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:
Aug '10
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
Fred Cole
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.
So your answer is "no."
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.
Oh, I dunno. In free countries like the US, UK, and Canada, does it have to be so expensive? Have one wife take care of the kids and the other three work -- as bank clerks, as pharmacists -- nice, decent-paying jobs. It's been known to happen. Could be rather efficient... Division of labor and all that.
(Quite apart from the trend of having multiple wives living "alone" with their children in multiple dwellings and collecting single-mother benefits to make money for the husband.)
Dec '10
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Have one wife take care of the kids and the other three work -- as bank clerks, as pharmacists -- nice, decent-paying jobs. It's been known to happen. Could be rather efficient... Division of labor and all that.
Sounds like a recipe for a lot of golf, fishing, and sailing. Sign me up!
Edited on May 21, 2012 at 4:33pmMay '10
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
Mollie, the links you sent me to on the pages of the New York Times support the impression I have of polygamy, which is that it isolates individuals from society and encourages coersion among underage girls. There are of course numerous cases of welfare fraud as well. I see nothing positive here. I see nothing that encourages domestication and the building of society. You and KatieVS and others are acribing arguments to me that I have not made.
And Tommy is right Mollie, you are using your position as editor to advance your beliefs. There is no news hook here. You might consider a post successful that draws 200 comments, but I believe you would be mistaken. SoCon fights on the front page however well-mannered persuade no one, emphasize rifts in the online Ricochet community and do damage to the branding of Ricochet.
Apr '12
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
It is enough to make you throw your hands up in despair and say do what you want but just do not tax me to pay to clean up the mess. Marriage by government law is over legal clarity over property, benefits, taxes, health care, etc. What is hidden are the long term invisible benefits for a more stable society and children who grow up to be contributors, not takers. What we do not say is that women give birth to children and are vulnerable for quite a few years. Also, being a GOOD mother is pretty thankless by society.
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
Trace Urdan: Mollie, the links you sent me to on the pages of theNew York Times support the impression I have of polygamy, which is that it isolates individuals from society and encourages coersion among underage girls. There are of course numerous cases of welfare fraud as well. I see nothing positive here. I see nothing that encourages domestication and the building of society. You and KatieVS and others are acribing arguments to me that I have not made.
And Tommy is right Mollie, you are using your position as editor to advance your beliefs. There is no news hook here. You might consider a post successful that draws 200 comments, but I believe you would be mistaken. SoCon fights on the front page however well-mannered persuade no one, emphasize rifts in the online Ricochet community and do damage to the branding of Ricochet.
Did you know that my view on marriage law is that the state should not favor one family arrangement over another? I get the feeling you don't actually know my view.
I'm still curious what limiting principle you propose for denying marriage equality to non-couple units.
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
Including this Jonathon Turley op-ed?
May '10
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
katievs: 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 aright to marry.
*sigh*
Your "research" is unconvincing. For data it refers to studies that do not apply and then suggests that the case for same sex unions is simply "obvious." The only real datas is has argues the case, but again unconvincingly, that same sex couples turn children gay.
But that too is a circular argument that bears further research. Even if the study is valid, which I doubt mightily, could it not simply be that a same-sex environment allows children to more easily express themselves in non gender-conforming ways.
So yes Katie, I find that my anecdotal evidence trumps your "research." And since we have already shown that ultimately this debate comes down to personal moral values, I would posit that my personal experience is all that my opinion requires.
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
I have yet to write even a post arguing that the state should not prefer one family arrangement over another, so you're actually wrong about me abusing my position. I tend to find arguments about marriage law interesting, and have found that those who argue that the state should limit marriage to a heterosexual union are much more persuasive than those who argue that it should be redefined to include same-sex couples but not, for instance, polygamous arrangements. So you're wrong that these debates persuade no one.
Finally, I certainly hope you're not arguing that we all have to agree on something as fundamental as marriage law, much less in the direction of redefining it to include same-sex unions, in order to be part of Ricochet. That would be silly.
May '10
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
My opponents tell me the anecdotal is to be eschewed. But for what it's worth I agree that prosecution of polygamy as a criminal act crosses the line. By all means prosecute in cases where child or spousal abuse is involved but if his clients are innocent of that as he claims, then I would agree that prosecution is misplaced.
But we were arguing about privileges to be granted by the state, and my point is that behaviors that are constructive to society are those to be officially encouraged through tax and other policies. All others can be ignored.
Aug '10
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Did you know that my view on marriage law is that the state should not favor one family arrangement over another? I get the feeling you don't actually know my view.
Mollie, to your credit, you're so good at playing devil's advocate that Trace probably wasn't the only one who didn't actually know your view.
I didn't know clearly till now.
Edited on May 21, 2012 at 5:06pmMay '10
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
I have yet to write even a post arguing that the state should not prefer one family arrangement over another, so you're actually wrong about me abusing my position. I tend to find arguments about marriage law interesting, and have found that those who argue that the state should limit marriage to a heterosexual union are much more persuasive than those who argue that it should be redefined to include same-sex couples but not, for instance, polygamous arrangements. So you're wrong that these debates persuade no one.
