Comments on: A slippery slope to polygamy?

By: John Rohan

John Rohan — Wed, 30 Oct 2013 11:56:01 +0000

Hugo, the problem of the “incest-ridden mega-families of breakaway Mormon cults” is happening NOW, when polygamy is illegal. Insinuating that the rest of society would turn to incest is the same scare-mongering that some people are using for gay marriage. Moreover, making it legal would level the playing field – the problem of “throw-away boys” would not be an issue, because women could take multiple husbands as well, and so the numbers would even out in the long run.

By: Malcolm Smith

Malcolm Smith — Tue, 29 Oct 2013 05:46:16 +0000

All of these comments are perfectly sensible – except for the paragraph by Boblipton that marriage should be a private contract, and that the state should get out of it. To do that would cause incredible complications and injustices. Marriage implies a whole lot of rights and responsibilities to its members. To name just a few: spouses are expected to support each other; normally you cannot get unemployment benefits if your spouse is working. Your spouse is your next of kin; he/she can make decisions for you in emergencies. Your spouse is a default legatee if you die intestate. Likewise, if you do not provide for him/her in your will, the will can be contested. In particular, minus evidence to the contrary, a husband is assumed to be the father of the wife’s child.
Do you want all of this to be the subject of private contracts – with the state picking up the pieces if the contract is incorrectly drawn up?
And, of course, the real problem is the innocent results of the contract: the children. They are the whole reason for marriage laws. Yes, not every marriage is fertile, but if marriages never produced children, then there would never be any reason for the law to get involved. After all, the law doesn’t regulate whom you choose to be your best friend.

By: Hugo S. Cunningham

Hugo S. Cunningham — Tue, 29 Oct 2013 02:17:44 +0000

John Rohan wrote:

>There’s also the great irony that historically, polygamy was the norm for most of the world’s civilizations, including Biblical ones. So we certainly have “done it before” although never in the context of a society where women have equal rights under the law. That would only improve it, don’t you think?
[end of quote]

Women’s equality under US law does not seem to help women in the incest-ridden mega-families of breakaway Mormon cults, not to mention the throw-away boys. Many of the worst abuses could be curbed if women were prohibited from marrying into a polygamous relationship before age 21, but then purists would decry “age discrimination.”

Robert Heinlein had fun with an alternative marriage pattern in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. Women’s equality was not an issue, however, because the multiple wives shared multiple husbands.

By: John Rohan

John Rohan — Mon, 28 Oct 2013 21:39:22 +0000

Walter Olson,

I’m a big fan of yours, but you constantly avoid the core argument here. Equality only means something if it applies to everyone. If consenting adults are allowed to marry the person they want to marry, then it should apply equally whether it’s a man, woman, or men or women. The objections you give us are group’s objections out of political or religious expediency (like feminists). You don’t offer us an explanation over why the equal protection clause should apply to homosexuals but not polygamists.

There’s also the great irony that historically, polygamy was the norm for most of the world’s civilizations, including Biblical ones. So we certainly have “done it before” although never in the context of a society where women have equal rights under the law. That would only improve it, don’t you think?

By: Don

Don — Mon, 28 Oct 2013 16:30:42 +0000

You would be surprised. In the State of Utah, their bigamy statute specifically forbids living arrangements that look like polygamous marriages.

The polygamists in the State would argue in Court that they hadn’t broken the law, they had 1 marriage under the Laws of Utah, and would have religious marriages to their other wives that had no legal standing in Utah. So Utah changed the law, even if you are not married, if you are a man, living with 2 women, you have broken the bigamy law.

By: Alan K. Henderson

Alan K. Henderson — Mon, 28 Oct 2013 07:59:28 +0000

One fact that gets lost in many of these discussions is that marriage isn’t a private contract. Historically, it is institutionalized peer pressure to establish a monogamous heterosexual norm. Society has powerful vested interests; non-monogamy is conducive neither to general peaceableness nor to the overall child-rearing environment. Marriage also protects women, the gender harder hit (economically and otherwise) by promiscuity. SSM didn’t exist because some societies viewed homosexuality as a social ill and others viewed it as a private diversion irrelevant to social interests and thus not warranting regulation.

By: Hugo S. Cunningham

Hugo S. Cunningham — Mon, 28 Oct 2013 04:22:22 +0000

The real complaint of gay marriage opponents is against homosexuality itself. If there were a real “cure” for homosexuality, then there would be an increased supply of desirable mates for heterosexuals of both sexes. So far, however, all such cures have been quackery, too often bringing underachievement, suicidal tendencies, and/or heartbreak for heterosexuals unsuspectingly committing themselves to a mate of unstable sexuality.

If a real “cure” emerges for homosexuality, turning out contented heterosexuals with no undesirable side-effects, (something I consider a real possibility in the next 10-40 years), then the terms of debate will shift dramatically, especially as it applies to parents and children. But for now, gay marriage opponents remind me of those stunningly obtuse people who insist that the US Treasury continue to mint worthless pennies at a loss, because somehow 80 years of inflation will not exist if we just pretend it never happened.

By: ras

ras — Mon, 28 Oct 2013 00:21:39 +0000

If you and several others wish to live together, eat meals, have sex, whatever, it’s up to you. That’s a matter of rights.

The q at hand is what obligations others in society should agree to place on themselves in terms of supporting your relationships. That’s a matter of entitlements.

By: Keith Pullman

Keith Pullman — Mon, 28 Oct 2013 00:15:15 +0000

There is no good reason to deny that we must keep evolving until an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, monogamy or polyamory, race, or religion is free to marry any and all consenting adults. The limited same-gender freedom to marry is a great and historic step, but is NOT full marriage equality, because equality “just for some” is not equality. Let’s stand up for EVERY ADULT’S right to marry the person(s) they love. Get on the right side of history!

By: bacchys

bacchys — Sun, 27 Oct 2013 13:17:21 +0000

A lot depends on how the institution of marriage came to mean what it does in whatever jurisdiction you’re talking about. In places where the courts have compelled the state to adopt same sex marriage under an “equal protection of the laws” application, I don’t think it’s reasonable to subject other arrangements of would-be spouses under a different standard.

Same sex marriage does not ipso facto lead to polygamy, but same sex marriage mandated by the courts under some Grand Right to Marry might…and probably should.