How Many Spouses Are Too Many Spouses?

A friend writes:

I had an interesting thought the other day: If homosexual marriage becomes legal and accepted, then so should polygamy. I can't think of a reason why one should be allowed, but not the other. Can you?

I was doing some genealogy work a few years ago, and encountered a distant relative, a federal judge appointed by Lincoln, whose circuit encompassed Utah, and who was Brigham Young's scourge on the entire question of polygamy. If I understand the argument properly, it is difficult for polygamy to function based on the principle of equality, where the spouses have equal authority. If more than two marry, then it is inevitable that one will rule the others. Two, OK: three or more, not good.

Let's see if I can dig up that genealogical reference....

Looking at the reference again, I see I misremembered the whole thing. The argument against polygamy comes from elsewhere, someplace I can't recall. But it's still a reasonable argument: polygamy leads to oppression. It may not always be true, but it may be true often enough to be a concern to society.

Thomas Jefferson Drake

Elected as State Senator Third District (Michigan) 1838 to fill vacancy. 1839 was president of the Senate.

A story is told of a wordy conflict which occurred between Thomas J. Drake, a Whig Senator of Oakland and Jacob Sommers, a Democratic Senator from Macomb County. Senator Sommers, "Uncle Jake," was in the chair and Mr. Drake, in discussing a resolution, used language highly offensive to the presiding officer and was ordered to take his seat. "Saucy Tom Drake," as he was called, a title he was justly entitled to because of his fighting propensities in courts as well as legislative assemblies, sat down, and again instantly arose and without ceasing his talk. Again he was ordered to take his seat and as quickly arose; this was repeated several times until "Uncle Jake" got furious and was about to make a personal attack when senators interfered. "Saucy Tom Drake" however, had the last word; on taking his seat, pointing significantly to the presiding officer he repeated: "Pigmies placed on heights are pigmies still," which of course, did not tend to make the two less enemies during the remainder of the session.

Mr. Drake was appointed Associate Justice of the Supreme Court for the Territory of Utah by Abraham Lincoln Feb. 3, 1862. He was reappointed in 1866 by Andrew Johnson.

Judge Drake's rulings were so distasteful to the Mormons that the feeling culminated in about a year after he assumed his duties in an effort to rid the Territory of all Federal Officers. A mass meeting was held and the following day Brigham Young sent his emissaries to wait upon Judge Drake and Governor Waite to notify them that they must leave the territory. The two men had taken a house together, and when the delegation arrived Judge Drake was writing at his desk, and as they served the notice first to the Governor he paid no attention, but kept on writing. When the committee requested Judge Drake to take notice of the resolutions as he was included, the Judge rose from his seat and said: "These are important resolutions and as they are intended to affect me I desire to say a word or two. It is a very grave thing to request a citizen to leave the country. Are you aware of the magnitude and importance of the business you have undertaken? I am an American citizen and have a right to come here and go into any part of the Republic. I have a right to ask Congress to amend the laws or to make new ones. You have no excuse for your conduct towards me. It is mean and contemptible and on your part, Taylor, a foreigner, it is impudence unequalled, and Pratt, a citizen, ought to know better than to trample on the rights of a citizen by the performance of such a dirty enterprise.

"Your resolutions are false and the man that drew them knew it to be so." (Here Taylor undertook to speak and the Judge told him to be still.) "Besides I understand that Brigham Young yesterday in your mass meeting said I was a fool and a tool of the Governor." (Taylor with great promptness admitted it was so.) "Then, said the Judge," go back to Brigham Young, your master, that embodiment of sin, shame, and disgust, and tell him that I neither fear him, love him, nor hate him, but that I utterly despise him. Go tell him whose tools and tricksters you are, that I did not come here by his permission, and I shall not go away by his desire, nor by his direction. I have given no cause of offense to any one. I have not entered a Mormon's house since I have come here. Your wives and daughters have not been disturbed by me. I have not even looked at your concubines or lewd women" - (here Taylor undertook to say something, but the Judge stopped him and bade him to be silent) - "and if you or the man you serve so faithfully ever attempt to interfere with my lawful business, you will meet with a difficulty you little expect. (Taylor again undertook to speak, but the Judge refused to let him, and said) "Horse thieves and murderers have a right to speak in a court of Justice when arrested, and unless in such a capacity and under such circumstances - don't you ever speak to me again." As the committee were leaving Taylor said "They could have their opinion." "Yes," said the Judge, "Thieves and murderers can have an opinion."

In 1869 he became so tired of living in such a "den of iniquity" as he termed the Mormon country, the he came home on a visit. As his health was much broken his friends persuaded him not to go back, so he resigned and remained at his home in Pontiac till his death Apr. 20, 1875.

Reference: Drake genealogy in the line of Samuel Drake of Lower Smithfield Township, Northhampton (now Monroe) County, Pennsylvania, Avery, Lillian Drake; published in Pontiac, Michigan, 1926, and as cited in Genealogy in Honor of Marjorie Louise Buzzell Valdez, Second Edition, Marc Philip Valdez. Sacramento, California, September 4, 2004. The first edition of my mom's genealogy is available at the Family History Library in Salt Lake City, Utah, but the ground began quaking and the skies clouded over when I thought about sending the second edition, with this quote, so I haven't done it yet.

Nevertheless my friend was not impressed:

That doesn't sound like a very good reason. I'll go ahead and be more clear: Heterosexual marriage among consenting adults, homosexual marriage among consenting adults, polygamy among consenting adults. Actually, you could argue that any marriage -- any human relationship, for that matter -- will lead to oppression: one person will always hold more power than the other(s). That's why we have divorce.

Got any other reasons?

That's true, even with two people, one person will tend to predominate, but as more people get added to the mix, the more likely you'll get an emperor, and a bunch of peasants. Two is usually manageable, but the greater the number, the greater the number of problems.

If I was married, for example, to Canada, I would have no end of petty jealousies to deal with and any number of complications, balancing the Vancouver sweetie vs. the Toronto sweetie, and where I would sleep tonight, plus dealing with all the children too.

When you look at pictures of Mormon pioneers, the men look tired and desperate. I suspect they were very busy dealing with all these home issues. 19th Century Mormon life was tough, particularly when locusts ate the crops, or Indians attacked, but never more so than when Valentine's Day rolled around.