Finally, I certainly hope you're not arguing that we all have to agree on something as fundamental as marriage law, much less in the direction of redefining it to include same-sex unions, in order to be part of Ricochet. That would be silly. · 1 minute ago
I am being generous to call this disingenuous Mollie. You have that journalist's blindness to your own bias, obvious to everyone else.
We don't all have to agree but this issue is divisive and redundant. After 200 comments from the post you promoted last week, to then launch another Monday morning is not only discouraging but destructive.
Dec '10
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
Indaba: It is enough to make you throw your hands up in despair and say do what you want but just do not tax me to pay to clean up the mess. Marriage by government law is over legal clarity over property, benefits, taxes, health care, etc. What is hidden are the long term invisible benefits for a more stable society and children who grow up to be contributors, not takers. What we do not say is that women give birth to children and are vulnerable for quite a few years. Also, being a GOOD mother is pretty thankless by society. · 17 minutes ago
This hits on one of the bigger issues of marriage as an existential reality. The SSM lobby views it as nothing more than a set of government supplied goodies (at least that's the tack they take legally.) The truth is that marriage is more than just a set of benefits. It provides a societal good and it requires personal sacrifice on the part of those who enter it and live according to its traditional requirements. There would be no reason for government to be involved one way or the other if this was not so.
Mar '11
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
Marriage is either about males and females having legitimate children, or it isn't. When you kill off that justification, it doesn't matter what your reasoning is. You've opened a Pandora's Box and now it's all about "happiness", and how DARE you deny polygamists their happiness? You can't close that barn door once you've opened it.
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Did you know that my view on marriage law is that the state should not favor one family arrangement over another? I get the feeling you don't actually know my view.
Mollie, to your credit, you're so good at playing devil's advocate that Trace probably wasn't the only one who didn't actually know your view.
I didn't know clearly till now.
MFR, my actual views on so many topics are so radical that I've learned to be somewhat humble about it. I don't think many people are here at Ricochet to go over topics such as "should the police be privatized?" or "what would America look like without public roads?"
I'm also honest enough to know that the real debate is not over whether to privatize marriage but, rather, whether the state redefines it to include same-sex couples. So I'm interested in provoking people to think about all the things the media willfully leave out of that discussion -- how it will change social norms, what other family arrangements will be sanctioned by the state as equal to trad marriage, religious liberty implications, etc.
Dec '10
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
No one that I'm aware of has sufficiently countered this paper. It's a long read, but required if one wants to argue either for or against SSM.
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
Trace Urdan
I am being generous to call this disingenuous Mollie. You have that journalist's blindness to your own bias, obvious to everyone else.
We don't all have to agree but this issue is divisive and redundant. After 200 comments from the post you promoted last week, to then launch another Monday morning is not only discouraging but destructive. · 8 minutes ago
I'm sorry, but what, exactly, is disingenous about what I wrote? You don't believe we should have discussed the Public Discourse essay published today. That's fine, although you are discussing it.
I imagine I'll keep posting and commenting about marriage law and you'll keep posting and commenting on it as well. It's a feature, not a bug! Let's just enjoy the discussion and be open to learning from one another.
Sep '11
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
Trace Urdan:since when is any topic off limits on Ricochet? Since when are editors not allowed to voice their personal views? Mollie has started a conversation which is of interest to people. She is not abusing her position as editor at all.
Aug '10
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Did you know that my view on marriage law is that the state should not favor one family arrangement over another? I get the feeling you don't actually know my view.
Mollie, to your credit, you're so good at playing devil's advocate that Trace probably wasn't the only one who didn't actually know your view.
I didn't know clearly till now.
MFR, my actual views on so many topics are so radical that I've learned to be somewhat humble about it. I don't think many people are here at Ricochet to go over topics such as "should the police be privatized?" or "what would America look like without public roads?"
Ah, too bad. Some of us would find that stuff interesting.
Jun '10
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
Let me resurrect a hypothetical situation I raised on an earlier post. I argue that if you make SSM a "right," there is no limiting principle for polygamy and the like. For the record, I think we have the right principle [one man, one woman].
One could rely on the sociology about child abuse and coecion, and use that as the means to avoid legalizing polygamy. But, one must ask, is sociology a good place for find our limiting constitutional principles? I say no: it's a damned poor way to run a constitution.
But even if you do that, how do you handle this case? 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? The sociology doesn't fit the facts (they're all adults, unrelated, uncoerced, and competent). What limiting idea could a court use to continue to prohibit it other than something unprincipled and arbitrary?
Edited on May 21, 2012 at 5:55pmDec '10
Re: Why Not Polygamy?
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Did you know that my view on marriage law is that the state should not favor one family arrangement over another? I get the feeling you don't actually know my view.
Mollie, to your credit, you're so good at playing devil's advocate that Trace probably wasn't the only one who didn't actually know your view.
I didn't know clearly till now.
MFR, my actual views on so many topics are so radical that I've learned to be somewhat humble about it. I don't think many people are here at Ricochet to go over topics such as "should the police be privatized?" or "what would America look like without public roads?"
Ah, too bad. Some of us would find that stuff interesting. · 9 minutes ago
Agreed. We argue too often from the inevitible consequences of policies without getting to what those consequences say about the principles the policies rest on. If the principles are right the policies will be as well. We never take enough time to know and expound on our principles.