tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post114901623331524460..comments2023-09-11T08:58:24.710-06:00Comments on Reach Upward: Protecting Traditional Monogamy = Protecting DemocracyScott Hinrichshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11831447472339880148noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-1149166762391471882006-06-01T06:59:00.000-06:002006-06-01T06:59:00.000-06:00Thanks for your astute observations.Thanks for your astute observations.Scott Hinrichshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11831447472339880148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-1149137513475268482006-05-31T22:51:00.000-06:002006-05-31T22:51:00.000-06:00Thanks for your interesting post and the link to t...Thanks for your interesting post and the link to the Kurtz article.<BR/><BR/>A couple of quibbles:<BR/><BR/>"<I>Brigham Young and his followers thought they were leaving the United States when they fled to what is now Utah... By the time they arrived in Utah, however, the territory had become part of the US.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Actually it was after they arrived. The Mormons arrived in Utah on July 24, 1847. The area was still part of Mexico at the time. The the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which relinquished the area to the U.S. was signed on February 2, 1848. It didn't become an official territory until 1850.<BR/><BR/>"<I>...the church steadily appealed to libertarian sentiments to allow them to practice their religion as they wished.</I>"<BR/><BR/>The church's appeal was a little more complicated than that. See my recent <A HREF="http://www.sixteensmallstones.org/the-consistency-of-the-lds-churchs-position-regarding-legislating-marriage" REL="nofollow">post</A>.<BR/><BR/>"<I>Americans tried to break up the Mormon theocratic government by sending the railroad and by giving women the right to vote...</I>"<BR/><BR/>Perhaps I am wrong, but I think that Kurtz has it backward on women's suffrage. The Wyoming Territory was the first place to grant women's suffrage in 1869. The Territorial government of Utah did the same only a few months later. Even though Wyoming was the first to authorize it, because the election dates were earlier in Utah, women actually voted for the first time in Utah before anywhere else. Contrary to Kurtz, the women's right to vote was granted by the "Theocratic" Territorial government and was <I>revoked</I> by the U.S. legislature in the The Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887.<BR/><BR/>I do agree with Kurtz that family structure has profound effects on government and society. While I do not agree with him that 19th century Mormon polygamy was incompatible with democracy, I do think that polygamy would be incompatible with a modern democratic society. In agrarian 19th century America, polygamy might have worked. But our modern economy is partially dependent on a mobile workforce. Moving from one state to another for a new emploment is difficult enough. It would be prohibitive for a polygamist to move his 4 wives and 36 children from Arizona to Illinois to start a new job. Hobbling the mobility of the workforce with polygamy would be economically disastrous. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, thanks for the article. Cheers!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-1149026788689576262006-05-30T16:06:00.000-06:002006-05-30T16:06:00.000-06:00I have never thought of the railroad or women's su...I have never thought of the railroad or women's sufferage (as it was called it back then) in Utah Territory as tools meant to loosen the LDS Church's hold on political and economical power in the territory. That is Kurtz's position. If you read his article you will see that he mentions it kind of as a passing note. He does not provide any backup for it.<BR/><BR/>I tend to agree that our modern concept of monogamous marriage is a relatively recent development. I don't want to put words in Kurt's mouth, but I'm almost certain he would argue that its rise coincides (not coincidentally) with the rise of the modern democratic republic. I think Kurtz would disagree with you that other democratic societies with more liberal views of marriage are thriving. He has many articles and studies that discuss the decline and social rot in those societies. You can see links to 11 years of such articles <A HREF="http://author.nationalreview.com/?q=MjMxNA==" REL="nofollow">here</A>. Kurtz is a studious conservative researcher. Some of his older articles sound positively prophetic given recent developments. But I think he is sometimes guilty of overstating his case. He definitely goes in for scaremongering.<BR/><BR/>Your argument that gay marriage should not be put in the same boat as polygamy, polyamory, etc. may have a valid basis, but the methods used to pursue its legalization (i.e. the civil rights avenue) essentially put it in the same boat as far as the law goes. All of these types of relationships that have been socially and/or legally taboo are joined at the hip. If one is legal, they all are. It might have been different had the matter been pursued differently, but now we have legal precedent to deal with.<BR/><BR/>I mainly wrote about this because I have done a fair amount of study on the 19th Century practice of polygamy by Mormons from Mormon perspectives. Kurtz provided a non-LDS conservative perspective on the practice, allowing me a different perspective. Much of the Mormon perspective looks at the drive to stop the practice as sheer bigotry. Kurtz puts a different face on it, but you really have to read his lengthy article to understand his arguments. I find it interesting and informative to see the issue from these divergent points of view. I also wrote about the current issue of the marriage protection amendment because it is a hot topic that cries out to be discussed in tandem with this.Scott Hinrichshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11831447472339880148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-1149021282101756362006-05-30T14:34:00.000-06:002006-05-30T14:34:00.000-06:00So, is it YOUR position, or Kurtz's, that the Rail...So, is it YOUR position, or Kurtz's, that the Railroad was run through Utah, and, nationally, that women were given the vote, as a way to "break" the Mormon way of life?<BR/><BR/>While I haven't read the Hudson Institute's article, if that is his assertion, I have a problem with the validity of his stance. He (you?) seems to be placing more weight/value than is warranted on a marginal movement: Mormonism in general, polygamy specifically. <BR/><BR/>Granted, there were some items on the political landscape at the time, but I don't think any of it warranted the then extreme measure of granting the right to vote to women. I know that sounds wrong, but what I mean is that opposition to such a minor issue as "look what those Mormons are doing" would not have warranted such a drastic measure as this - the right of women to vote, I feel, was a much more far-reaching issue than trying to get "those damn Mormons" to stop marrying everybody in sight... To assign this issue to the single cause of dealing with the "Mormon Problem" is an agrandizing statement.<BR/><BR/>On another note, monogamous, opposite-sex marriage as a "societal building block" has only been around for a relatively short period of time, in the grander view. And, one might note, democtractic societies outside of this continent have thrived for a long time, and do to this day, while allowing a much more liberal view of marriage.<BR/><BR/>I think we try to dump all "other" types of "marriages" (or more correctly, relationships) into one bucket, as a society, to try to eliminate discomfort with the whole of it. For this reason, gay marraige, for example, gets tossed in with polygamy, poly-amory, and the like, when it should not be. In general, we are a nation of homophobes, they SCARE us, because they are not "like" us. <BR/><BR/>We have a tendancy to carry two buckets only: "like" us, and "not like" us. It's easier for us, and certainly more politically expedient to categorize people this way, we don't really have to think about it, then. You are either like me, or you're not.<BR/><BR/>As always, thanks for provoking thought.That One Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02733838946095632239noreply@blogger.com