Cathy at The Y Files is right on target when she writes:
the reasoning used to justify the legalization of same-sex marriage (i.e., the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s assertion, in Goodrich v. Department of Public Health, that marrying “the person of one’s choice” is a fundamental right) could be used to support legalization of polygamy. For that to happen, however, there would have to be (1) a non-fringe political movement advocating for the right to multi-partner marriage, and (2) widespread social acceptance of multi-partner relationships. Of course, (1) and (2) are related. At this point in time, neither factor is present: the polyamory movement has about as much influence as the Flat Earth Society, and multi-partner relationships are almost universally regarded as either immoral or just plain weird.
To that, I’d add that even if SSM is banned, it will still be possible for poly marriages to be legalized if (1) and (2) happens. So although you can argue for the existence of a theoretical slope between them (as Young does), in practice there’s not much connection between them.
(Slight nit-pik: ploygamy is already legal, so the question isn’t “legalization of polygamy,” as Cathy states; what’s at issue is if polyamorous marriages will be legally recognized.)
Pingback: Glaivester
I’ve always liked this quote:
“[When asked why polygamy isn’t as much a civil right as gay marriage is] Gay activists typically answer by saying that marriage by definition is between two people… The real response, however, has been, in effect, that only crazy right wing fundamentalist heterosexual rural Mormon white people want to practice polygamy, and we all know that civil rights don’t apply to them.” –Steve Sailer
I don’t.
Well, the examples of polygamy we have here in the US – fundamentalist religious sects, especially the fundamentalist Mormons in Utah – involve horrific wife abuse, child abuse, forced marriage and welfare fraud. For a young girl to be married off in her early teens to an elderly man, forced to bear children, and deprived of an education and her freedom, isn’t something any sane person would want to make legal.
If we’re talking about consensual polyamorous unions between adults entering of their own free will, that’s a whole other ball of wax. I assume that this would not just entail a man collecting a harem of women. I think, however, that polyamorous unions would be more complicated on legal, not moral, grounds – such as child support (if a woman had two husbands who each acted as father to her child, would both be required to pay support if they all divorced? If a man had three wives and eight children, would he be paying support on all of them?), survivor’s benefits (which might start adding up if three spouses claimed survivor’s benefits), the issue of consent and how to ensure it is obtained from all parties – i.e. you couldn’t bring in another spouse against your first spouse’s will, and so on.
Sigh. Whenever somebody says “What about polygamy?” I think “What about learning the basics of Constitutional law instead of making shit up?”
Sorry. I know that’s not very productive. The thing is, though, that court decisions finding OSM-only marriage is unconstitutional are generally rooted in sex discrimination. There is no “number of persons discrimination” that raises the level of Constitutional scrutiny.
Apparently, striking down anti-miscegenation laws also lead down the slippery slope to polygamy, since one you can have a spouse of any race, you’d certainly want to start having one of each . . .
Well, Richard, you’d definitely want a spouse of each available color to maximize your ability to accessorize the wardrobe. “OK, Janet will go nicely with this blue suit…”
however, there would have to be (1) a non-fringe political movement advocating for the right to multi-partner marriage, and (2) widespread social acceptance of multi-partner relationships.
I don’t see why these conditions are necessary for polygamous marriages to be ruled a “fundamental right” by a court.
court decisions finding OSM-only marriage is unconstitutional are generally rooted in sex discrimination.
Is that so? I admit I haven’t read the decision, I only read the news accounts. But it was my impression that a ban on SSM was ruled unconstitutional by the Massachusetts Supreme Court on the basis of anti-sexual-orientation discrimination law, not sex discrimination. Women and men under the law were equally free to marry, so I don’t see how sex discrimination laws would apply.
If I remember correctly, the Canadian highest court ruled that SSM must be legal based on sex discrimination law; if men have the right to marry women and women don’t have that right, it’s discrimination, was their logic on that one, I think.
Ahhhem – in the United States polygamy is illegal in every state, and in many states it is a felony. It is a third-degree felony in Utah.
Saving Jordan Raine
Actually, Jordan, I think that polygamy is only illegal if you try to get it recognized by the state (i.e. applying for two marriage licenses). If you live with two other people, have a marriage ceremony with both of them, and live like you were married but do not seek the legal status of marriage with both, I don’t think that the state will usually step in.
Actuslly, RonF, you have it backwards. It makes more (legal) sense to use sexual discrimination law rather than sexual orientation discrimination law as a basis for same-sex marriage. That is because gays have the exact same marriage rights as straights; i.e., a gay man can marry a woman just like a straight man can. But a man cannot marry a man the way a woman can. Technically, the basis of the discrimination is sex and not sexual orientation.
Actually, (and I think Steve Sailer is the one who suggested this), if we get polygamy, we are more likely to get it from immigrants as a result of multiulturalism than from the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints.
That is, groups like the Hmong will claim that it is racist not to allow them to practive polygamy, as that is part of their culture.
According to Wikipedia (here and here), in most US states living in a polygamous lifestyle isn’t illegal. (However, bigamy is illegal).
(Cross-posted with Glaivester.)
UPDATE: I just read in this interesting post at A Good Oman that the main way polygamists were prosecuted in the US, back in the 1800s, wasn’t through bigamy laws (too hard to prove) but through selective application of “unlawful cohabitions laws” – that is, laws against unmarried couples living together. I wonder how many of those laws are still on the books (albeit not enforced), and in which states?
