Via How Appealing, I saw this very interesting Utah Supreme Court opinion upholding that state's polygamy prohibition (86-page pdf). Howard also has some links to news articles about the decision, and here are some thoughts at The Right Coast.

I won't summarize every point in the opinion, but I do recommend it if you're interested in the subject. The defendant in this criminal case was charged after engaging in a religious marriage ceremony, although he and everyone else involved knew it wouldn't be legally recognized by the state. The law, though, also prohibits cohabitation with a third party if you're already married. (I'm not sure how this would apply to the parties on the HBO show "Big Love," because they're not all living in the same house, but I think it would be covered by the "purports to marry" language.)

The defendant said the law violated his religious freedom, and was contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas. The Utah court rejects these claims, over a partial dissent. I agree with Shaun Martin at The Right Coast that these claims weren't frivolous, especially the Lawrence claim. I also find it interesting, in light of contentions that the state should just get out of the marriage business altogether, that the defendant here was charged solely for solemnizing his marriage in a religious ritual. Of course, he and his brides then held themselves out to the public as "married," at least within the definition of their religious community, so they didn't just keep it in church. Still, that's a perplexing and though-provoking aspect of the case.

I should also note that the bride in this case was 16 years old at the time of the ceremony, which undoubtedly played a part in the court's resolution of the case. (The defendant was also convicted of sexual offenses based on this relationship.) I think it would have been a closer case if only adults were involved. Anyway, good reading.

"The Atlantic Monthly" website features articles from the magazine's 150-year history. I happened upon a 25-year-old article about diamonds. (Subscription req'd; sorry. Will email upon request.) It details the practices of the De Beers diamond cartel, and its innovative, highly successful advertising campaign. In short, the diamond market is built on a lie about the value of diamonds. The stones don't have any great intrinsic value. Their supposed scarcity is manufactured, as plentiful quantities are available worldwide (especially in millions of jewelry boxes).

One particularly interesting nugget is that De Beers spent decades creating the notion that the size of the gem in a gift diamond engagement ring was a symbol of the giver's success and the value he placed on the recipient. (I use the gender-specific pronoun deliberately since men purchase virtually all engagement rings.) But, in the 1960s, a huge diamond mine was discovered in Siberia. However, it produced mainly smaller diamonds. So De Beers switched course and created the market for jewelry made with many smaller stones as anniversary gifts. So, Americans bought into a fake "tradition," purchased tons of diamonds mined in Soviet Russia during the height of the Cold War, with profits going to a South African cartel helping to prop up the apartheid regime. Neat, huh? (Eventually, De Beers decided that the effort to get Americans to buy smaller diamonds was too successful, and re-started the advertising for larger rocks. Consequently, a decade before the SUV craze, Americans had decided that, when it came to diamonds, bigger was better, regardless of quality, as many of those large diamonds were flawed.)

The point of the article was that prices (and profits) were falling as De Beers struggles to maintain a monopoly. And, if people who held on to diamonds for generations ever decided to sell their stones (after all, that's usually what happens when people have something they think is valuable; not even real estate is owned "forever"), the market would bottom out. Okay, so none of this was a great surprise. It wasn't as if I were suddenly enlightened about the "truth" about diamonds once I read this article. So all that was just a bit of background. But it got me thinking.

There's a line in the classic western movie The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance that goes, "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." Similarly, I wonder if diamonds perhaps do have that psychological value that De Beers has been marketing for 100 years. In that sense, they are worth something. Now, I don't believe that feeling is rational among diamond-buyers (and, more importantly, diamond-receivers), but one can't deny it exists, even if it's the product of deception. Plus, we're living in the digital age -- an age of intellectual property, and maybe intrinsic/corporeal value isn't the most apt measure of worth anymore.

I'm curious about your thoughts on this. For one thing, I know that all advertising is to some extent deceptive. But De Beers takes the cake, as far as I'm concerned. At least Disney admits that it's faking the scarcity of its movies when they "go back in the Disney vault." But if enough people believe the deception, does it become the truth? Are diamonds really "forever" just because we hold on to them forever? Would a fiancee read this article and decide that her husband-to-be's money is better spent on something other than a big fat ring? What would it take to undo the diamond myth? I'm not necessarily saying that everyone should stop buying diamonds in outrage, or even to have people acknowledge that "Yes, I know I'm irrationally overvaluing this diamond, but I want it anyway." I guess what I'm wondering is if the irrational ones aren't the ones who undervalue diamonds by arguing solely based on corporeal worth (and, in turn, chide diamond buyers for being suckers). If the diamond legend has become fact, should "The Atlantic" print that?