Why Not Polygamy?
As anyone following debates over redefining marriage to include same-sex unions can see, such a redefinition would not be the final step in how marriage changes. And I'm not talking about how the norms that are associated with traditional marriage might change. Reading through Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling against California's Proposition 8, he states that gender is unimportant in marriage any more. Or, to be precise, that "gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage."
Such a claim may or may not sound radical to you, but he makes the case that in the eyes of the state, the gender composition of marriage is of no interest at all whatsoever.
If something as key to marriage as gender complementarity is unessential to marriage, certainly the number of participants is just as unimportant. The number limitation really hinges on the gender complementarity issue. If it's not about two humans who, through the conjugal act, unite in one flesh, than why can't a loving committed family be formed from three or more people (of whichever gender you prefer)? What's important, in the post Lawrence age, is that society allow its citizens to autonomously construct their own concept of existence as it relates to their love lives, no?
Over at Public Discourse, Christopher Kaczor, Professor of Philosophy at Loyola Marymount University, argues that recent empirical research suggests that polygamy is socially detrimental--to society in general, to men, to women, and to children. But he ends on a non-empirical note:
Finally, even aside from the sociological data, there is an inherent inequality in polygamous marriage. In monogamous marriage, spouses give themselves as spouses to each other unreservedly, unconditionally, and entirely. Now, giving oneself as a husband or wife to one’s spouse does not exclude giving of oneself in ways that are not distinctly marital to other people (such as playing tennis with a business partner, or going to the movies with a group of friends). Part of the marriage vow is the promise of sexual fidelity, the bodily manifestation of one’s commitment as spouse entirely to the spouse and to the spouse alone.
In a polygamous marriage, the man does not give himself qua husband entirely to his wife. A polygamous husband gives himself qua husband to however many wives he has. Wives, by contrast, are expected to reserve themselves in a sexual way for their husband alone. Moreover, wives face inequality among themselves as “senior wives” enjoy rank above “junior wives.” The polygamous relationship can never attain the mutual and complete self-donation of spouses in monogamous marriage because it is intrinsically impossible to reserve oneself in a sexual way entirely for one person and at the same time reserve oneself in a sexual way entirely for a different person (or persons). Marriage understood as a comprehensive union can exist only between two persons, and never more than two persons. Society, therefore, has good reason not simply to proscribe polygamy, but to endorse monogamy.
To be honest, while I agree with what Kaczor identifies here as a problem with polygamy, to use the same reasoning that is applied in same-sex marriage redefinition cases, the judge might say that since the law doesn't require one spouse to give entirely to the other spouse already, it is nothing more than harmful bigotry to deny marriage equality to multiple adult arrangements. It's definitely religious bigotry considering that Islam permits a man to take multiple wives.
The fact is that polygamy, unlike same-sex marriage, actually has been a part of marriage culture. It is a part of marriage culture in various parts of the world right now. If we're honest, without Jesus' words in favor of one-man, one-woman arrangements, it would probably be more widespread. And I'm sure Newsweek can come up with a "Jesus' Case For Polygamy" cover soon, if they haven't already.
Can anyone think of any principle for limiting marriage to two people now that we're discarding the old bigoted definition of marriage in favor of a new and more ambiguous one?
- Comment (93)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (7)
Comments:
Nov '11
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Can anyone think of any principle for limiting marriage to two people now that we're discarding the old bigoted definition of marriage in favor of a new and more ambiguous one?
Your question supposes that there's a need for a limit and that such a limit should be in the law.
May '10
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
As I have argued on these pages before. The reason that polygamy is not something that the State should endorse is that its practice leads to coersion and child abuse, not to mention social separatism and welfare fraud.
The State needs to be concerned with what is best for the greater good. In practice of course polygamy does exist as does free love and communal living and open marriages. But as none of these advance the cause of civil society they are not deserving of the State's endorsement for tax or other purposes.
