It's Slippery
The "gay marriage equals polygamy" argument really gets dumber the more squarely it's stated, so let's all thank Charles Krauthammer for this one:
As Newsweek notes, these stirrings for the mainstreaming of polygamy (or, more accurately, polyamory) have their roots in the increasing legitimization of gay marriage. In an essay 10 years ago, I pointed out that it is utterly logical for polygamy rights to follow gay rights. After all, if traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender, and if, as advocates of gay marriage insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices in love, then the first requirement -- the number restriction (two and only two) -- is a similarly arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice.But, look, legal recognition of polygamous marriages isn't some wild, unheard-of futurist idea. It's been extremely common historically to reject the "number restriction" as an "arbitrary, discriminatory, and indefensible denial of individual choice" and as far as I know zero countries have ever gone down the slippery slope from polygamy to gay marriage. These are just separate issues. Now, as I said before, it's not clear to me that the current nominal prohibition on polygamy has any actual impact in the world so I sort of doubt anything terrible -- or even, really, anything at all -- would happen if we changed it.
Advertisement
I would like to see Heinlein debate Krauthammer on this. Perhaps Krauthammer can seek to join Heinlein.
March 17, 2006 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
So your argument is basically that, even if the nominal restriction on 2 person marriages was lifted, no one would take advantage of that?
March 17, 2006 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me that the heart of monogamy is one-on-one open communication, trust, respect and love. For obvious reasons (jealousy, etc) it's a lot harder for solid, stable, loving relationships to exist between two or more people. Whether those people are of the same gender or not has nothing to do with this basic fact.
March 17, 2006 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even those few countries that have slid down the slippery polygamy slope in modern times -- actually, Iran is the only country I can think of that has chosen this course since the 1970s -- haven't seen much of a rise in polygamous marriages.
But, if it did catch on, just think what a boon polygamy could be for accountants, divorce lawyers and McMansion developers. It may be just the stimulus our lackluster economy needs!
March 17, 2006 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it would be too strong to say changing the law would have no effect whatsoever, you always get some change at the margin. But I think the change would be tiny -- almost un-noticeable. The current law does almost nothing, in practice, to stop three or more consenting adults from living together as a polyamorous union. Such arrangements are rare because not very many people care to enter into them.
For just the same reason, my guess is that political pressure to change the law will remain pretty weak. There are few would-be polygamists out there, and America's existing polygamists tend to be socially marginal. It's an interesting subject for a TV show, but not, in practice, a very big deal.
March 17, 2006 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I always liked Cedric the Entertainer's beer commercial which addresses this topic.
March 17, 2006 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Call me crazy, but I really don't see the two cases as all that similar. Discrimination statutes prevent people from having different rights based on the circumstances of their birth or events outside their control. Thus laws don't discriminate between black/whilte, rich/poor, male/female, etc.. Based on scientific evidence, gay/straight belongs in this category. Polygamy, on the other hand, is purely a choice.
By the way, from a more practical standpoint, polygamy could be a legal nightmare. Most laws around marriage make an assumption that no more than two adults are involved. Hypothetically, what happens if a 100-person collective wants to get married? I have to imagine the tax return alone would be a bit awkward.
March 17, 2006 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Depends on whom we let immigrate into our country.
"You say I'm a dreamer. We're two of a kind. Looking for some perfect world that we both know that we'll never find." - Thompson Twins, "Hold Me Now"
March 17, 2006 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Simple solution - remove marriage as a state function.
There's no reason existing laws dealing with the distribution of community property can't be applied to polyamorous relationships.
In fact, people with any brains don't HAVE any community property. Everybody pays their own way. This also makes tax returns much easier.
The state has no business existing, let alone dictating who can and cannot cohabitate or have sex. It's really that simple. As long as you believe the state has any business doing anything except protecting people from other people's violence, you're going to be stuck with totally unresolvable issues such as this.
Richard Steven Hack
www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com
March 17, 2006 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where and when ever the two become as one. There is a sweet harmony of a matrimony union but God did said. Let all of us create an Adam and an Adam so that they will not be all that lonely. This needs to appeal to one hum-dinger of a supreme court.
March 18, 2006 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
What scientific evidences?
March 18, 2006 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
This "no slippery slope from polygamy to gay marriage, so no slippery slope the other way" argument has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. When you slide down a physical slippery slope in one direction, you generally don't also slide down the opposite way - because that way is UP. I see science education is not so hot at Harvard these days.
March 18, 2006 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Checkout wikipedia on polyamoury. There's a legal status section which mentions that the "slippery slope" has already been noticed in New Jersey.
What's supposed to be wrong with polyamorous relationships and if any do happen to want legal recognition why shouldn't they have the same rights to it as any others?
March 18, 2006 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink