Polygamy, Part Deux

Clarification from the former post: Contrary to my previous argument, there is reliable evidence of intimacy in Joseph's marriage...Joseph F. Smith collected affidavits from Joseph's plural wives in 1892 as the RLDS church was suggesting that either polygamy never happened or that it was in a symbolic sense...Joseph's wives insisted that they were consummated marriages (while this is disconcerting, it shouldn't overly trouble us...marriage is marriage is marriage...what else do you expect?)

So the big question...Joseph obviously was not entirely upfront with Emma about his plural marriages...yet the "rumors of Joseph's [dishonesty] have been greatly exaggerated."

First, let's not fool ourselves...this idea of Joseph's wives falling under his charismatic swooning is a load of malarkey. It was not chick-flick material: "Yes, Brother JOseph...oh-how-I'm-swooning, Brother Joseph..." This business scared the living daylights out of them. Some found it reprehensible. Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner told him to scram at first...she only agreed after an angel appeared to her. Cordelia Cox turned him down...cold. She was sealed to him posthumously. Emily Partridge also turned him down...and only did it with the coaxing of Heber C. Kimball. Benjamin Johnson, when hearing from Joseph that he wanted to marry his sister Almera, told him straight up that he would "kill him as surely as the Lord lives" if Joseph had anything but impure motives. Lucy Walker turned him down twice before she had a manifestation.

Why would Joseph tell anything less than forthright about his marital plans? Why would he publicly denounce polygamy even as he privately practiced it? The easy answer--the kind meant to generally close down discussion and the kind of pundits and politicians to prefer? Joseph was a libidinous megalomaniacal power-monger. Of course, this belief was held by some of Joseph's contemporaries...even close friends, even Emma at times (William Clayton recalled her telling Joseph that hif he wanted to "indulge himself," she would as well...fear not, fellow Saints...the tit-for-tat of marital disagreements of this proportions should not be taken seriously). Yet as Bushman notes so well, questions of hypocrisy send us off the trail of the historical Joseph. We must attempt to discern what made up the incongruity or give up hope for holding Joseph as a kind of moral figure...as a believing Latter Day Saint, I prefer the former.

To set the stage, we hearken back to that odd-named girl who kind of started it all : Fanny Alger. Why didn't Joseph tell Emma about her to begin with? The scholarship tells us (Daniel Bachman's thesis, primarily) that Joseph probably questioned what plural marriage was all about in 1831 (according to Joseph Noble, the man who married Joseph to his first plural wife in Nauvoo, the inquiries took place during the Joseph Smith Translation). The records from there, as stated before, are murky; we don't know for sure whether she married in 1833 or 1835. If Bushman is correct, Joseph first saw the angel commanding him to embrace it in 1834...a date that would fit with the 1835 chronology. In either case, Joseph recognized that the time to practice it had not yet arrived (as he told Lyman Johnson, a witness to the JST while Joseph lived in the John Johnson home). Depending on whose chronology we accept, we might ask the question of what caused Joseph to wait so long...perhaps up to 4 years. The Joseph of previous years was brimming over with energy to follow the revelations...he was a Joseph who would round up a hundred men to go fight a battle 1000 miles away, marching most of the way. It was not in Joseph's character, especially not in the libididnal Joseph portrayed by the critics, to put off a command of this nature.

Furthermore, the Joseph that emerges in the documents, save for the deception, is one who is utterly bound up in Emma. And one who seems only On one occasion, he even noted: "If you desire my love, do not speak evil of Emma." He signed his letters "Affectionately, Yours" and nursed over her in times of ill health. He told visitors about how adorable his children were and how he couldn't help but love their mother. And when he did propose, he did it in strange ways...presenting sealed envelopes and hesitantly so (as he did for Emily Partridge), approaching male relatives (as he did for my great-great aunt and for Almera Johnson). Joseph the libertine seemed to be utterly lacking in "game."

Finally, we err if we suppose that all plural marriages were conducted w/o Emma's knowledge. Even Todd Compton, no friend of traditional LDS orthodoxy, claims that Emma knew of and approved of Eliza R. Snow (interesting...given that there was likely a physical altercation that led to leave the Mansion House). Emily and Elizabeth Partridge (even though they had married Joseph two months earlier without her knowledge), the Lawrence sisters...all of them were handpicked by Emma at one point or another. Melissa Lot believed that she was married with Emma's explicit approval. Finally, it would have been absurd to think that Joseph never addressed the Fanny issue with Emma...given that Fanny was turned out of house by Emma and the whispers that abounded as Johnson and Hancock inform us. At times, Emma was quite complicit in protecting the sanctity of Joseph's time with other wives (as my aunt Lucy attests).