It is the practice of same sex marriage that convinces me of its value and appropriate place in society. Some claim it is a recent phenomenon and they are right of course. But where I live there are grown adults that are the product of same sex families and "marriages" that have passed the test of raising teenagers. My understanding with the practice of polygamy is that its practice is vastly more troubled.
Societal norms will evolve as they will. But as for practices I believe the majority should embrace, the line is quite clear. Polygamy is a weak straw man for your view Mollie.
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
Fred Cole
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Can anyone think of any principle for limiting marriage to two people now that we're discarding the old bigoted definition of marriage in favor of a new and more ambiguous one?
Your question supposes that there's a need for a limit and that such a limit should be in the law. · 7 minutes ago
So your answer is "no."
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
So you oppose marriage equality for polygamous families why, exactly? What about polygamy is the interest of the state exactly? I don't quite understand where you're getting the information for your assertion. Is it the same way opponents of marriage equality claim that children should be raised, ideally, by their mother and father?
And are you saying that "permitting" families to find their own destiny in multi-person arrangements is the same as endorsing said arrangements?
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
Trace Urdan:
Societal norms will evolve as they will. But as for practices I believe the majority should embrace, the line is quite clear. Polygamy is a weak straw man for your view Mollie. · 7 minutes ago
For those who think that marriage equality for all families is a "straw man," I'd suggest reading some of these recent stories in the New York Times about the battle to bring marriage equality to all who form families based on love, regardless of number.
And, Trace, if the practice of polygamy as demonstrated in those articles is accurate, it should convince you of its value and appropriate place in society. These people could not be creating happier, healthier homes if the NYT reporting is to be believed.
Nov '11
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
This is the principle that to my mind makes polygamy far less preferrable than monogamy - I will note that although historically polygamy has been one husband with many wives, in the U.S. we'd have an equal opportunity for one wife to have many husbands, which would probably not please some of the polygamy proponents.
Nov '11
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Fred Cole
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Can anyone think of any principle for limiting marriage to two people now that we're discarding the old bigoted definition of marriage in favor of a new and more ambiguous one?
Your question supposes that there's a need for a limit and that such a limit should be in the law. · 7 minutes ago
So your answer is "no." · 5 minutes ago
I don't have a limiting principle. It's hard to get there without twisting oneself into a knot of communitarianism.
I think it is, like most things, self limiting. Islam limits a man to four wives, but most men don't have that many because having many wives is expensive.
Some people are able to do it, most aren't. It might work better for some people. It's a practice some people do already, just without the sanction of law.
Jun '10
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
If judges say, as some have with same-sex-marriage, it's not about what society wants, what voters want. It's about what the marriage partners have a right to. If so, then where does it end? If you take the decision away from the public, then individuals can, and will, come up with many different arrangements. If their right to marry hinges only on informed consent by adults, then where's the limit?
Edited on May 21, 2012 at 3:58pmJan '11
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
Polygamy’s the other side of the SSM debate.
Marriage has traditionally had two purposes. The first is to formalize the relationship between the spouses, and the second is to formalize the procreation of children. (Awkward way to phrase that, but it’s Monday morning – cut me a break.) Neither purpose is sufficient. Both are necessary. Unless you have both, you don’t have the fullness of what we consider marriage.
Our culture insists on both, as equal. I'd like to leave it that way.
Dec '10
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
Here's a thought experiment. The "equality" supposedly sought is that of official privilege in things such as taxes, inheritance, etc. One side says these benefits belong only to them, the other says everyone has a right to them because they are part of the public purse and the legal system. When my children would argue over a particular item I would take it away from both of them. What if all government benefits to marriage are removed? Would we see both sides unite in extoling the societal benefits of marriage that make it is an institution worthy of government sanction and benefits?
Jul '10
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
Put me down with the nays, Mollie. Though I'd be happy if someone else came up with a limiting principle.
Trace Urdan: The reason that polygamy is not something that the State should endorse is that its practice leads to coersion and child abuse, not to mention social separatism and welfare fraud.
