One Step Closer - Utah's Bigamy Amendment Goes Through House Committee

Yesterday, Utah's Bigamy Amendment - S.B. 102 - went before and passed through a House Committee on Monday.  This is the bill that will reduce Utah's anti-polygamy statute from a felony to a minor infraction.  You can listen to the hearing right here.

Even though I wasn't there, I had many good friends there, including my good friend and fellow burner, Gary Taylor, who once worked directly for the Safety Net.

I did get a chance, however, to listen in on the proceedings via the link provided above.  There was first an opening statement given by the bill's sponsor, Senator Deidre Henderson.  Then a variety of speakers were allowed to testify from both sides of the argument, both pro and con.

I don't really want to focus very much on the opposition.  There were a couple of representatives from law firms speaking against the bill.  There were a coupe of teenagers who didn't clarify why they were there, perhaps hoping to become the Greta Thunbergs of anti-polygamy.  There were mostly former victims of polygamy who now work with/ for the state's various anti-polygamy hate groups.  My opinion - biased as it may be - is that the opposition was mainly using emotionality and projection as their tool.  "These horrible things happened to me in polygamy, so it must remain illegal."  The general argument was that the bill will not reduce crimes committed within polygamy, but that it will give polygamists the green light to increase their rampant efforts to practice it without fear of recrimination.  Fear was also expressed that Utah would become a safe haven for people across the world who want to live polygamy.  Like Muslims.  It wasn't voiced directly in the hearing, but it has been stated in other forums.  Anti-polygamists are afraid of Muslims coming to Utah to live polygamy.  Can you think of anything more racist?

As far as those arguing in favor of the bill - I want to emphasize that none of those who argued in favor of the bill defended it from the standpoint of being pro-polygamy.  In fact, some of them were very against polygamy.  But they recognized that generations of Prohibition cannot and will not end the practice, only nestle it in a place to be taken advantage by perpetrators of evil.  In fact, some like Dr. Cristina Rosetti, a scholar who studies Mormon fundamentalism, pointed out that the bill keeps polygamy a felony in instances of other crimes like abuse, rape, or fraud.  (Her speech was erudite and very well-expressed, by the way.  She's a freaking rockstar.)  There were other speakers like Loretta Barlow, from the FLDS in Hildale, Utah, who spoke about the affect the 1953 Polygamy Raid had on her father, upon her and her other siblings.  Donia Jessop, the mayor of Hildale, along with Shirley Draper, the trustee of the UEP Trust, also spoke.  Alina Darger - one of those Dargers - also spoke on how she was afraid to speak about a very private incident for fear of bringing negative attention to her plural family.  Then Christine Marie Katas from Voices From Dignity spoke.  Some of you who follow my blog might remember when Christine and I clashed.  She has since become one of my favorite people on the planet.  She has done so much to help the disenfranchised and displaced in Short Creek whether offering emotional support or helping people find homes.  Christine is the perfect example of someone who came into this with preconceived notions about polygamists only to find that things are not always as they seem.

The next step is for this bill to be placed before the entire House of Representatives.  I will keep you informed!  This is an exciting time for me!

Correspondence with Christine Marie Katas of Voices For Dignity

Recently, I had a correspondence with Christine Marie Katas of Voices of Dignity, who is also a member of anti-polygamist group, Sound Choices Coalition.  It was in regard to a post that I had made here.  In the post, I had included a black-and-white photo of women in KKK garb.  It was intended to draw an emotional response, and I admit that it was inflammatory on my part.  I have removed the photo at Ms. Katas's request.

Here is what she wrote to me:

Brother Moroni, I did not make up those statistics, my friend. They came from medical studies and other research submitted to and examined by the Chief Justice Bauman of British Columbia Supreme Court after "the most comprehensive judicial record on the subject ever produced, I have concluded that the Attorneys General and their allied Interested Persons have demonstrated a very strong basis for a reasoned apprehension of harm to many in our society inherent in the practice of polygamy..." 

If you would like to review the research and rationale for the decision yourself, you can study it right here: http://stoppolygamy.com/court-decision-on-polygamy/

I was sharing the facts of the court. My opinion was that creative thinking and collaboration should be explored in an attempt to make a difference. By no means did that make me part of a hate group.

That's silly. I care about the welfare of women and children - that did not merit posting a photo of the KKK. That photo is offensive even to look at. I have many African American friends. It would hurt them even to know a photo like that still exists and is being posted on the Internet. Put yourself in their shoes. Would you be so kind as to remove it?

I believe our time and energy would be better spent building friendships, collaborating, and figuring out how to change those harmful facts. 

No one wants to see people harmed. I am sure that is one area where we are in agreement, right? I am sure the solutions are out there. I hope you find them.

Kind regards,

Christine Marie


And here is my response:

Sister Christine,

I have taken the photo down at your request. First, because you requested it. And second, because you actually have made an effort to have a dialogue with the polygamous society. That is more than many of your contemporaries have done.

You have referred me to some research that corroborates your claims. I ask you the question - was this research done exclusively with the communities in British Columbia (FLDS and the Blackmore communities)? I would like to point out that many fundamentalist Mormons would not find any common ground with these communities - culturally, doctrinally, or socially. To me, it is akin to doing a polygamy study on Muslims and then applying that data to Mormons. We do NOT want to be painted with the same brush that is used to portray the FLDS, and other extreme groups.

I lived as a polygamist for 13 years, and, whereas my attempt has failed, it had nothing to do with polygamy. But the internet record speaks that for more than a decade, I have publicly spoken out against abuse (mental, physical, and emotional). I have spoken out against child marriages and arranged marriages. I worked for 9 years as a social worker, and used my knowledge as an advocate to get polygamous families to speak to the government and human service agencies.

So when you say that you have done a very detailed study in British Columbia, I believe you. But I do not feel it represents me, or the people I associate with.

You indicate that you are open to have dialogue with polygamous families to change that. I applaud that. And for that, I offer my sincere apologies for my post, which could be considered inflammatory. I am truly sorry. This is an emotional topic. I love my children more than anything in this world; I live for them. And the thought that a government agency and/ or advocacy group would take them away from me just because I am/ was a polygamist is terrifying to me. I was already witnessing hateful people WHO DID NOT KNOW ME spreading lies and speaking to the media about me. That is when I decided to go public and speak to the media, including starting this blog. So if I misrepresented you, I am sorry. I welcome any dialogue.

Please continue to speak to polygamists and draw them out of the shadows. Because it is in the shadows that the crimes are committed. Coming into the light and being able to converse is what will help us all.

Thanks again for responding,

Moroni Jessop

PS Perhaps I can refer you to "Polygamous Families in Contemporary Society" (Atlman, Ginat, 1996) which concludes that abuse and dysfunction do not occur in any greater rates in polygamous families than monogamous families.