I don’t care about Mitt Romney’s great-grandfather

February 26, 2007

I’m not in the habit of defending Republican presidential candidates against unfair criticisms, but this AP story was widely panned by bloggers all over the political spectrum over the weekend with good cause. It’s a cheap and unnecessary shot.

While Mitt Romney condemns polygamy and its prior practice by his Mormon church, the Republican presidential candidate’s great-grandfather had five wives and at least one of his great-great grandfathers had 12.

Polygamy was not just a historical footnote, but a prominent element in the family tree of the former Massachusetts governor now seeking to become the first Mormon president.

Romney’s great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, married his fifth wife in 1897. That was more than six years after Mormon leaders banned polygamy and more than three decades after a federal law barred the practice.

Romney’s great-grandmother, Hannah Hood Hill, was the daughter of polygamists. She wrote vividly in her autobiography about how she “used to walk the floor and shed tears of sorrow” over her own husband’s multiple marriages.

Romney’s great-great grandfather, Parley Pratt, an apostle in the church, had 12 wives. In an 1852 sermon, Parley Pratt’s brother and fellow apostle, Orson Pratt, became the first church official to publicly proclaim and defend polygamy as a direct revelation from God.

I realize the campaign has begun in earnest, and the Silly Season is upon us far too early. But in what universe is it necessary for the Associated Press to run a 1,200-word piece about the personal lives of a candidate’s great-grandparents?

It’s not hard to figure out the AP’s motivation here. We probably won’t hear much about the marital habits of John Edwards’ great-great grandfather, but this story is probably justified in the editors’ minds because Romney is a Mormon. And “everyone knows,” they say, that this faith tradition has polygamy in its background.

But how this relates in any way to Romney’s presidential campaign remains a complete mystery.

On the right, Ed Morrissey argues:

The last polygamist in Romney’s ancestors was three generations earlier. My paternal great-grandfather was a drunkard; does that disqualify me from driving, too? […]

Unless Mitt’s running on the “legalize polygamy” platform, what in the hell does this have to do with anything?

On the left, Shakespeare’s Sister drives the media-criticism point home.

Look, I have no — none, zero, nil, zilch, nada, nought — love for Mitt Romney. If he were the last candidate on earth and I the last voter, I’d write in myself sooner than vote for him. But this kind of juvenile, he’s-got-cooties, smear-by-association faux-journalism has to stop. It’s pathetic; it lowers the public discourse; it insults us all.

I would just add, as an aside, that 11 months before the Iowa caucuses, it’s encouraging to see the blogosphere in general be so even-handed in calling out nonsensical political reporting, regardless of which candidate or party is being targeted. I saw several conservative blogs denounce the spectacularly stupid coverage of Barack Obama’s Indonesian public elementary school, and I saw just as many liberal blogs criticize this Romney piece.

Sure, there are exceptions, but on the whole, I’m delighted to see how reasonable we’ve been.

Don’t kid yourself; the first time the media offers up a faux scandal the right thinks might stick and actually injure a Democrat the right blogosphere will not stand on principle. Swiftboat was every bit as phony as either the Romney or Obama dust ups but you did not see the right stand up to this unprincipled attack.

  • I really don’t understand how polygamy can be against the law.

    The Mormon Church ‘appears’ to have traded its practice of polygamy for Utah statehood. It seems like a sorry agreeement both for the Constitution and the Morman chuch.

    However, Islam allows a man to have up to 4 wives. Why isn’t a Muslim’s right to have more than a single wife protected by our Constitution?

    Seriously, what would happen if a Muslim American man living in Egypt happened to marry two Muslim American women living in Egypt. At the time none of them reallt expected to move back to the US. However, circumstances changed and the man and his two wives wanted to move back to the US. As American citizens they wouldn’t have any trouble coming home.

    But what would happen to the marriages? Both marriages were completely legal. Their religion allows it. Why aren’t the laws against polygamy unconstitutional?

  • Romney is getting a raw deal because of his faith. I am a Catholic. I certainly do not wish to be judged by historical church-sanctioned behavior — the Inquistion, Witchburning, the Crusades, Altar Boy Molestation.

  • Neil (comment #2), the SCOTUS ruled on the issue of polygamy in 1878.

    REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES

    If the issue were to be revisited today, I don’t think the outcome would be much different.

    As for immigrants with multiple spouses, my understanding (and I could be wrong, of course) is that only one would be legally recognized. Social recognition is another matter, though.

  • Why aren’t the laws against polygamy unconstitutional?