The State needs to be concerned with what is best for the greater good. In practice of course polygamy does exist as does free love and communal living and open marriages. But as none of these advance the cause of civil society they are not deserving of the State's endorsement for tax or other purposes.
...
Societal norms will evolve as they will. But as for practices I believe the majority should embrace, the line is quite clear. Polygamy is a weak straw man for your view Mollie.
Those are decent enough general social science claims, Trace. Which will henceforth be known as "bigotry" or perhaps more specifically "polyphobia."
None of them amount to a limiting principle, presuming a right to marriage is discovered by our estimable judiciary. Potential consequences may or may not be likely, but they aren't strawmen.
Jun '10
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
The main problem with polygamy is that in most places where it's practiced the women don't have a say in the matter. The recognition of polygamy in the U.S. would be a huge step backwards for women's rights. Not to mention that it opens the door for the importation of sharia. A dual system of laws, as we now see in Britain, is hardly conducive to social cohesion. Do we really want to import the very worst practices of less civilized societies? This is no slippery slope. It's a gigantic mudslide into societal chaos.
May '10
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
Trace, you seem to put your anecdotal evidence above tradition, the moral intuition of the majority of Americans, and available research. You also consistently ignore the underlying claim of the SSM lobby, viz. not that their marrying is good for society, but that they have a right to marry.
May '10
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
KP, we are not bickering children. There are serious public goods at stake in the marriage debate.
Our well-being, flourishing and sustainability as a society depends on a strong marriage culture.
Jun '10
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
First, unlike Fred, I believe there should a limiting principle (e.g., one man, one woman).
So, to the question Mollie asked, if the United States Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriage is a fundamental "right," then I see no limiting principle or logic that would stand in the way of polygamous marriage arrangements.
Sure, the courts could, instead of basing a ban on principle, base it on sociology (Query: Doesn't that seem like a lousy way to run a constitution?). So they could cite the child abuse potential and the coercion.
So what happens when a 35-year-old male (a business executive) and two unrelated, uncoerced 30-year-old females (one a lawyer, the other a doctor) file a suit claiming the right to marry? You have a big problem because the sociology doesn't fit the facts (they're all adults, unrelated, uncoerced, and competent). With apologies to Jonah Goldberg for using one of the bad cliches, you are sliding down the slippery slope.
Jun '10
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
katievs
Our well-being, flourishing and sustainability as a society dependson a strong marriage culture. · 3 minutes ago
In fact, I believe a strong "marriage culture" is the single, most important factor for sustaining a strong culture.
Dec '10
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
katievs
KP, we are not bickering children. There are serious public goods at stake in the marriage debate.
Our well-being, flourishing and sustainability as a societydependson a strong marriage culture.
I'm not in dispute with you on that. I don't believe the SSM crowd would complain if government rights were removed from heterosexual marriages. I think what they're really after is societal acceptance. They use the government benefits as a foil for it. Take it away and we'd see what they really want.
May '10
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
And let's keep in mind: the assertion of the judge in the prop 8 case that gender doesn't matter is a de facto denial that there is any such thing as marriage. Marriage is nothing more and nothing other than "a social construct" that we can deconstruct and reconstruct according to the demands of powerful lobbies.
It has no essence. Nothing to do with nature. It is not something that transcends the authority of the state, on which the state depends, and toward which the state has definite duties.
This is a very profound and very consequential upending of the American experiment.
May '10
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
No reason whatever, the articles in favor of "polyamory" are already starting to appear.And who's to judge as long as everyone luvvvs each other?
May '10
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
tabula rasa
katievs
Our well-being, flourishing and sustainability as a society dependson a strong marriage culture. · 3 minutes ago
In fact, I believe a strong "marriage culture" is the single, most important factor for sustaining a strong culture. · 7 minutes ago
I think so too. I think, further, that it's the single biggest cultural factor in explaining the superiority of Western civilization over "the rest".