So what of those occasions when Joseph did deceive? We know little of the specifics behind the Alger marriage--seemingly the most problematic one since we have no evidence that Joseph tried to teach Emma; we simply have a few late accounts claiming that they saw Joseph and Fanny being "sealed" (doctrinally impossible, by the way, as Joseph did not receive the sealing keys until the next year). And we also have little evidence of how Joseph handled the situation or what he told his wife except that he went to Michigan on a mission during the fall of 1835...a seemingly convenient time to let the domestic steam settle So did he explain the principle? It seems odd that Emma could ever buy Joseph's later talk of celestial marriage if he described the Alger incident as a mere fling.

Those who have seen marital troubles involving infidelity know that while love can be regained, trust is a fragile thing indeed. Joseph must have explained Alger in terms of plural marriage...otherwise, Emma would have seen the "marriages" later on as more Fannys dressed up in religious clothing. Indeed, Emma ended up turning out Eliza R. Snow, quite violently, later on as well...yet she still managed to accept plural marriage at certain levels even after that time. Therefore, while Emma's vitriolic opposition to plural marriage is understandable (when asked in early summer 1844--after Joseph had allowed her to burn what is now section 132--where the revelation came from, she responded tartly: "Straight from hell, madam"), we cannot say with reason that her ignorance was complete. When biographers talk about the intrigue involved in Emma starting a morality campaign in the Relief Society in early 1842, Emma almost certainly knew of the doctrine, even if she did not know of Joseph's marriages.

Furthermore, Joseph recognized that plural marriage was explosive...he had already caught whiffs of the outcomes of such rumors in 1832 when he was tarred and feathered in Hiram, OH. And with Joseph hardline (and again, understandable) obsession with loyalty in the Nauvoo era, he believed that Emma could not be trusted with these teachings given her vacillations. This was not just a matter of deceiving a wife; this was a matter of walking an awkward line between following the command of God without throwing his life to the wolves. He sincerely believed that teaching the doctrine would put his life in danger (we see this in many accounts...Louisa Beaman--whose father, incidentally, was a money-digger in Joseph's earlier years, tried to steal the plates from Joseph, and then converted, George Robinson, others). Given this belief, it becomes all the more remarkable that he continued to practice it...believing what he did about its explosiveness (one account by the Nauvoo Stake President, to be sure, claims he disavowed it entirely in the weeks leading up to the martyrdom). And the marriages were not, of course, performed without common (or physically taxing...all noted that in these years, Emma began to look more gaunt than she had in previous years) discussion about it. Joseph even offered to buy Emma a horse once if she would promise to never use the phrase "spiritual wife" around him again.

So why did Joseph deceive? When he did, it was likely not for lack of trying to teach otherwise. And probably because he believed his life was in danger. JOseph's previous flirtations with danger might lead one to think that he would keep these kinds of experiments to a minimum...consolidate his base. Instead, he threatens it by asking relatives of prominent members who practically threaten his life for even bringing up the issue (the friendly Benjamin Johnson did). We shouldn't see Joseph the egoist; we should a Joseph who really is scared stiff.

Alas, I have left much out. I have not addressed where John C. Bennett brought Sarah Pratt on board with him, accusing Joseph of seducing Pratt (though evidence suggests that Bennett was doing the seducing--it's odd that John was feeding Sarah most of the information about Joseph). Nor have I addressed Orson Pratt's return to the faith in spite of his wife's accusations (again, remarkable given that he was excommunicated for first listening to his wife).

I have not answered all the questions, but I hope I have answered some...please do share one way or the other. These are irksome issues that are seldom wrapped up neatly even with a faithful depiction, but I hope to have shed some light on the subject.

Stay tuned...

The Awkward Conversation: My Faith and Polygamy

Recently, our group stumbled upon the topic of polygamy during a social setting. Conversation clipped along nicely until a dear sister said: "If we can steer the conversation in a different direction, that would be nice...polygamy pretty much belongs on the faith-shelf right now." Awkward silence. So right when we thought we have nicely tucked away that rather *ahem* different *cough* chapter of our history into the archives, we have that oh-so-pleasant flurry of news coverage where we see folks wearing pioneer clothes carted away in buses. Polygamy is at the fore once again.

