With the recent capture and conviction of Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints leader Warren Jeffs, as well as various programs in the mainstream media regarding plural unions, the polygamist subculture in the United States has been dragged into the spotlight.

Despite laws prohibiting polygamy, the polygamist lifestyle is rampant not only in Utah, but also in Arizona and other parts of the Southwest; more and more, polygamy is not so much a secret but the elephant in the room. Although I am neither a member of the FLDS, nor one of its various splinter groups, I'm inclined to believe the issue of polygamy is much more nuanced than we typically give it credit for.

Naturally, anti-polygamy laws seem useful when they prevent things like husbands with secret families, and child/spousal abuse. Additionally, many argue polygamists are a strain on society and especially on the welfare system. Here's the thing - child and domestic abuse are against the law, as is welfare fraud. If these concerns have already been taken care of by the legal system, why is polygamy still against the law?

While some might claim legalizing polygamy would just be allowing a latent form of abuse of women, I'm not sure I buy it. Is it truly impossible for a logical, mentally competent woman to decide to enter into polygamist union? How is this any different than any other religious belief? Will it, without exception, be detrimental to the wives and their children in a way significantly worse than typically family drama? It might not be a choice I agree with or fully understand, but at the same time, I don't believe I can legislate against it.

While the LDS banned polygamist unions in the 1890s, many splinter groups continue to practice the lifestyle and believe it to be an integral part of their religious life, and pivotal to their entrance into heaven. So if a woman over the age of 18 wants to legally marry a man who happens to be legally married to someone else, what's so illegal about that?

Although past prosecution of polygamists was rampant, today it is much less so. The lifestyle is lived in secret, and while there is always the threat of prosecution, very infrequently is it acted upon. In 1998, Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt said while he did not condone plural marriages the state had more pressing issues to deal with. If this is the case, why are we forcing so many families to live in secret?

The issue is fuzzy, and the concept of plural marriages is strange to me, but in a day when we're broadening our conception of marriage to include other previously unorthodox unions, why aren't plural marriages included or even considered? It seems that all the arguments being used against plural marriage are the same ones that appeared against interracial marriage, and which are currently being used to legally ban gay marriage.

Obviously, plural families are going to exist whether there are laws against them or not, but these laws are taking up space without being critically re-examined. Like the anti-sodomy laws, these laws may have made sense to the people who passed them in that time period, but the United States has moved on and grown as a nation, and our laws should reflect that. Even beyond laws regarding marriage and sexual practices, all laws should be reconsidered so that the issues that are represented by the law are the issues that are truly important and relevant to American life today.

This is one of those times when you just have to say, "You do your thing, and I'll do mine." I'd never enter into a polygamist union, but if that's the life you freely chose to lead and you think it'll get you to Heaven, knock yourself out.

Teresa Cambria, Assistant Opinion Editor
Junior, College of Arts and Science