History and biology cloud debate over Eldorado marriages

History and biology conspire to muddy the raging conflict between moral absolutes in the controversy over the Eldorado polygamist compound, posing complex, hotly contested questions with few simple or pat answers.

If you believe (absolutely) that women should be independent, free to choose from a range of paths in life, educated side by side with men, and encouraged to seek own fulfillment as individuals, then it's likely most Americans today agree with you, and disagree with how FLDS members are raising their kids. Any honest historical observer, though, must grant that Americans from our not too distant past would be astonished at such feminist effrontery.

If you believe (absolutely) in a very traditional line of Christian values (and don't forget FLDS theology is rooted in Christianity, with the addition of Joseph Smith's improbable canon), you may well believe that St. Paul's admonition, "wives, submit to your husbands," means that women should marry, have children, and support a man who shoulders the responsibilities of the world - not so different from what the FLDSers believe.

Indeed, it's worth mentioning that the biblical case for polygamy is longstanding and well-founded. The first example of polygamy in the Bible occurs early on, in Genesis 4:19, when "La'mech took unto him two wives: the name of one was Adah, and the name of the other Zil'lah." But the Old Testament, in particular, is rife with examples of the practice.

Most Christians and certainly Jews are perhaps more familiar with Abraham, the patriarch of Judaism and a much-revered icon in the Christian pantheon. Abraham was an elderly polygamist who not only married much younger women himself, but arranged the marriage sight unseen between his 40-year old son, Isaac, to Rebekah, a virgin (described in the KJV as a "damsel") still living with her parents who was so young she could not travel without a "nurse." (See Genesis 24)

Isaac's wedding ceremony to Rebekah was described in the King James Version thusly: "And Isaac brought her into his mother Sara's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her" (Gen. 24:67). Perhaps that's what's meant by a "spiritual marriage?

To FLDSers and many Christians, the fundamental purpose of marriage is procreation (if not, e.g., then there's no good reason that gays shouldn't marry), and any fool can see that God decides when girls enter their child bearing years, not Harvey Hildebran nor the Texas Legislature.

Other religions contain theologically legitimate (if legally and ethically problematic) endorsements of both plural marriage and marrying very young girls. According to Wikipedia, "Both polygamy and polygyny were practiced in ancient, medieval and early-modern times among many sections of Hindu society."

The prophet Mohamed famously married a 12-year old bride who bore him many children (along with his many other wives), and an estimated 1-3% of Muslims worldwide continue to live in plural marriages. These examples show it's incredibly difficult to separate the controversy over polygamy from religion.

Part of my reaction to this debate reflects my discomfort when I hear people (often from the liberal end of the spectrum) claim that those they view as "victims" have been "brainwashed" by their religion into a belief system that oppresses them. Perhaps so. But another word for brainwashed is "convinced."

Is it actually "child abuse" for an older man to marry a 16-year old without parental consent, or a 15-year old WITH the parents' permission? Legally, yes. Historically, well, that's a pretty new definition. In the United States, "As late as 1930, twelve [American] states allowed boys as young as 14 and girls as young as 12 to marry (with parental consent)."

Over the last century, the legal marriageable age worldwide has increased. Texas' recently increased marriage age (16, with parental consent) isn't that far out of line with many other states and nations. But it was only in 2005 that Texas banned marriage for 14 and 15 year olds with parental consent, and that decision was aimed directly to facilitate prosecuting religious practices by FLDS.

Ironically, leaving aside for a moment the FLDS controversy, supporters of Rep. Hildebran's law boosting Texas' marriage age find themselves actively encouraging thousands of teen pregnancies outside of wedlock - in practice, at least, if never rhetorically. In 2002, more than 17,000 girls aged 14 or under became pregnant nationwide (see this report from the Guttmacher Institute, pdf, p. 9). More than a quarter million American girls aged 15-17 became pregnant that same year (p. 7)!

Why shouldn't a pregnant girl who's chosen to keep her baby be allowed to marry the father with her parent's consent? That seems like a bad law on its face. Other than persecuting FLDS, why would Rep. Hildebran want his name on a bill that expands the number of unwed teen mothers?

On the other hand, today we know from an accumulating array of brain science that young people haven't fully developed their cognitive abilities to consistently make wise or rational judgments. Similarly, the rise of the women's rights movement in recent decades has expanded options for women beyond early marriage and frequent pregnancies. These two, modern developments cast an especially harsh light on the centuries-old practice of polygamy and marriage for teenage girls.

There has always been a tension, though, between religion and science, not to mention between modern, post-feminist sensibilities and the views of more traditional, religious women. And these FLDS women (and their girls) are about as traditional as they get. Do they have a right in America to cling to historic religious views and traditions that most of society thinks are "obviously" wrong? That's what this case will tell us by the time it's complete, and IMO the nation will benefit from a national conversation on the topic, if it's an honest one.

I've predicted this case will ultimately bog down with few if any convictions for child abuse, and beyond the legal technicalities, the reasons are precisely because of our nation's ambivalence over sexual politics, where our present ideals remain mired in an often misogynistic past.

Over the last century, the legal marriageable age worldwide has increased. Texas' recently increased marriage age (16, with parental consent) isn't that far out of line with many other states and nations. It was only in 2005, though, that Texas banned marriage for 14 and 15 year olds with parental consent. That decision aimed directly to target religious practices by FLDS, who many locals would like to drive out of the area using the machinery of the state, though such cases are notoriously difficult to prosecute.

Plural marriages among consenting adults continue to be tolerated in Utah and Arizona, in part because they could never build enough prison space to house them all, and in part because state's attorneys fear enforcement efforts might not pass constitutional muster.

Today we know from an accumulating array of brain science that young people haven't fully developed their cognitive abilities to sufficiently to make wise or rational judgments. Similarly, the rise of the women's rights movement in recent decades has expanded options for women beyond early marriage and frequent pregnancies.

There has always been a tension, though between religion and science, not to mention between modern, post-feminist sensibilities and the views of more traditional, religious women. And these women (and their girls) are about as traditional as they get.

Instead of focusing on allegations against individuals, the Eldorado raid has used sparsely supported allegations of child abuse to launch a large-scale clash of cultures and religious beliefs, which will now be played out in the criminal justice arena - exactly what the authors of the First Amendment to the US Constitution hoped to avoid.

The Eldorado case reinforces to me once again the brilliance of the founding fathers' decision to separate the power of the state from the hysteria surrounding religious absolutes. I wish our modern leaders demonstrated equal wisdom.

RELATED: Grits' Eldorado Roundup