Polygamy (but only if it's okay with the wife)

Now that's a legacy!

Polygamy. The very word is enough to make most women cringe, and most men smile. Not only is it a polarizing subject to most of us of Judeo-Christian heritage, but it's also a thorny issue in those cultures that advocate (or at least don't condemn) the institution of plural marriage.

More specifically referred to as polygyny, this union of one man and his many wives is as old as history. In fact, the Patriarchs of the world's great Faiths -- Judaisms and Islam -- both practiced plural marriage. Even Christianity didn't condemn it, although the Church fathers did prohibit those Christian men with more than one wife from serving in the Church. So why does polygamy get such a bad rap?

Not only is polygamy abhorrent (at least overtly) to most Westerners, it is also contradictory to the way our society in large thinks about love. We're brought up to believe (thank you Hollywood) that everyone -- including the ugly ones -- has a soul mate just waiting around the corner for that happily ever after (monogamous) relationship.

But this “to the exclusion of all others” business is just plain horse cocka. And we all know it. With US divorce rates in the neighbourhood of 50%, society is already in a de-facto state of polygamy anyway. Alimony and child support inevitably tie the offending spouse (usually the husband) to the family regardless, so why not just expedite the whole process and save the divorce?

Probably because Western women wouldn't stand for it. And justifiably so. But this viewpoint hasn't swayed societies that still practice this chauvinistic lifestyle.

Polygamy is nearly always a cultural construct. Traditional patriarchal societies were more likely to practice it, primarily for the purposes of enlarging and ensuring one's estate through procreation. Families would be large as a result, which meant more helpers in the fields and workers in the home. And if a man disliked his wife, he simply married another. Divorce was (and still is in some Muslim and more traditional cultures) to the benefit of the husband, and as such the affected women simply accepted the situation as their lot in life.

At the risk of sounding like a Utah salesperson for this unusual relationship brand, I must add one caveat. Most societies that allow polygamy also require the man to be able to support his wives. This requirement is not only reiterated in most religious scripture that condones the practice, but it is also codified into law in most places. So you need money too, lots of it. More often than not, no money means no (extra) wives.

And while most countries have laws prohibiting the practice of polygamy, there are exceptions. Huge swaths of Africa and the Middle East (as well as some Muslim majority countries, such as Indonesia) recognize these marriages under civil law. Interestingly, India allows it for their Muslim population, but not for the Hindu majority.

Saudi Arabia probably has the most intricate polygamy “organization.” Men may marry up to four wives, with or without the other wives consent. However, the wives do have the option of divorcing the dude if they feel the arrangement is not for them.

Africa, however, is home to some of the greatest polygamists -- men who do the word proud, like Ancentus Akuku of Kenya. Nicknamed “Ancentus Danger” because of his good looks, this Don Juan of the Serengeti married 100 women in his 94 years, fathering some 160 children. Then there's Mohammed Bello Abubakar of Nigeria, who had 86 wives and 170 children (although due to Sharia law he was forced to drop the other 82 wives). Even the South African President, Jacob Zuma, has three wives and 20 kids and is a shameless, self-promoting wife-loving polygamist.

However in North America polygamy is a big no-no. Known here by its more heinous name – bigamy – it is considered a legal offense to marry someone while still married. For some reason, Westerners just hate the concept of polygamy. I'm not sure why our founding Fathers had such an aversion to the idea, but most of us today view those who choose to participate in this marital union as immoral spectacles of a bi gone era.

In Canada, places like Bountiful, British Columbia are home to a growing polygamist community. Having come under attack for their alternative attitude (although the official government line infers abuse) they don't seem like your typical criminal enterprise. Sure, they look like they've been watching a little too much Little House on the Prairie, but they all seem a very innocent and peaceful people. The wives enter into the marriage covenant willingly, and the whole thing seems completely unoffensive.

Utah too seems to like its polygamy, thanks to the early teachings of the Mormon Church. Even though the Church of the Latter Day Saint's have renounced their belief in “plural marriage” the polygamist legacy is still felt. (It's even the premise of HBO's Big Love -- a show I have never seen and frankly don't care to.)

Perhaps the regions where polygamy thrives most are those which are closer to their tribal roots or cultural pasts. Most are located in developing or Third World countries, often in countries with minimal Western influence. Yet this is not always the case. Saudi Arabia -- with a per capita income north of $20,000 and an affinity for Western luxury and goods -- seems to easily meld it's modern lifestyle with more traditional tribal and Islamic beliefs.

Polygamy influences (and is influenced) by living standards. In certain environs, especially those with non-automated agricultural based economies, the benefits of polygamy are clear. Clearly a man in this situation bears an advantage over the one with a smaller family. The kings of old, notably the Hebrew kings David and Solomon, could afford the means to keep tens or even hundreds of wives.

But it seems that as mankind has evolved and progressed, emphasis was placed on material possessions and personal betterment (as well as developments like universal suffrage) -- causing polygamy to become a tad bit extraneous, if not financially prohibitive. In the era of cultivation, children were an asset. In the age of information, children are a liability (others, not mine).

But the varying factors that encourage plural marriage never really found root in the West. Though farms needed workers and men needed women, both the Catholic and Protestant Church looked on polygamy with disgust. And it would seem that the religious and social heritage of the settling pioneers didn't stray too far from this ideal.

In all likelihood the legalization of polygamy in the West would be certain disaster. The qualities that allowed this institution to survive to this day really do not factor into modern life: The need of additional wives to ensure that one be able to produce enough offspring to survive the plagues, wars and famines of the day; the economic benefits to a man's estate of having many children to tend to the goats and the fields; the elevated tribal status of having more children, more wives, and in turn, a larger estate. Almost always the benefits of polygamy relate to procreation.

In the end, it's probably a good thing that our self-indulgent Western society has taken the position on polygamy it has. Could you imagine a country full of Charlie Sheen's marrying multiple hotties, only to jump ship when the going got rough?

The only reason women ever stood for plural marriage was because there was a reasonable expectation that the husband would respect each and every wife, or in the very least provide for her and her children's needs. I don't think there has ever been a version of polygamy (at least not a successful one) where a husband married for sex, only to leave his wife neglected emotionally and financially.

While it's not for me, I don't see the harm in allowing polygamy. As long as the agreement is mutual and beneficial to all those involved, I don't perceive it as a threat to National Security.