Untitled article by A. F. Ballenger

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · October 2, 1890

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 5, No. 39

Religious Liberty and Polygamy.

By A. F. Ballenger

RELIGIOUS liberty has become so sacred in the eyes of the American people, and religious persecution so obnoxious, that any man, or body of men, appealing to religious liberty in defense of their practices, will be granted a speedy and impartial hearing. Until recent years, polygamy, unmolested, has been practiced by one branch of the Mormon Church, and every legal step toward its suppression has been opposed by its defenders, on the ground that such interference would be an abridgment of religious liberty; and even now there are those not in sympathy with the practice of polygamy, who doubt the right of the Government to prohibit it.

The object of this paper is to define the basis upon which polygamy may and should be prohibited, and to show that such prohibition is consistent with the principles of both civil and religious liberty.

The first question to be settled, is, whether marriage is a civil or religious relation. For if marriage is a religious relation it cannot be regulated by civil government. But marriage, as we shall prove, is, primarily, a civil relation; and since the few who will question this proposition are found among believers in religion, we will address this portion of the argument to them.

Mutual aid and companionship are among the primary objects for which marriage was instituted (Gen. 2:18); hence marriage is clearly a social relation. Another primary object of the marriage relation is the propagation of the race. Gen. 1:28. But reproduction is

wholly natural. Ps. 51:5; John 3:6. This argues the natural character of the marriage relation. It is dependent on natural conditions for its existence, and must end with mortality (Matt. 22:30; Rom. 7:2); hence is temporal and natural, not spiritual.

That marriage was instituted by the Creator does not prove that it is a spiritual relation. God has instituted government, and commands men to be subject to “the powers that be.” But our relation to governments ordained of God is, primarily, civil. If marriage is a religious ordinance, only those are married who are religious, or spiritual. But this principle would nullify all marriages between parties who reject all religion, but who are faithful and happy in obedience to their marriage vows. Further: If marriage is a religious relation, it must be a relation of the true religion, thus confining legitimate marriages to possessors of the true religion, not merely the professors of it. In other words, if marriage were a religious, or spiritual, relation, it would follow that all marital obligations between infidels, hypocrites, and all but the few who profess and possess the true religion, would be null and void. This is the position of the Church of Rome. “Marriage,” says the Romish Church, “is purely religious. We alone are the possessors and guardians of the true religion. Hence all marriages not sanctified by the church, are void.” This is the logical and inevitable conclusion to which they arrive, upon the assumption that marriage is a religious institution or sacrament. This conclusion, with all its disastrous consequences, is embodied in a formal decree of the Catholic Church. (See records of the Decrees of the Council of Trent, November, 1563.)

While maintaining that marriage is primarily, a civil relation, we would not be understood as excluding from it the benign influences of pure and undefiled religion. The blessings of religion ought to be taken, not only into the marriage relation, but into every relation of life, social and civil.

Having shown that marriage is a social or civil relation, and therefore within the purview of civil legislation, provided the rights of society demand it, we will next inquire, Do the rights of society demand the regulation of the marriage relation? We maintain that they do, and for the following reasons, among others: The State must regulate marriage, for the purpose of ascertaining the paternity of children. This the State must do, in order that it may impose upon the proper parties the parental care of the child, that the tax-payer who is not responsible for its existence, may not be charged with its support. Hence it is proper and just for the State to require, as it does, that those entering upon the marriage relation shall furnish competent evidence of having en-

tered upon that relation, and that they accept its duties and responsibilities.

Having shown that the government may in right, and must in justice to the tax-payer, regulate the institution of marriage, we next inquire, May it regulate that relation to the extent of prohibiting plural marriages? It will be conceded that it is the province and the duty of civil government to protect its citizens; and, if any right of the citizen is invaded by the practice of polygamy, and such practice can be shown to be a menace to the peace and good order of society, irrespective of religious prejudice, it can and should be prohibited by civil law. That polygamy is an invasion of the natural rights of man we shall proceed to prove.

All men are created equal, and are by nature endowed with certain inalienable rights, among which is the right to the undivided companionship of a wife. But, while this proposition will not be disputed, our position is, that for men to take unto themselves a plurality of wives, is abnormal and will invade that right. Polygamy is abnormal, since nature has made no provision for it. For that institution to be normal and within the reach of every man, nature must provide at least twice as many females as males; or, if we take the number of wives associated with Brigham Young in the marriage relation as a precedent (and once admit the principle the number cannot be restricted), nature would have to produce more than twenty times as many women as men. “It is fully established,” says the “Encyclopædia Britannica,” “that among all races of mankind, the number of male infants born slightly exceeds the number of females, the ratio being about twenty-one males to twenty females.” After mentioning the comparative mortality of the two sexes, the same authority says: “Taking the human race as a whole the numbers of married and marriageable men and women are practically equal.” (“Encyclopædia Britannica” Supplement, Vol. 4, pages 222, 223). For one half of the male population to take even two wives, or one more than is allotted to each man by nature, would be to deprive the other half of the one wife which nature has provided.