So many writers (not all, but many) on polygamy have made quite the show about the loss of their faith in the wake of writing about their research on polygamy. The first and greatest self-proclaimed martyr in academia was D. Michael Quinn. Also note Stanley Ivins and B. Carmon Hardy. All researched polygamy--particularly post-Manifesto polygamy--and all lost their faith. They generally claim that polygamy in itself did not deal the death-blow, but an uncooperative church bureaucracy that just did not appreciate their scholarship. Is this really such a third-rail issue...a hot potato that, if touched, will either cost one his faith, his membership, or both?

The next two posts will deal with two topics...fittingly, the beginning and the end: 1) The earliest proto-polygamist marriages (as Kathryn Daynes calls them) and 2) the end of polygamy after the Manifesto and what the nature of that end says about how we view church leadership. Both deal with awkward questions of honesty that require a cool head to navigate both faithfully and with faith (an expectation that I can only hope to meet).

The primary questions relating to Joseph Smith's marriages are three: 1) Why did he do it?, 2) Why did he keep it from Emma and society?

1) Why did he do it?

His first practice of plural marriage was in 1833/5 (depending on whose chronology you accept) with the 17-year old Fanny Alger in Kirtland, OH. The age should not disturb us in the least...it's a well-established fact that marriage ages, on par, were much lower then. The accounts swirling this marriage are legion...many historians simply accept it as an extramarital affair carte blanche. Yet the evidence suggests otherwise. We have two primary accounts of Joseph's marriage to Fanny. Both are written several decades ex post facto; both are second-hand. While both disagree on the particulars, both do agree that Joseph Smith saw his involvement with Alger as a marriage. One account, that of Mosiah Hancock, even notes that his father performed the ceremony. The matter was not publicly discussed, however.

Later, Oliver Cowdery caught wind of it...and he was livid. Yet why was he? The debate rages indeed...scholars fight over whether Oliver Cowdery himself practiced polygamy. In 1838, he wrote in a letter that the Alger marriage was a "dirty, filthy affair." Other leaders such as David Patten, Thomas B. Marsh, and Brigham Young were unaware of the marriage until Cowdery himself made it public. The question of what Oliver knew and when he knew is sketchy here...for a sizable amount of evidence suggests that Oliver knew about polygamy from the days of translating the Bible in 1831. As this is more testimonial than evidence, I will save the reader from a death so awful as wading through evidentiary analysis. In any regard, during Oliver's high council hearing in 1838, Joseph insisted that Oliver acknowledge that he had never deemed the Alger incident adultery...and that Oliver, "as his bosom friend had been intrusted (sic) with many things." Oliver Cowdery most likely could not have been as morally opposed to polygamy as he claimed...he did after all insist on returning to Utah to live with the Saints. Thus, the reasons for the Alger marriage must remain murky due to lack of evidence...Oliver's scandal thesis is suspect and the other theses leave to much to question given their late receipt in polygamy-laced Utah.

Later marriages give us more clues. Joseph married something on the order of 27-33 wives (Stan Ivins numbered it much more highly, but his methodology was sloppy, associating Smith names in Nauvoo with Joseph Smith rather carelessly). Lucy Walker, my great-great aunt, claimed it was "not a love matter" but that she was called to place her life on a sacrifical alter, as it were. Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner claims to have had dreams hinting at a future marriage. Others such as Emily and Elizabeth Partridge tell us very little about their thoughts in the autobiography.
The question is, however...why did Joseph marry so many women when simply marrying a few might have satisfied the practice of the ancients? I would suggest this is an important question...for if we were to place licentious motives on Joseph, then we could hardly expect the cooperation from such a large number of women. Furthermore, not all of these women were young women in their attractive years. One was Brigham Young's sister, Fanny Young...a woman preparing herself for a life of spinsterhood. If Joseph simply saw this as a way of fulfilling his libido, then it would have been an odd method indeed. In almost all cases, Joseph made no secret of the marriage to the family...indeed, he often asked these family members (such as Levi Hancock in the case of Fanny Alger or William HOlmes Walker in the case of Lucy Walker) to be intermediaries. Joseph's polygamy simply does not resemble what most of us would consider to be secret, forbidden loves. Polygamy seemed to be a family affair.