    Because the fact that a practice is sanctioned in some religion somewhere does not create a constitutional requirement to make that practice legal. In certain cases (the use of peyote, for example) a minority religion may be able to get one of its otherwise-illegal practices to be given an explicit exception. But there’s no constitutional requirement that this happen automatically. And just as well; otherwise tomorrow I could establish the Church of the Holy Bank Robbery and go about legally sticking up all my local bank branches.

    If american polygamists (which do exist) wanted to get their multiple wives to have legal status, they could go before the appropriate bodies and try to get laws passed doing it. But for some reason they haven’t tried.

  • It’s interesting to note that the Nazis went back generations to ferret out and persecute people whose ancestors were Jewish. It’s well past time to judge people on their own merits. And that works both ways. If only Dear Leader was judged that way we wouldn’t be in the hell we are now.

  • “… how this relates in any way to Romney’s presidential campaign remains a complete mystery.”

    That the sins of the fathers shall be visited upon their sons for several generations is an oft-repeated theme in the Bible. You can find many references to it here. Yet another reason to strive for mental health through repudiation of all religion.

    That we are now deeply engaged in the Iraq Quagmire — at great military and monetary loss to our nation — is largely due to their centuries-old intertribal hatreds and the Shrub’s deepfelt need to somehow avenge a failed attempt on his father’s life by agents of those religious nutcases.

  • As much as the behavior of his ancestors is irrelevant to his candidacy, this is exactly the kind of information that could end his campaign.

    We already learned last week that just being a Mormon stacks 24% of people against him and I would imagine that this news will only increase that bias.

    Of course, we’re all familiar with the ancestry of George W. Bush, so maybe it won’t have an effect.

    I’d much rather see Romney lambasted for his pandering and inconsistent policy.

  • Since I believe that the government should get out of the marriage business and limit itself to the civil union business, the question would have to be are multiple civil unions legal. Each religion could have any marriage setup they wanted as long as they didn’t exploit minors. There might be practical considerations for limiting the number of civil unions because of the rights they bestoy on members of the union such as decision-making in medical emergencies.

    At least AP is stating fact rather than lies. How many “hit pieces” have there been about Democratic candidates (usually based on innuendo) as opposed to pieces on Republican candidates?

    As jimBob pointed out, polygamy still is practiced, especially in Mormon country. So I guess 1897 was the last KNOWN multiple marriage in the Romney family. Not that it matters to me. I am no less likely to vote for Mit now than I was before. In fact, I think Romney will lose very few Dem votes over this issue. The evangelicals might take it a little more seriously.

    I’m just shocked that Strom Thurmond’s people used to own Al Sharpton’s people. I’m never going to vote for Strom Thurmond thats for sure.

  • This certainly won’t be what stops liberals from supporting Romney; the rest of his record will do that just fine. But it might deter some bigots from the Zombie Army, and there’s little that bloggers from left, right or center can do about that.

  • It’s says a lot about the left blogosphere that it will stand by its principles that reckless smear attacks against any candidate is reprehensible. I won’t vote for Mitt, but he should be judged on his own merit and not whether “the scourge of polygamy is in his genes.”

    But this is the media flexing its muscle. If Mitt expencts to get elected he will have to bow down before his masters in the MSM. Nobody gets elected without the MSM’s say-so, not if they can help it.

  • Steve M. wrote: “You use the phrase “silly season” as if there are other seasons in the mainstream media.”

    I believe the four seasons of the MSM are the silly season, the especially silly season, the utterly stupid season, and the completely irrelevant celebrity legal action/trial season.

  • If american polygamists (which do exist) wanted to get their multiple wives to have legal status, they could go before the appropriate bodies and try to get laws passed doing it. But for some reason they haven’t tried.

    I suspect the reason is that true polygamists who are Utah residents would have a difficult time convincing the Utah legislature or the Utah state courts to tackle the issue. Lawrence v. Texas laid a little bit of groundwork for legal recognition of polygamous marriages, but the real hurdle is statutory, not constitutional. Such legal recognition would require dizzingly complex revisions to Utah family law, to accomdate the presence of more than two adults in a marriage. That’s not a mountain I can see the Utah legislature willing to climb, especially given that mainstream Mormons are well-represented in that body, and they have no interest in assisting polygamous splinter groups achieve legal sanction for an institution that they themselves have abandoned. It would also require that Amendment 3 to the state constitution (Utah’s mini-DOMA) be repealed, as it defines marriage as “a man” and “a woman”. For that reason, a polygamous trio would not be able to urge the Utah state courts to mandate the legislature to revise the family law statutes.

