Sometimes an innovation is adopted against claims that it will lead to intolerable excesses. An Orthodox Jewish Rabbi serving as a psychologist in the Air Force was found in the 1980s to have been wearing a kippah (often called a yarmulka) inside a building against the Air Force dress code, which required officers to be bare headed when inside. Predictions were that if he were allowed to continue this practice, military discipline and morale would be harmed.
The reasoning was that uniformity, rather than individuality, is necessary in the military. It promotes the unit cohesion needed on a battlefield. In addition, those fighting usually have to carry out orders automatically, without submitting them to their own individual judgement. Also, uniformity nips in the bud the kinds of prejudice that can tear a unit apart.
It was argued also that if the Air Force were to modify the dress code to allow a kippah, members of other religious groups would demand their own accommodations. Sikhs would want to wear turbans, Muslim men would want to wear beards, and Muslim women hijabs (a cloth scarf covering the hair). Such developments seemed absurd; they would surely tear the military apart if allowed. So Rabbi Goldman wasn’t allowed to wear his kippah.
Subsequent research has shown, however, that fostering the kind of individuality that comes with allowing some types of religious dress actually improves morale and cohesion. It also expands the talent pool available to the military, as many Jews, Muslim, Sikhs, and others are dissuaded from military service when that service requires them to violate religious requirements.
The result is that at present, Orthodox Jews can wear kippahs, Muslim women can wear hijabs, Muslim men can have beards (so long as they can be rolled up to be contained within two inches of the chin), Sikhs can wear turbans (except in battle zones), and women can have dreadlocks (within certain size limits). And the American military remains, according to most Americans at least, still the best in the world.
Similar worries about future developments were expressed when same-sex marriage was seriously proposed. One prominent worry was that rejecting the traditional definition of marriage as being only between a man and a woman in order to allow marriages between two men or between two women, would lead logically to acceptance of polygamy.
In the ancient Middle East and more recently among members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, polygamy meant one man having more than one wife. According to social conservative Jonathan Rauch, such polygamy is odious because no society of polygamists has respected the equal dignity of all human beings. Polygamy degrades women and leaves many men unable to find a wife. Single men who are unable to marry tend to be socially disruptive.
But traditional polygamy need not have these consequences in our society because it’s likely to be practiced only by a small minority in a country of 330 million people. (Don’t sign me up.) This means there will be plenty of women for men who can’t find wives in the polygamous community, and the women they find will have to agree to marry them on terms acceptable to both partners. Only women who want to be in a polygamous union will agree to do so. It’s therefore unlikely that polygamous marriage will spread widely.
To ensure that women within a polygamous community are also free to reject plural marriage, the law could specify that, whether inside or outside the community, any wife beyond the first must be at least 21 years old at the time of marriage. The availability of legal alternative may actually be an outlet for those seeking such marriages and thereby reduce the practice of some unions being foisted upon underage women (i.e. girls) within such communities.
For those who consider it a religious duty to engage in such polygamy, current Supreme Court opinions suggest it may be their right to do so under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. Many rules applicable to most people can now be broken by those who claim a religious need to do so, including rules requiring sending children to school, treating disabled people without prejudice, and avoiding religion-based discrimination in tax-supported schools.
Finally, old-style polygamy can’t be instated alone. Sexual equality implies that a woman could have more than one husband, or two women and three men could be joined in a plural marriage, and so forth. Legal accommodations concerning such matters as social security, tax filing, inheritance, and more would have to be made to accommodate plural marriages. But accommodations were necessary also to give women more equality in the military. Individual equality and freedom are mostly worthwhile, especially where the most intimate relationships are involved. And freedom includes the ability to get divorced.
Bình luận