I conclude that, as an answer to 1) and to 3), Joseph did not see polygamy primarily as a method to satisfy sexual urges. We have no reason to believe that intimacy was withheld from many of these relationships (in fact, we have little evidence at all...the best Todd Compton could come up with is evidence that the marriage certificates and affidavits indicated that Joseph and wife X were married for both "time" and "eternity"...or that they were married "in very deed." Weak evidence, in myopinion). However, we might do well to actually think for a second that marriage might possibly be about something more than physical intimacy...just perhaps. As Bushman argues, we can see a thread of loneliness throughout Joseph's life...death, death, death. While Fanny Alger does not have any evidence of the "eternal marriage" doctrine associated with her, it is quite contemporaneous with the Nauvoo marriages. Joseph, who himself wishes for death on more than one occasion in his own writings, quite possibly saw himself as being more than a little alone in the world. He wishes for death to come upon him. Yet he calls the society of the Saints--there's our cooperative Spirit--"the order of the Son of God." An enduring society was divine. I have not done research into the law of adoption (adopting oneself to various prominent Church leaders) but such an application of the sealing principle even at this early stage would not surprise me. Joseph wanted to create a familial network in both ritual and reality that could last through the eons (See Bushman's chapter on "Stories of Eternity" for more on this). Plural marriages, including those to women who were already married, could be easily seen within this context (though we must be honest...Joseph also believed that he was foreordained to be their husband in the premortal life...it is interesting that only one or two confirm this detail...most are like Lucy and do not discuss the rationale much if at all). While we might not know Joseph's thoughts on these things (the comments we have from him are almost non-existent), it is not outrageous to suppose that Joseph's talk of foreordination not be seen in a Saturday's Warrior context but in the context of extending his family network to encompass as many of his trusted friends (who were few indeed) as possible. In at least one purported "rendezvous" with a plural wife, part of the meeting was to give his plural wife's father a blessing to seal him up to eternal life. Not exactly the idea of an Italian restaurant style romantic evening.

While we might view such a concept with some skepticism given the polygamy connotations, neither should we be utterly averse to it. Ultimately, we believe that we are one family and as a family, should expect to be sealed to each other at some point once we show that we can handle the joy, sorrow, pain, and triumph of the families we do have.

Stay tuned...more on Joseph's plural marriages coming up soon...btw, I'm still a believer!!

The Blackmark: My Faith and the Mountain Meadows Massacre

It's a mystery that never needed to be one. I've known about it since I grammar school; yet my fellow Saints express shock and horror even as they engage in a twisted apologetics as they react to this heinous event--as though denial were a litmus test for determining one's Saintliness. Perhaps some suggest I use sensational terms? I suggest that those who believe so are, at best, ill-informed.

The events of that day need no retelling here; a fine book to be published over the next month will be discussing that in its fullest detail. The question I address: what is the faithful Latter-Day Saint--one who is faithful to both the present-day Church as well as his pioneer forebearers--to make of this terrible massacre? Was the supposedly peaceful Latter Day Saint faith of the 19th century simply window-dressing for a violent ideology of Christian-esque jihad? Furthermore, and more immediately relevant, what have we done with the memory of the victims? We must come to grips with our past if we are to engage a modern world in an information age.

I dare not try to quantify my stance on this issue into a series of premises/hypotheses for in doing so I run the risk of treating this as a geometric proof, as a problem distant from the hearts and minds of our people. It must not be so. While hard-headed evidentiary analysis is as necessary here as discussing issues like "barley in America," we must not trick ourselves into thinking that such an approach is sufficient for the descendants of those children who lived through the massacre (all adults over the age of seven were killed; the children were taken in by LDS families). We must ask if Jesus would deconstruct the tragedy in such terms...if he would offer shotgun responses and quick, easy answers. As I recall, when faced with death (and this death was of a far more natural cause), he offered no answers. He only wept.

But alas, I must enumerate the issues in some way...if this is not to be another emo-filled post about coming to grips with our past (tomes have been written on the subject; I will not burden you with more). So I pose tihs question to you, my friends, and hope to ffer some insight on it...

Was 19th-century Mormonism a violent faith masquerading as an empire of peace?

