Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
William Saletan Thinks About The Definition of Marriage…
…for about five seconds. But you know, that’s something.
Over at Slate, Saletan kindly explains to us why Justice Alito and Charles Krauthammer (in an old column still making the rounds) are wrong to suppose that the arguments made in favor of same-sex marriage might also be used to justify polygamous marriage. What it boils down to is that there are basic, natural facts about human beings that make monogamy stable and salutary in a way that polygamy just isn’t. Basically, the problem is jealousy. When we give our lives to another person, we want that person to be equally devoted to us. If we invite threes and fours to the altar (or county clerk’s office, or whatever), that’s just not going to work out as happily for anyone.
Let me pause for a moment to bang my head against the wall a few times. Letting the ear-ringing die down now. OK, I’m back.
Is the state permitted to consider natural facts about human nature and relationship proclivities in deciding what to recognize as a marriage? Then there are some very powerful arguments for privileging male-female unions as the most stable, and the most suitable foundation for family. In particular, if you think that kind of evidence relevant, it is absurd to suppose that there could be a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. We can argue about whether or not same-sex relationships are similar enough to opposite-sex relationships to be appropriately regarded as “marriages.” But they aren’t obviously the same, and if that is indeed the sort of reasoning the Court should employ, then the matter should clearly be left to the states.
If, on the other hand, it’s not the state’s business who loves whom, or why, or for how long… then what’s jealousy got to do with it? If three men, or three women, or four men and five women, say that they care deeply about one another and wish to be married, then what difference does it make whether the odds are in their favor? That’s their business. It’s not the state’s job to tell us how to love.
I personally am very disappointed that Slate would publish someone with such an obvious grudge against polys.
Published in Culture, Law
Here’s the opinion. Question 5 is the part dealing with religious practice vs criminal law. Very interesting on how that could play in the cake controversies, unless it’s been changed by later opinions (also might bear on ministers officiating gay marriages.) Specifically this bit:
The reasoning behind this comes from the Jefferson letter and the “wall of separation” bit. The court narrowed it down to government can legislate behavior but not belief. If belief compels behavior too bad. You just have to obey. It’s a tricky puzzle.
I’m sorry. That’s sad. But of course, the fact that a situation can, when unavoidable, be worked around doesn’t mean we should make it the new normal.
Stories like that make the disciples’ response seem much more rational.
But, to take the example you’ve given, the two obviously did not have romantic love for each other yet they were still married. So obviously something other than emotion and romantic love must be definitional of marriage. I wonder what that could be…
Men and women are different in ways other than their wedding tackle
I love this line, King Prawn. Can I quote it in a book sometime?
I’m sorry. That’s sad. But of course, the fact that a situation can, when unavoidable, be worked around doesn’t mean we should make it the new normal.
Thanks, Rachel. And it’s okay—besides which, I agree with you: to the extent possible, it would be much, much better (and my children would fervently agree) if kids could have their moms and dads. Ideally in the same house and bed, but at least available to them.
Given that bad things happen, we will always need a work-around for children for whom the ideal is impossible. In my case, it was —yay!—their step-dad and step-siblings, for whom my children are profoundly grateful. (Well, it took them a little longer to be profoundly grateful for the step-siblings, but they were pretty sold on the step-dad part from the get-go). One of the work-arounds is adoption.
There are children who need to be adopted, and individuals and couples who are willing to adopt them. For some children, a single-sex home is actually preferable (that is, for kids who have been raped by male parents or parent-substitutes) and others for whom a single-sex home is definitely better than the alternative, which is no home at all.
Given that the world is a messy place and all other things aren’t equal, as Midge points out, I figure we should just do the best we can, as lovingly as we can, and hope that God fills in the gaps and gives us another Leonardo now and then, just to keep us guessing…
Third party reproduction, on the other hand…
Merina or Rachel, are you going to write a post just about that? Because it could be interesting.
This is rich. You are taking argument with Justice Alito?
They didn’t have kids—is that what you were thinking? Though I suppose they might have, back when they were still, um, talking to each other. Maybe that was the problem? Or else they were just crazy. Not “mentally ill,” I mean, but crazy.
I think it’s more likely they either bowed to the social pressure that stigmatizes divorce, or they really did see their marriage, as apparently unhappy as it was, as something not capable of being destroyed by the signature of a judge. The high view of marriage takes it as a thing composed of the individuals in it yet somehow separate from them. From the NT biblical perspective it can only be destroyed by sexual immorality, which is a great violence.
A judge once said to me, “Congratulations, you’re single again!” This was over five years after my ex-wife had left (I’m pretty darn stubborn), but that moment was the filthiest I’ve ever felt. It was the experience of every pain I had ever felt all at once. When I went through hell last year to preserve my family it wasn’t just out of love or religious duty; I did it because I’ve been rent asunder before, and I will not experience that again if it is within my power at all to prevent it.
A judge once said to me, “Congratulations, you’re single again!” This was over five years after my ex-wife had left (I’m pretty darn stubborn), but that moment was the filthiest I’ve ever felt. It was the experience of every pain I had ever felt all at once. When I went through hell last year to preserve my family it wasn’t just out of love or religious duty; I did it because I’ve been rent asunder before, and I will not experience that again if it is within my power at all to prevent it.
That was a crummy thing for the Judge to say. I’m sorry, King Prawn. My husband was divorced, and even though he is happy now, and has more or less come to terms with it, it is still an awful memory, and a real loss. He, too, says he would never go through that again if he could avoid it, and I believe him.
I have met a few people who got divorced without (apparent) pain—“Oh, it was fine, we just grew apart, I was bored, we’re still good friends…” and it always seems mysterious to me. The pain that you experienced is what lets you know that yours is an honorable wound. (But I’m with you—no more wounds, honorable or otherwise!)
Now I read the piece you linked to—Good Lord, King Prawn! You know all about hell, I think! May heaven continue to hold you and your family.
Reading your story made me think of one of my personal commandments: Never waste pain.
That is—make the pain tell you absolutely everything it can. Extract every last ounce of wisdom from suffering…because you have to have the pain anyway. Like Jacob wrestling with the angel, you might as well hang on for the blessing.
That’s what you did, and that’s what you’re still doing. Well done!
That is such an enriching and edifying way of putting it. You’ve put words to what I hope continue to be my actions.
I missed this comment altogether—sorry!
Periodically fringe groups (sorry, Merina, including Mormons of the 19th c.) re-invent the square wheel. Polygamy, like open marriage, is one of them. Even in polygamous cultures, a one-man-many-wives household isn’t the norm. Notice that the poll asked how many women would want to be the polygamous spouse of a billionaire…not an ordinary schlub. Billionaires often have more than one wife, if you count ex-wives, mistresses and baby-mamas.
Here’s the thing: let’s say Donald Trump drowns in a Maine lake. The Maine Warden Service dive team shows up to find his body, and the chaplain shows up to provide help and comfort to the Donald’s family. What’s the first thing we need to know?
Who counts as ‘family?”
Let’s say the Donald has five wives. Which of them will choose the funeral home, decide upon the means of disposal for the body, organize the obsequies? There is always a Number One Wife. At present, it’s the legal spouse, no matter how many tearful girlfriends and baby mamas arrive at the scene. Post-Polygamy, there will still be a #1 Wife, as there is in Afghanistan and—correct me if I’m wrong, Merina—in Utah of the olden days too.
Or, of course, a #1 husband, if it shakes out that way.
Imagine the divorces? Holy cow.
I agree.
Kate, this was exceptionally well stated. Archbishop Fulton Sheen said: “Much suffering in hospitals is wasted.” I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here!
:-)