Now that genealogists are on the trail of political candidates' ancestry, is anyone safe from the sins of their forefathers, or foremothers? We find that Al Sharpton is just a few degrees of separation from the late Strom Thurmond, in that Sharpton is a descendent of a slave owned by great, great, something-or-other of Thurmond.
Also, zealous genealogists have found that Mormon Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has the taint of having a great-grandfather who enjoyed the blessings of five wives as well as a great-great grandfather who must have been a tired man with twelve wives. It's probably not at all unusual to find polygamists in current Mormon's families, way back somewhere.
John McCain and Rudy Guliani must be poring over family bibles searching for the black sheep in their families. Somehow I doubt that any democrat candidates have much to worry about. Hillary could have a mad ax-murdering uncle, a great-grandmother who talked to the trees, and a two-headed cousin somewhere but the MSM wouldn't deem it worthy of mention. (They are afraid to mention anything negative about her husband who actually may have influence over her. They have been warned to lay off the "Bill" topics.)
It doesn't seem to matter that Mitt Romney probably hardly knew his great- grandfather, much less learned at his knee about the wonders of polygamy. His great great-grandfather would have been long gone before Mitt's time. The point of the whole implication is guilt by very slight association. After all, it (polygamy) must be in his blood. It doesn't matter that he has one wife, to whom he has been married for 37 years and has personally condemned polygamy, as did the Mormon church in 1890. HBO has piled on with it's "Big Love" program featuring those of renegade Mormon sects who practice polygamy defying federal law. The Democrats and MSM don't want to take any chances with this good-looking Republican guy. They need to stress his "Mormon" background as much as possible without actually saying anything negative about it.
Look for similar reports about any other candidates the MSM want to eliminate from any remote possibility that they could be elected. I'm sure Hillary's minions have hired investigators galore and genealogists if necessary to double check eash rival's past and present, even though she personally is against the politics of personal destruction.
Another view of polygamy...
While I personally am against multiple wives or husbands and agree with its illegality, (especially the proclivity of some "Mormon" fundamentalists for procuring underage wives), at least the husbands are responsible for the wives and the issue of these marriages.
Consider other situations. In some communities, unmarried women, more often black, produce children and may not even know who the fathers are. These irresponsible "fathers" jump from woman to woman, or girl to girl, as the case may be, producing offspring and sometimes not knowing who they are. These children are being "raised" by mothers who may not be able to care for them. So the society, either privately or through taxes, feeds the children, clothes the children, and provides housing. This irresponsibility doesn't seem to bother some people even though the basic famiiliar facts are similar: (1) Group A has one man,several women, who produce many children. (2) Group B has one man, several women, who produce many children. From here, however, the similarities end. Group A's man supports the family, monetarily and emotionally. Group B's man may not even know how many are in his "family" and certainly doesn't support them adequately if at all. There is even the threat that Group B's children will inadvertently marry or mate incestuously, a nearly universal taboo.
We hear little overt criticism of Group B's situation from liberals. It's just another gem of diversity, like gay "marriages", or even no marriages at all. They leave it to the conservatives to mention the pitfalls of Group B's type of family.
You tell me which group does the most harm to society in the short or the long run?
Does sit make sense to make criminals of responsible men and let the others off the hook?