Whether authors talk of the Danites, blood atonement, or the Mountain Meadows Massacre, this is a favorite theme...that Mormons were really throat-cutting, tyrannical fanatics who saw the outside world as infidels...we were the "Mahomedians" of the American West. How much truth is there to it?

I am willing--though not particularly inclined--to entertain the notion that Mormonism indeed had a violent streak...but as Elder Packer has noted, such streaks must be taken within their proper context...as a product more of time and place than of theology. It is true that this period was marked by tremendous religious zeal on the part of the brethren, Jedediah Grant and Brigham Young in particular (though some research by Paul Peterson suggests that this zeal was far more pomp than circumstance). Part of these teachings were that certain individuals had committed crimes so heinous (adultery, murder, and some theft) that atonement was only possible by the shedding of one's own blood. Therefore, it has been supposed, Brigham Young sent vigilantes such as Bill Hickman's Danite Band to rid them of apostates (though the obvious presence of prominent apostates like T.B.H. Stenhouse and William Godbe argue against such a theory). Was this general doctrine taught widely? When one strings together all the comments made about it, then it might seem as though it was in the spirit of the age--and a rather bizarre spirit at that. Critics, both then and now, make this teaching into a method of retribution against apostates--merely the product of a power-crazed theocracy. Hence Mountain Meadows...

Yet I ask students of this to simply strip away the religious language from the principle and ask themselves if it sounds much different than how any cabal would view its territory. When we have areas even now where landowners see their land as property, it is a tragic reality that the American West was a hard-scrabble place where death over a card-game was not unheard of. Bertram Wyatt-Brown notes that in the 19th-century South, duals over honor were engaged in if only for the mere amusement of it. While there has been some debate over the role of violence as a general cultural norm in the West, it is nevertheless quite documentable that the vigilante group was harbored within frontier areas (which even extends back to the Whiskey Rebellion). Vigilantism derives from the concept of popular sovereignty, that the voice of the People is the voice of God. While I need to do more research on the subject, the frontier has traditionally been associated with such vigilantism...it is not unreasonable to suppose that the vigilantism that had such a place in Gentile culture (indeed, in the death of Joseph Smith) would easily carry over to the Mormon frontier. Mountain Meadows then was traditional vigilante action carried out with a religious banner...

Elsewhere in the west, violence in cattle towns has been alternatively described as prevalent, limited, and tolerated--depending on the historian (see Bonnie Christensen, 2002 and Richard White, 1991). The historian runs into problems in actually defining "homicide," given the cultural norms about "justified" killings on the frontier (see Thomas Noel's review of Robert McGrath's work for his argument that "justified" killings did not constitute "homicide" to the Western authorities). Since the Mormons had inherited a siege mentality from their reception in Missouri and Illinois already--where they saw first-hand the effects of vigilantism--it is tragically unsurprising that these values would be juxtaposed on the virgin wilderness.

The key here is that the theological rhetoric was more the product of a convergence of Mormon theology about repentance, the isolation of Utah Mormons, and the cultural heritage of vigilantism. What is jarring to the modern ear is the theologizing of violence...modern ears are relatively desensitized to the idea of a violent West. Otherwise, stealing horses, land disputes...hardly what we could call capital crimes--often brought on a lynching (Bill Longely and James Averell are both notable examples of this). The violent streak in Mormonism, if there was one at all, was not unlike the violence of its time. If it acted like a sovereign power unto itself, as Bushman has noted, it's because the state governments had treated them like foreign aliens. Given the violence elsewhere, the number of deaths in other frontier states dwarves the number of deaths in Utah...only the case of Thomas Coleman, a black man, shows the key elements of such execution...and his was a case where he flirted with a white woman. Sadly, in such cases, we have racism mingled with vigilantism all in the language of a theoretical doctrine. And aside from the belief that a man's blood must be shed (thus Utah's use of the firing squad), we have no instances of this "blood atonement" being actualized as a policy of the state.

And most importantly, if such a violent streak were a real element of Brigham Young's personality, then the Fancher party provided the ideal opportunity for its fullest expression. Yet he demurred, sending them that telling note via Jonathan Haslam ("Let them alone..."). If blood atonement were the real source of this killing, then the perpetrators might have sold it to him as such, and he might have accepted it. Yet he did not. There is much, even abundant, guilt in this matter...but we do the dead no service by placing it at the wrong feet.

