.”
Mrs. Anderson #2: “So, it’s time for a change.”
Mrs. Anderson #1: “We are very commited to this.”
Mr. Anderson (with a smile): “I know I am.”
As their case moves to the witness stand, the two Mrs. Andersons explain how their mutual efforts help to raise great kids, work in successful careers, sustain a happy household, and keep “their” man happy. They win over the judge, who is obviously jealous of their peace and happiness, as well as their attorney, who argues the logic of changing polygamy laws that were written during a “different economic construct”–when women didn’t work or vote.
Denise then argues (overstates?) that with current divorce rates at 43% and with 60% of men and 40% of women having extra-marital affiars, many people are practicing sexual polygamy, just not institutionalizing it. The show’s case for a new normative behavior is countered only at its end by a rather simple-minded (and suddenly old-fashion-sounding) attorney, who makes his case not along moral lines, but economic ones, citing tax-deductions and health insurance among the problematic issues were polygamy to be legalized.
The show’s relevance may seem laughable to some, but it shouldn’t be, considering the advances in the homosexual agenda, which is practiced by a much smaller percentage of people than those practicing heterosexual promiscuity. What made the Boston Legal episode powerful was the comparison: Sexual “polygamy” is practiced to some degree in our current society, though not accepted socially, legally, or institutionally, which sounds a lot like how homosexuality has been practiced over the recent decades.
Boston Legal again brought a comedic flare to a current issue, turning a farcical topic into a challenge for the spiritual person who should be sure of his or her convictions and the foundations upon which they’re based.
posted March 30, 2006 at 6:24 pm
the difference between extramarital affairs and responsible polyamory/polygyny/polyandry are enormous and innumerable. pointing out that some people sleep around is not even close to an argument for legal polygamy, and if i were a polygamist i’d be insulted. and as a matter of language, the difference between “gay rights movement” and “homosexual agenda” is the difference between fact and fiction. it’s also the difference between support for sexual minorities and the demonizing thereof. were you conscious of this when choosing your words, or just careless?>
posted October 15, 2006 at 7:43 pm
I have been involved in the “Polygyny’ movement in the US for about 8 or 9 years. The premise of the show (from what I read, I haven’t seen it) is pretty much close to the facts faced each day by polygynous couples in the US today. One thing that was not mentioned is what happens when three people get together, and the husband, or another wife, starts to abuse the children/wife/husband. With this being a family situation as it nearly always is, the abused find it hard if impossible to seek legal help, as to do so opens a can of worms that will possibly cost them the children/family that they are trying to seek help for. Polygyny laws are outdated, do more harm than good, and represent one of the few “morality” laws on the books today that are victimless (not counting the victims OF the law). This needs to be addressed. Sooner or later it will… but the goups that would address it… men with two wives, or women sharing a husband, do not wish to risk their families to address a law that is rarely if ever enforced. Most states consider polygyny a felony, punishable by a five year prison sentence, and 5000.00 fine, which when it was enacted in 1890, would be equal to 34 years of labor, if there was no interest, and the man paying it made the average of 12.00 a week. When this law was written, it was to prevent the mormons from taking over the United States, and was written to be as harsh as possible.>