And if you believe that will actually happen, I have a bridge to sell you.
It won’t happen both because courts will find many reasons not to endorse that theory (not least of which is that race and culture are not interchangable catagories), and for the reasons stated by Cathy Young, which I quoted in the post that began this thread.
Hi Barry!
Glaievester writes:
Actually, Jordan, I think that polygamy is only illegal if you try to get it recognized by the state (i.e. applying for two marriage licenses). If you live with two other people, have a marriage ceremony with both of them, and live like you were married but do not seek the legal status of marriage with both, I don’t think that the state will usually step in.
But if we use the word “legal” in that sense, then gay marriage is also “legal.” At least post-Lawrence, no one is arresting gays and lesbians for living together or having marriage/commitment ceremonies. The only question is whether these unions will be formally recognized by the state.
Yes, Cathy, you are right, which is why most discussion of same-sex marriage among gay people centers around the legal rights, benefits and protections. There isn’t really any “but” about it now that Lawrence has struck down the enforcement of consensual same-sex sodomy.
We already form the relationships and make the commitments. Any sacredness that applies is independent of the law.
I resist shifting things so that “marriage” means anything other than the legal status in these discussions, because common usage applying to straight couples is that the word specifically means only the legal part. We use other terms to discuss committed couples who are not legally married.
Polygamy is less clear, because it really isn’t discussed much, but I think that most people consider it to be a form of marriage, which is why terms like “polyamorous relationships” come into play.
And if you believe that will actually happen, I have a bridge to sell you.
Really? How much?
OTTAWA (CP) – A new study for the federal Justice Department says Canada should get rid of its law banning polygamy, and change other legislation to help women and children living in such multiple-spouse relationships….
….Although the Bountiful case raises immediate issues, Canada is also faced with a rising tide of immigration from Africa and the Middle East, where polygamy is legally and religiously sanctioned.
The “but if we allow SSM polygamy will be next and then society will collapse” argument always gives me a giggle, especially when it’s made by right-wing biblical literalists. Nowhere in the Bible, as far as I can tell (someone please correct me if I’m wrong) is there any prohibition of polygamy. The modern mainstream Christian take on polygamy, as far as I can tell, seems to be that it may have been OK when God was trying to get a nation started from one guy, but it’s not OK now. The Bible doesn’t say that, though.
(There is 1 Tim. 3:2, which can be read to imply that the early Christians looked at polygamy askance, but nowhere [again, AFAIK] is there an outright prohibition or an explicit declaration that it’s a bad idea.)
I think Amp and Cathy are right when they say that polyamorous marriages are unlikely to be recognized in the US any time soon. The study Glaivester cited argues for decriminalization of polygamy in Canada mostly because treating it as a crime causes disproportionate harm to the women and children (surprise!) without changing the behavior. Again unsurprisingly, it seems highly unlikely that the recommendation will be accepted. From the same article:
I’ve never really understood slippery slope arguments in the first place, on this subject. Why should they matter?
I can see a parent telling their child that they have to wait until later to have a cookie, because there is not enough for all their little friends who are visiting to have one as well, but to say “We must not allow you equal rights, because if we do, others may want them too”… this seems a bit insane, to me.
Of course, it’s well known that many of the same arguments used against equal marriage rights for gays were also used against interracial couples decades ago… all they’ve done is change the name of who must be denied equality this time in order to prevent their particular boogeyman from gaining access to the rights and privileges of the majority.
I’m pro equal rights for gays and lesbians, including marriage rights, as part of the ever ongoing (or at least,it should be) civil rights movement. The issue is two consenting adults who wish to commit themselves to one another, and have this union legally recognized (even if not religiously so) is just that… and I don’t see the sense of even bothering to engage in debate with people who say “But polgyamy! Jesus! Incest ! Box turtles!”
If and when the time for the liberation of box turtles and their rights to (and ability to consent to) marry the person(s) of their choice comes up, we can worry about it then.
Of course, the same sort of argument could have been made 40 years ago when interracial marriages were legalized and there was no cohesive group lobbying for gay marriage.
The “political” argument strikes me as disengenuous, because political coalitions build and collapse all the time. The honest answer is that both SSM and polygamy should be legal.
Yup. And that argument would have been correct. Interracial marriage should have been judged on its own merits; an argument that “we shouldn’t have interracial marriage, because it will lead to same-sex marriage” would have been mistaken. SSM comes from a strong movement supporting equal rights for same-sex couples, and widespread support for gay rights; it has not come merely from the Loving prescident.
Saying that SSM will not lead to polygamy is not a moral judgement about polygamy; it’s a correct statement about the separateness of the two issues. Regardless of what happens with SSM, polygamy will rise – or fail to rise – on its own ability to find popular support. Therefore, the claim that we can’t have SSM unless we favor polygamy is mistkaen.
Lu writes:
Polygamy is never prohibited in the Bible (either the Hebrew Bible or later writings of the Christian movement prior to the establishment of the canonical texts), but it has been “regulated” by subsequent writings. Jewish law on the subject is covered here. The Qu’ran attempts to limit the number of wives a man might have (but doesn’t set the limit at 1).
Polyandry is expressly forbidden in Judaism, Christianity and Islam.