Polygamy is therefore a violation of the natural rights of man, and as such, should be prohibited by civil law. The statement that the supply has always equaled the demand in countries where polygamy has been practiced, even if true, loses its force, when we consider that the practice has been restricted to the wealthy and powerful. Even in Utah among the modern polygamists, the number of wives is restricted by a property qualification, and even then, the supply has not equaled the demand, as will be shown further on. All such restrictions, based on property or other qualifications, are inconsistent with the equal rights of man, and the principles of our free Government.

The Mormon community in Utah is a practical and forcible illustration of the fact that polygamy is an abnormal state of society. It is an acknowledged fact that this community does not furnish the excess of females required to meet the demand for a plurality of wives, their offspring there, as elsewhere, being about equally divided between the sexes. This demand has been met by the efforts of missionaries who have induced women (in some cases wives and mothers who deserted their families), to join the Mormon community and add another wife to the already well supplied Mormon husband. To say that the females drawn from non-polygamous districts to furnish women for polygamous communities do not materially alter the proportionate number of marriageable men and women in those districts, does not in the least militate against the argument. Having shown that in principle it violates the inalienable rights of men, the limited extent of its practice cannot be advanced in support of the institution. The State should not abolish its laws against polygamy (thus giving it legal sanction), and then wait until one half of the male population of the country are deprived of their rights, in order to prove that the practice would invade natural rights. As well wait until the seals are destroyed, to prove that the present method of killing will destroy them, before enacting laws against their destruction. The necessity of the Government thus taking precautionary measures, was advocated by Secretary Blaine in the recent seal-fishery dispute, and admitted by the English Premier. All the Government needs to know, is, that the practice will invade the rights of men; its duty in the matter is then made clear. It must prohibit the practice in order to preserve those rights.

Having shown that the practice of polygamy invades the rights of men to the undivided companionship of a wife, we will next show that it is an invasion of the natural rights of women to the undivided companionship of a husband, which nature by its producing as many men as women, proves to be her natural right.

The husband by taking the second wife, invades the rights of the first wife to the undivided companionship of a husband. To say that both women voluntarily accept the relation, does not place the matter beyond the jurisdiction of civil government, because the Government cannot sanction the invasion of natural rights even though the parties are agreed. It may be objected, that because the Government cannot sanction the practice, it does not follow that it must prohibit it. It is true the Government cannot be regarded as sanctioning a practice by not prohibiting it when the practice does not come within its jurisdiction. But, since the practice of polygamy has been proved to be a violation of natural rights, the very

thing for which governments are established to prevent, this comes within the rightful jurisdiction of civil government, and a failure to prohibit it is to give it legal sanction. The absence of law prohibiting a practice, when that practice comes within the jurisdiction of civil government, is to give the practice the sanction and protection of government. To illustrate: The government has no law against murder. A man is murdered, and his friends bring the murderer before the authorities for punishment; but they are told the State has no law against murder, and orders are given that the murderer be set at liberty. By this the government sanctions the act of murder. A failure to prohibit the act makes the government responsible for it.

Thus it is with the invasion of the rights of the first wife by her husband’s taking other wives. A failure on the part of the government to prohibit it gives the act the sanction of the government, and, having by its failure to prohibit the act given legal sanction to it, it cannot contradict itself by declaring the marriage illegal at some subsequent time in order to secure to the woman her rights. The law ought therefore to prohibit polygamy that it may be faithful to its duty of securing to its citizens their natural rights.

Neither can the plea that polygamy is practiced as a part of the religion of the Mormon, affect the argument. No religious practices, however sacred in the eyes of the believer, can receive the sanction of a just government, if they infringe upon the rights of others.

Again, to protect the Mormons in their practice of polygamy on account of their religious convictions, and prohibit the same practice among others, would be class legislation, which is opposed to the principles of free government. If polygamy is permitted in Utah, it must be permitted in every State and Territory in the Union. If this permission is granted the Mormon it must be granted the “Gentile;” and, since the “Gentile” has not the religious convictions which alone make order possible in a polygamous society, it would be destructive of the family relation, and, through that, destructive of civilized government itself.

For these reasons, we arraign this whole system as unnatural, an infringement of human rights, a menace to the good order of society, and maintain that it may be suppressed by law without infringing any principle of religious liberty, and must be suppressed in order to preserve civil liberty.

A. F. BALLENGER.