Queering polygamy?

Curiously enough, while reading Mahmood's article, I couldn't help but think of a case of religious freedom that is slowly (very slowly) winding its way through the BC justice system: that of the Crown vs. FLDS, specifically those that reside in the community of Bountiful. For those of you unfamiliar with the specifics, I encourage you to do some Googling because the details are fascinating but briefly the case is this: Bountiful is a break-away community from the Church of Latter Day Saints. The church recently experienced a schism along the lines of polygamy: Joseph Smith, the founder of LDS, was a proponent of polygamy (the religion stems in part from Smith's ability to interpret golden tablets he found in the desert, written by G-d. Cynics say he "discovered" the provisions of polygamy after he met a woman he desired, but Smith was already married), arguing that the number of wives one has indicates one's status in the church and (from what I understand) denotes which level of heaven one will enter. Most Mormons do not practice or believe in polygamy, but those in Bountiful (and some a few communities in Utah) do. Polygamy is illegal in Canada and for decades, Bountiful and the Bc government were at a stalemate: polygamy quietly continued in the community and the government pretended not to notice. However, reports started coming out from Bountiful ex-wives who left the community and young boys who were forcibly removed as not to compete for wives, all who spoke out against the abuse, oppression, and indoctrination they experienced. Coupled with rumours that girls as young as 16 were being forced to marry and were being trafficked across the border to Utah finally forced the Bc government's hand.

Up until that point, the government refused to lay charges because they did not want to test the limits of the freedom of religion clause in the Charter. (The former leader of Bountiful, Winston Blackmore, knew this and in interviews boasted of the safety from polygamy charges.) The fear was, and still is, how to frame the argument in such a way as to not create some catastrophic legal precedence. I worked for the BC government when all of this started to happen and I can attest to the heated conversations that ensued about religious freedom, women's rights, and state control.

So what does all of this have to do with Mahmood? I am struck by her argument that secular law concerns itself with protecting the dominant religion/social class and legal wrangling by religious minorities need to be keep the implications of secular legal decisions in mind. On the one hand, a legal structure that privileges dominant socio-cultural religious traditions makes me immediately suspicious (look at Canada's Christian-dominated public holidays, for an easy example). On the other hand, I think the oppression against women and young boys coming out of Bountiful is disgusting and needs to be stopped.

But where is the balance between these two truths? The same arguments that are lobbed against polygamy (it oppresses women, it challenges normative definitions of marriage and family) are eerily similar to those lobbed against queers. The obscenity trials of Little Sisters is still fresh in my mind and while gay marriage is legal in Canada, it certainly isn't the queer revolution of the heteronormative family I keep waiting for.

I don't know how all of this will work out. I do know I will keep my eyes on the decision and pray that when it comes the ripples won't be waves.