    The best bet for polygamous groups is to wait until the same-sex marriage issue is resolved favor of same-sex couples by SCOTUS, which would strike down the federal DOMA and state mini-DOMA amendments, and then sue the state of Utah in state court, asking the courts to strike down every family law statute as unconstitutional under the state costitution’s Article I equal protection and/or due process provisions.

  • In some cases I would like to see more about the ancestors of our politicians. Bush’s grandfather collaborated with the Nazis, and the money from this was used to establish the Bush dynasty. The ethics of such an alignment would seem to be pertinent, inasmuchas as they are passed from father to son.

    George Bush’s grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

    The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism. […]

    The debate over Prescott Bush’s behaviour has been bubbling under the surface for some time. There has been a steady internet chatter about the “Bush/Nazi” connection, much of it inaccurate and unfair. But the new documents, many of which were only declassified last year, show that even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis’ plans and policies, he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler’s rise to power. It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty…

  • It’s necessary for the smear to keep reminding people how weird and non-mainstream Mormonism is. Regardless of what Romney personally believes or practices, regardless of the fact that Mormonism officially prohibited polygamy in the 1890s as a condition of Utah becoming a state, these sort of stories will keep coming up so long as Romney remains a viable candidate. It’s a whole guilt-by-association thing for the benefit of the mouth-breathers.

  • I know this isn’t really the place to discuss the constitutionality of polygamy BUT

    For a law to infringe on the rights of a religion there has to be a compelling public interest that overrides the right to freely practice your religion.

    Just as you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, you can’t have a religion that sanctions robbing banks.

    But what exactly is the public interest in who I marry? Years ago a ‘black’ and ‘white’ could not marry. You can argue there is a need to protect a 10 year old from being married but I don’t see how you can argue that three Muslims who were married in Egypt are in anyway doing something against the public interest.

  • ***I’m never going to vote for Strom Thurmond thats for sure.***
    ———–Dale

    Well gosh Dale, the guy’s only been dead for three years. If dead people can vote, then why can’t dead people run for office? ;

  • While Mitt Romney condemns polygamy and its prior practice by his Mormon church, the Republican presidential candidate’s great-grandfather had five wives and at least one of his great-great grandfathers had 12.

    And some of my ancestors owned slaves, some of them kicked Native Americans off their land. Given the behaviour of some of my current relatives I have no doubt that many of my ancestors were complete arseholes.

    And?

    I heard this weekend that the Rev. Al Sharpton is descended from slaves who were owned by ancestors of the late unlamented Strom Thrumond. He is likely related in someway to Strom.

    AND?

    I don’t care if Mitt’s ancestors stomped orphans for fun and profit. I don’t care if they were the living embodiment of faith, charity & hope. Willard Mittens Romney is a creepy poli-whore and I don’t want to see him in the White House. End. Of. Story.

  • But what exactly is the public interest in who I marry?

    Pretend for a second that really isn’t any real government. What would happen to your property when you die? What about who would get custody of your children? If there isn’t any central authority to which disputes of this nature can be taken to to be settled peacefully via courts and rule of law, then it becomes a matter of using force and might makes right. A defenseless widow or surviving children could, and would be at the mercy of other stronger relatives and/or neighbors and quite possibly would have no protection of their rights. The fact that we have a court system and rule of law to govern these disputes (imagine the everyday distruption and chaos if we didn’t) is where the public interest in “family law” lies.

    If certain types of marriages – such a coerced or polygamous or incestuous or involving those who otherwise would be unable to give their consent, such as involving minors, or even the traditional view of same-sex marriages – are unlikely to be accepted by the prevailing societal norms and would be treated antagonistically by the comminity, then it is in the governmental interest to regulate these marriages in the interest of keeping public order.

  • For a law to infringe on the rights of a religion there has to be a compelling public interest that overrides the right to freely practice your religion.

    Bear in mind that state and federal recongition of civil marriage are distinct from religious marriage. I could marry a chicken provided I could find a religious officient to perform the ceremony. Such a “marriage” has no legal recognition, however. Conversely, the justice of the peace at my county courthouse could marry me legally, no religious officiant necessary. One could argue that the government is not infringing on my right to participate in the man-chicken religious ceremony. It is instead refusing to recognize it as a proxy or the civil contract of marriage.

    Assuming that Lawrence v. Texas will eventually be followed by another test case to strike down DOMA, it will raise an interesting question: If states do not have the power to deny civil marriage to two individuals, regardless of gender, then why should they have the power to deny civil marraige to more than two individuals? The same arguments that many states have floated for refusing to recognize same-sex civil marriage–children are better served by male-female households and therefore the state has an interest in limiting the institution to such couples–will surface again: children are better served by two-adult households. I can’t see any other obvious arguments that the states could make other than the “but it will be haaaard” argument: that the family law framework is based on an assumption of a two adult household maximum, and that recongition of polygamous civil marriage will throw state family law into chaos for decades. And while the federal courts weigh disruption as a factor, I’m not sure avoiding it can be the whole basis for claiming the power to infringe on a fundamental right.

  • What is interesting about polygamy is that it was really the tradition. Our modern concept of marriage is really quite young. Men throughout all religious texts tend to have multiple wives and concubines, and these were the men would were “holy”. So, when the religious right goes all nutty about marriage, they seem to forget that they aren’t supporting the traditional concept of marriage throughout human society.

  • ***I’m never going to vote for Strom Thurmond thats for sure.***
    ———–Dale
    Well gosh Dale, the guy’s only been dead for three years. If dead people can vote, then why can’t dead people run for office? ;
    Comment by Steve

    Your argument is persuasive, Steve, but I’m still not voting for Strom. 🙂

    Actually I think Strom was dead a few years before they finally moved him out of Congress.

    I’m glad the blogosphere is consistent about condemning AP hit pieces (who took Solomon’s place?), I doubt we’ll get much credit from the right in general or Romney in particular. The Republicans not only require candidates who are people of faith, but also people of hypocrisy.

  • Let’s use the other major US born religion as an example

    Christian Science

    as a Christian Scientist I can refuse medical treatment for myself and get my children exempted from most medical laws including vacinations.

    However, if the life of my child is threatened then the state has a compelling interest to force me to give my child medical attention

    As a Morman, I could marry many women before Utah became a state.
    As a Muslim, I can marry up to 4 women today. (well actually I don’t know if all 4 weddings can be the same day but I can marry my 4th wife today.)

    Wouldn’t you agree that the state has a more compelling interest in medical laws than marriage laws?

    After all, Islam has a tradition of polygamy that signifiicantly predates our Constitution while Mormanisn and Christian Science were created after our Constitution existed.

  • You know, nobody worries about aCatholic having to follow the dictates of the Pope, but it is a condition of being a Mormon that they follow the dictates of the Prophet (aka the President of the Mormon Church) on pain of excommunication. The whole history of the Mormons and polygamy – its institution, its dissolution – is all tied up in politics, as are all the decision of their “prophet,” and this is something people should be concerned about, since it could result in a President changing policies about a secular nation based on political directives masquerading as religious visions received by someone else, which that President is bound as a condition of his membership in the church to follow. There is no other church around that has this sort of authority.

    That is a bit of Mormon history that is relevant to making a decision about allowing a member of that church to exercise ultimate political authority in this country.

    I don’t think too many of you have been around Mormons, or you would understand why this church is something to worry about.

  • Wouldn’t you agree that the state has a more compelling interest in medical laws than marriage laws?

    Yep. Which is why I think that religious exemptions to child endangerment laws should be repealed.

    Of course, there are likely no religious excercise violations inherent in laws that do not recognize polygamous civil marriages. So the point is moot.

  • I did a bit of background checking on these two AP journalists.

    Jennifer actually works out of their Salt Lake City office — obviously not happy by her LDS surroundings. If you look at her story history, she reports on polygamy all the time. If anyone wants to contact her and call her out on this shameful story, email her at jdobner@ap.org; or call her at (801) 322-3405.

    Glen Johnson on the other hand reported from Boston, where they are looking for every possible way to smear their former governor. And he is always looking for ways to highlight the other candidates. Take a look at this glowing piece that Johnson did on Obama that doesn’t mention a negative thing in it, and of course doesn’t mention that Obama’s own father had multiple wives – http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/couriernews/news/231641,3_1_EL27_A7OBAMA_S1.article.

    The editors of the Associated Press and those who publish this story should be ashamed.

  • The point seems to be to attack Mormonism itself (the way Mitt attacks Islam). The number of adolescent girls historically forced into abusive polygamist marriages will probably come up soon too.

  • Well here are the facts: I have been a Mormon all my life and Mormons do NOT practice polygamy.

    Thank you to all the commentors who beleive that those who are here now should not be held accountable for those in the past.

    • Comments are closed.