So can a believer recognize a violent streak in Mormonism and still call himself a Mormon? Yes...absolutely. No faith...not Hindu, Buddhist, or Christian...is without one. We can be proud of pioneer forebearers, we can mourn their failings...but let us not believe that we must forsake them. Our faith is strong in spite of this horrendous act...we can condemn it with a clear conscience.

Saving ourselves from ourselves: Mormonism, me, and homosexual marriage

Much ink has been spilled about this topic. It has ranged from the polemical to the sentimental to the sensational. Yet as a supporter of my Church's policy on homosexual marriage, I find myself in a remarkably awkward position. More than one friend has hinted or openly accused me of being part of a Mormon hack, another sheep in the Church's army of the hoi polloi. Worse to these friends, I am simply propagating the same arguments that were used to justify prohibiting the priesthood from being held by all men. Others suggest that I am co-conspirator of sorts...that I'm providing cover for those who simply want to fall lock-step into the Church's position. Furthermore, I seem to barely be a faithful supporter of democracy...after all, do I not want to create a privileged class of people--heterosexual couples--who have access to rights exclusive to them? How utterly un-American...and conservatives think that Obama is the elitist...never mind that I'm also a hateful bigot who subscribes to fear tactics and sensationalism...ah, the lonely life I lead...

To these, my friends, I am simply a mob leader in the "When the prophet has spoken, the thinking is done" faction of the Church. Perhaps I protesteth too much, but alas, my friends, it becomes necessary for me to articulate how a thinking member of the faith can find homosexual marriage not only theologically unsound but also politically unwise.

"Russ," my liberal friends ask, "how can you support a policy that is so oppressive to those who simply seek to have fulfilling relationships just as you do?" And in some ways, I sympathize with my friends' accusations...I cringe at most arguments that both fellow members and even church leaders make in support of our policy. Many, like cotton candy, dissolve on contact. Others simply make an appeal to priesthood authority...a noble gesture, but ironically, utterly incongruent with the many teachings of the brethren on the topic (though one is certainly not in want of quotes representing the other school of thought). In spite of these arguments, I want to submit that one need not accept them in order to still place faith in the gospel, in Jesus Christ, indeed, in the Church's policy on this matter that does indeed address the nature of creation itself. Let's discuss theology then...

Did not my Church use the fallacious reasoning about the "naturalness" of racial separation to support the priesthood ban? At some levels, yes (with Hugh B. Brown being a notable proponent of civil rights). Can I call it fallacious while still calling myself a believer? Absolutely (Jeffrey R. Holland and Dallin H. Oaks have done likewise). The Lord has not been terribly prone to giving reasons for his policies...thus causing certain ideological rifts within the Church about the reasons for the priesthood ban. Yet the policy was firmly in place...whatever J. Reuben Clark meant in 1949 when he said it was "inspired," a belief in prophetic revelation requires that we give some credence to what they say. Can we discuss the racism of Brigham Young? Certainly. Can we cite tactless quotes from the leadership? Of course, we can...with impunity (for I have done so). Can our well-thought out discussions actually have an impact on church leadership's positions? Yes (see Lester Bush's 1973 article as an example). One can question the judgment, the rationale, the evidence of any given leader...it's just when you take upon yourself the mantle of the Church.

So to my fellow believers...Bottom line: we can toss around leaders' reasoning all we like and learn some interesting things about their modes of analysis...but if we believe that the Church is something more than a smokeless, teetotalling, abstinent club of 19th-century loving storytellers, we simply must accept the Church's bottom line on these issues.

So with that...let's discuss the philosophical ramifications of homosexual marriage outside of theology...

Typically, the first line of attack for homosexual marriage is an appeal to freedom and liberty...as it should be as well. Yet I would agree with Chesterton that terming this policy "liberal" or "free" is simply an "accident of words." Freedom, alas, is not a sovereign virtue...when isolated from other virtues, as Chesterton notes, it spins out of control. Freedom, when it serves individual ends, ultimately cooks itself in its own juice. Individual freedom does not societal freedom make.

Yet how would homosexual marriage REALLY impact society? Come now, my friends suggest, no scare tactics. No talk of men marrying beasts. Agreed. But to suggest that simply allowing homosexual marriage would broaden the scope of American liberty amounts to some sleight-of-hand...activists on both sides know that we are talking about, for better or for worse, the state's redefinition of marriage, indeed, even gender. Homosexual marriage essentially binds the state to granting tax benefits, adoption rights to a union that does not serve the human populace's interest in sustaining itself. This is a classic case of individual liberty being valued above collective interest.

Furthermore, we would indeed be laying the most blatant attack on feminism in the recent past...one that ought to make Betty Friedan and Adrienne Rich recoil. Homosexual marriage bases its case on a primary assumption that gender is constructed and that, therefore, it can be tossed aside at will. The rightness or wrongness of this assumption is beyond the scope of my bit, but I will suggest that such a position is dangerous for feminism indeed. We essentially maintain that women (or men, for that matter) are simply a convenience, an accident of nature...that they have no unique contribution to make to society that men cannot duplicate.

Homosexual marriage legitimizes the legal blending of the sexes. Man is no longer a man...nor woman a woman. We talk rightly of the women's objectification...yet supporters of homosexual marriage have little to say about women's delegitimization in the home. Liberal thought indeed...feminists have fooled themselves into thinking that separating the sexes will lead to their liberation; au contraire...can we all say "gender ghettoization"?

Thus we see (hat tip to Mormon rhetoric)...freedom does not always support its own cause. Therefore, if the state wants to make any pretension to valuing the distinctive contributions of the genders, it would be well to maintain marriage's privileged, even elite status. It might be tyranny...but only in the same sense that every other distinction is tyranny...and it prevents from the far greater tyranny that is our own appetite for individualistic urges.

High Times in P-town

The day that I call returning to Provo a "dose of reality" is a red-letter day indeed. I just spent the past week in the land of the East...romping through the backwoods of central Pennsylvania, wondering at why certain sister missionaries are, well, sister missionaries rather than residents at Wymount, and eating pathetic excuses for hot dogs sold by barely-English speaking street vendors.

Provo is an odd place...no sane person will deny that. In academia, we're organization men instead of thinkers. In dating, a "yes" belies a "no" (which is only articulated after that $25 bowl of sauteed mushrooms), a "no" all too often implies a "maybe," and a "maybe" suggests that you should just quietly disappear without too much spectacle. And lest the "you're just bitter" faction of our ideological coalition that is the Church, please note 1) their gender and 2) where they tend to be on Friday nights.

But I digress.

G.K Chesterton suggests that stepping into a family (or might I suggest, into the self-styled BYU image of familiality):

We do step into a world which is incalculable, into a world which has its own strange laws, into a world which could do without us, into a world we have not made. In other words, when we step into the family we step into a fairy-tale.

So even if Provo is a strange fairy-tale, it's "our strangeness" and certainly is no more strange than a city (NYC, for example) where men purchase larger-than-life stuffed dinosaurs, where the highest form of existence is gawking, laughing, or crying at the newest Broadway production (which is ultimately men/women being paid to be somebody they aren't), where people are, quite literally, little more than stumbling blocks on your way to the next subway entrance. Even more, we live in a world where gender relations are valued as something eternal and not a convenience styled for merely a "particular period of one's life." As Chesterton notes elsewhere, "The aesthete (read: stereotypical urbane New Yorker) aims at harmony rather than beauty. If his hair does not match the mauve sunset against which he is standing, he hurriedly dyes his hair another shade of mauve. If his wife does not go with the wall-paper, he gets a divorce." I exaggerate, but alas, would that it were more absurd than it was.

I make snide remarks about Provo (particularly about Provo dating) often...and I enjoy doing it and have no intention of refraining anytime soon. Yet, as Chesterton notes, "All exaggerations are right, if they exaggerate the right thing." We may live in a caricature, but in a fallen world, caricatures may be the best some of us can do. A righteous absurdity is better than no absurdity at all--for the latter almost certainly leads to an "Our Town" complacency that leaves the human race unexalted.

Provo may be absurd, but even as Elaine Stritch famously offered backhanded compliments to various classes of foolish women in her famed "Ladies Who Lunch" number in Company, Provo deserves praise for its Provo-ness.

I'll drink to that.

So I've Got Nothing...

Yeah. I know. Because I'm a "blogger," that means I should always have something witty, insightful, or razor-sharp to say. Maybe Utah has made me stupid. Maybe bitterness has made me stupid. Whatever it is, I have absolutely nothing brilliant to say this morning except that everyone should eat. And breathe. And be happy.

The end.