Somehow I Missed Polygamy Day

Somehow I missed “Polygamy Day 6” but the folks over at Pro-Polygamy.com are happy to bring me up to date:

Over the ... year leading up to the current “Polygamy Day 6,” many events accelerated the polygamy rights movement. A government study in Canada recommended de-criminalizing polygamy. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided “Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita,” putting two burdens of proof on the government to prove, first, why all polygamy should supposedly be completely banned and, second, why making an exemption for specific benevolent forms of polygamy would undermine such a complete ban – impossibilities for the government to ever prove. A new show on HBO’s pay-TV network, called “Big Love,” was the very first of its kind to portray normal consenting-adult polygamists. That generated enormous media coverage on the polygamy movement and its renowned battle-cry, “Polygamy Rights is the next civil rights battle.” And both houses of the U.S. Congress - again - failed to pass a big government marriage amendment.

Okay, okay, I enjoy the prurience as much as the next guy (name available on request). But there is a real issue here for anybody interested in social order. My own not very well tutored guess is that along with a rising incidence of warlordism, polygamy is bound to be on the rise as well (for a good overview, see Philip Longman on “Why Men Rule,” here).

Among those who pay attention to polygamy, there’s been a lot of attention directed to issues of morality, propriety sexual equality, and general existential angst. Somewhat less noticed is an issue that may be even more important: surplus males.

It seems to be a mantra of mine: a society with too many unattached males is society that is dangerous and disruptive a nuisance to itself and others. Polygamy coupled with sex selection and the evident “male imbalance” through large chunks of the world (particularly the Muslim world) is an explosive combination. Martin Walker did an admirable job of showcasing the “sex-selection” aspect here. For a suggestion of what a world looks like with too many men and not enough brides, consider Jonathan Spence on the rural village of Daoyi in 18^th-Century China:

Because of childhood illnesses, a less-than-adequate diet, even infanticide in time of famine—and because wealthy men tended to keep several female consorts—there were many fewer marriageable women than men in Daoyi, as in so many other areas of China. … The Chinese idealization of the family, the attention paid to children, and the insistence that descendants practice ancestor worship to keep forbears from suffering in the afterworld—all these deeply held beliefs must have seemed a cruel jest to these millions of men. For women, any attempt to avoid marriage must have been out of the question. This was just one more of the many areas in which sourcces of social discontent were always present, and yet could seldom be articulated because of China’s prevailing social beliefs.”

--Jonathan D. Spence, The Emergence of Modern China 94 (1990).

Current News Angle: It’s fascinating to watch how this issue plays itself out in Republican politics, particularly as it relates to the candidacy of Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and the question whether a Mormon can secure himself with the religious right. The National Review fires a shot across his bow here, including the imperishable one-liner from Kate O’Beirne:

Should Mitt Romney join a 2008 race that included John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich and George Allen, the only guy in the GOP field with only one wife would be the Mormon.

Fn.: And yes, I realize the issue is not as simple as I make it sound. Look here.