PERRspectives: Polygamy and the War on Gay Americans

March 17, 2006

Polygamy and the War on Gay Americans

With its sympathetic portrait of a polygamous family, the new HBO series "Big Love," is helping to heat up the culture war. The show has been the fodder of a Newsweek feature on the polygamy rights movement, complete with headlines such as "Polygamists Unite!" For conservative stalwarts like Charles Krauthammer and Rick Santorum, "Big Love" is ammunition and seeming validation for their claim that same-sex marriage leads directly to legalized polygamy, incest and bestiality.

As usual, the culture warriors have it completely wrong.

In his March 17th column "Pandora and Polygamy," Krauthammer makes the predictably simplistic - and misguided - argument that recognition of marriage for gay couples inevitably entails state sanctioned polygamy.

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.
This line of argument makes gay activists furious. I can understand why they do not want to be in the same room as polygamists. But I'm not the one who put them there. Their argument does.

No, it doesn't. Same-sex marriage advocates merely argue that the state should recognize the loving relationships that free, autonomous and equal individuals choose to enter into and maintain. And that's where the analogy of gay marriage to polygamy ends.

By definition, polygamy institutionalizes a state of inequality between the spouses engaged in it. Whether involving multiple wives or husbands, the practice enshrines marital disadvantage in family standing, in livelihood, and in, well, consortium. Since the end of the Civil War at least, the United States has not looked kindly on involuntary servitude and has forbid individuals to enter (even freely) contracts that will abridge their freedom and equality in the future. Men and women are not free to be unfree. As John Stuart Mill famously put it, "The principle of freedom cannot require that he should be free not to be free. It is not freedom, to be allowed to alienate his freedom."

In the United States, governments will similarly not condone contractual relationships that may stem from or result in coercion of one or more of the parties, or that may create health risks for the individuals or society at large. That's why the comical pronouncements regarding the slippery slope from same-sex marriage to polygamy, incest and bestiality by United States Senators including Rick Santorum ("man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be") and John Cornyn ("Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife") were so roundly - and rightly - maligned.

So the growing call for same-sex marriage rights will not, should not and logically does not lead to the legalization of polygamy in the United States. But that won't stop conservative culture crusaders from using "Big Love" as a big stick in their war against gay Americans.

—Perrspective 10:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) |

5 Comments

Andrew Sullivan has a similar post up: http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/03/a_simple_point_.html

Posted by JJ on March 17, 2006 10:51 AM

Polygamy, defined by Merriam-Webster: "marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time"

There isn't anything in the definition of polygamy, polyandry, polygyny or polyamorous relationships that *demands* an imbalance in power. It is culturally assumed to be imbalanced, and primarily is assumed to be some bearded prophet back in the hills with his own harem, these days. It ain't necessarily so.

You can't necessarily limit polygamy to a power relationship with all the power on the side of the man or woman who's the singleton, if there is a singleton. You can't even limit it because the partners may not be exclusively heterosexual.

But you did hit the main point in what should define *any* marriage: ...the state should recognize the loving relationships that free, autonomous and equal individuals choose to enter into and maintain. It shouldn't matter whether you are in a one to one, a one to many, or a many to many relationship, so long as you have that relationship.

Too bad you can't see the timber in your own eye.

Posted by atablarasa on March 18, 2006 1:43 PM

The problem with comparing polygamy with gay marriage is gay marriage is a contract that two consenting adults enter into. Polygamy, as it is practiced by certain groups in Utah, involves the coercion of pubescent girls into marriage. Welfare fraud also occurs in these groups as well. Teenage boys are treated as disposable obstacles to stability in their society. But this is considered the norm in their society and they see it as a requirement to get into heaven.
Comparing polygamy in Islam, where shari'a law places a limit on the number of wives(4) a man can have. And the man must have the consent of all parties involved. He must get the permisssion of the other wives before he takes another wife. All the wives must be treated equally, if one gets a diamond ring, they all get a diamond ring. Needless to say, most Muslim men do not engage in polygamous marriages.

Posted by phinky on March 26, 2006 3:08 PM

Posted by popup blocker on August 4, 2006 4:00 AM

"By definition, polygamy institutionalizes a state of inequality between the spouses engaged in it."

By definition? How is that? Have you ever lived in a polygamous family? What do you know about polygamous families except for the Utah extremist stereotypes?

I grew up in a society where polygamy is allowed. I witnessed many such families where love, respect, honor and duty to the family was the rule rather than the exception as it is in the Land of The 50% Divorce Rate. But, forgive me for not having the time to dispel such deeply ingrained ignorance and prejudice.

I do find it pityfully ironic that Westerners have no problem with, and in fact often laud the exploits of men (like Hef) who live with over thirty women, with no commitments to them... no sense of duty or obligation, and yet looks down its collective haughty nose at loving polygamous relationships. Like I said... this sort of wretched ignorance is too deeply entrenched for me to waste even a moment of my short life on.

Posted by The Law on April 3, 2007 3:19 PM

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments (You may use HTML tags for style)

Enter these characters into the text field below: