Opponents of gay marriage have often raised the specter that it will inevitably lead to the legalization of polygamy. This has been an effective tactic because while homosexuality has enjoyed growing social acceptance, polygamy remains unpopular.
Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer explained in a 2006 Washington Post editorial how the legalization of polygamy follows logically from gay marriage:
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.
The relative success of gay marriage, it seems, has already inspired new efforts to legalize polygamy. Last week, George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley filed a legal challenge to Utah’s anti-polygamy statutes on behalf of his plaintiffs, Kody Brown and his four wives. The Browns are the subject of the hit reality show “Sister Wives.”
I am somewhat unfazed by the possibility that polygamy would ride the coattails of gay marriage. Where it concerns consensual relationships between and among adults, I’m fairly libertarian. The ACLU’s policy statement on polygamy reflects my view:
The ACLU believes that criminal and civil laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of plural marriage violate constitutional protections of freedom of expression and association, freedom of religion, and privacy for personal relationships among consenting adults.
To elaborate further, I think that polygamy should be decriminalized—that is, people should not be fined or imprisoned for the practice. That’s the extent of my support, though. I do not believe that polygamy should be afforded the same societal sanction or benefits that monogamous relationships enjoy. Now given my support of gay marriage, my stance on polygamy might appear to be a discriminatory double standard.
Contra Krauthammer, however, I do not believe that the same logic undergirding gay marriage can be extended to support polygamy. Gay marriage and polygamy are fundamentally different issues, and as such, my reasons for supporting both are different.
Blogger Andrew Sullivan is a gay marriage advocate and a polygamy opponent, and he defends his position this way:
Polygamy is bad social policy for exactly the reason gay marriage is good social policy: everyone should have the opportunity to marry. Broad access to marriage important not only for individual wellbeing but for social stability. And, to oversimplify only a little, when one man gets two wives, some other man gets no wife.
In other words, polygamy is a zero-sum game. And whereas gay marriage increases access to the institution of marriage, polygamy restricts it. I deny that there has historically been a static or traditional form of marriage, but I do agree with conservatives that marriage is a basic unit of society. So because polygamy destabilizes the institution of marriage, it threatens—if more widely practiced—to destabilize society as well.
This concern isn’t merely hypothetical, nor is it hyperbole. Similar charges have been made against gay marriage, but nothing in our limited experience with gay marriage suggests any adverse social consequences. Polygamy has existed in virtually every society in recorded history, so we are able to better evaluate its consequences. And looking to the historical record, we find that societies that adopted polygamy were more often undemocratic and unegalitarian.
Political scientists Valerie M. Hudson and Andrea M. den Boer contend that this phenomenon is no accident. They published a summary of their research in a Washington Post article, writing:
Scarcity of women leads to a situation in which men with advantages—money, skills, education—will marry, but men without such advantages—poor, unskilled, illiterate—will not. A permanent subclass of bare branches [unmarriageable men] from the lowest socioeconomic classes is created.
They go on to add that this subclass is “more likely than other males to turn to vice and violence” and “may turn to appropriation of resources, using force if necessary.” This and other deleterious impacts materialize when the sex ratio is roughly 120 males to 100 females—a threshold that could conceivably be met were polygamy legal.
(For more about Hudson and den Boer’s research, I’d refer you to this article by Jonathan Rauch in Reason magazine.)
Then of course you have the more predictable (but equally serious) objections that polygamy is a patriarchal institution that oppresses women and engenders feelings of jealousy and hurt. I don’t doubt that there are exceptions to this general rule—the shows “Big Love” and “Sister Wives” offer a sympathetic (or at least benign) portrayal of polygamy. But many other accounts of polygamous life, like this one by Vance and Tana Allred, report a darker reality.
In light of all this, one might ask why I still support decriminalizing polygamy. The social ills that tend to travel with polygamy notwithstanding, it is still protected under the constitutional rights to assembly and religious freedom.
More than that, we know from the Short Creek, Arizona raid in 1953 that a punitive approach to polygamy backfires. Seeing families torn apart by law enforcement (understandably) garners the public’s sympathy. The best approach may well be to simply ignore polygamy and tolerate its existence as a fringe practice.
Because of the aforementioned distinctions between gay marriage and polygamy, the slope to legalized polygamy isn’t nearly as slippery as some would have you believe. That we are revisiting the polygamy, though, is definitely a byproduct of the gay marriage debate. But I welcome a thoughtful discussion about polygamy, and I hope to have contributed to it here.
I would agree that gay marriage doesn’t necessarily lead to polygamy and that polygamy should be decriminalized. I would also suggest that there are a large number of idividually damaging effects of polygamy—even in the benign Big Love variety. I’ve watched about half the show and though I understand it’s fictional, I think it has excellent writing (at least so far) that give a decent peek into what could be I polygamy were widely practiced, even in a “healthy,” modern form.
This is based in false assumptions about non-monogamous relationships. Decriminalization or legalization cannot discriminate on the basis of sex, and it’s entirely possible there are just as many women who want more than one male spouse (a la Polly’s situation here: http://polyamorymom.blogspot.com/), and LGBT people who desire more than one spouse of the same sex, as there are men who love more than one woman. That makes the male-female availability ratio a wash. Polyamory, as it is called by many who feel most comfortable in non-monogamous relationships (married or not), is not the stone-age practice of trading in women that religiously-mandated polygyny is.
I think that the criminalization of polygamy is what makes fundamentalist groups circle the wagons, which makes it difficult for outside law enforcement to see what’s happening and prevent abuse, as well as preventing those who are most vulnerable in those communities from having contact with the outside world and understanding that they have rights options. This is the behavior that has resulted from raids and aggressive anti-polygamous actions by law enforcement in the past. I think that in decriminalizing it, we will see changes in those groups’ ability to control and manipulate members. From the memoirs of people who have left, we can see that they aren’t always so isolated, absolutist, and tyrannical that abuses run rampant. There were times when child brides were uncommon and people got to choose who they married.
Decriminalization will be an important step in destigmatizing unconventional marriage and family relationships. Consenting adults should be able to love whomever they choose, and as long as the government makes it its business to issue marriage licenses, they have no right to discriminate on the basis of sex, orientation, or number of partners.
I have to agree with Macha here. While I think pragmatically polygamy, if implemented, will most likely be biased towards men based on biological imperative, it is wrong to define it primarily as a single husband with multiple wives and this feels a little sexist. There are certainly bi males, and a few examples of straight males who would be interested in a more broad definition polygamy, reducing your harms.
I feel relationships between consenting adults and limited role of government in this issue is the primary warrant here. I don’t see an political imperative to enforce such social institutions based on reducing crime among young disenfranchised males or possible spousal abuse. Reinforcing two parent households by restricting access to divorce would seem to fall under similar logic. Two parents produce less crime, better chance for success, and better future relationships for males.
It bothers me when conservative make these slippery slope arguments to people marrying farm animals. I feel that relationship recognition can be a fairly arbitrary line. A society has the right to choose how they want to define such terminology. We can certainly stop the slippery slope once it gets too strange for us with a simple vote.
Because I support gay marriage because I feel gay couples/parents need the rights and stability associated with marriage, and the government has no business interfering in my personal life, I personally feel compelled to also support polygamy.
While I may not agree with your reasoning for support, it is at least an effort to separate the two issues. And I think that we need to take these on a case by case basis.
I just find it interesting when Mormons argue about “redefining marriage=bad” when we found ourselves on the opposite side of this issue a century ago. I would be interesting in hearing other Mormon’s opinions on this distinction.
“While I think pragmatically polygamy, if implemented, will most likely be biased towards men based on biological imperative, it is wrong to define it primarily as a single husband with multiple wives and this feels a little sexist.”
What evidence is there from history that there will be enough women practicing polyandry to offset the effects of men marrying multiple wives? I don’t think it’s coincidence that the predominant form of polygamy has been a man with multiple (and exclusive) wives.
According to Psychology Today: “A comprehensive survey of traditional societies in the world shows that 83.39% of them practice polygyny, 16.14% practice monogamy, and .47% practice polyandry. Almost all of the few polyandrous societies practice what anthropologists call fraternal polyandry, where a group of brothers share a wife. Nonfraternal polyandry, where a group of unrelated men share a wife, is virtually nonexistent in human society.”
There are several reasons from human psychology why polyandry is so rare, but I’d refer you to the article review them: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200806/why-are-there-virtually-no-polyandrous-society-0
Given that non-fraternal polyandry is virtually non-existent, I don’t think it was unfair of my to neglect it in my discussion of polygamy.
“I feel relationships between consenting adults and limited role of government in this issue is the primary warrant here.”
We are not talking about restricting consenting adults from entering into polygamous relationships. I was explicit in stating that polygamy should decriminalized and people should be free to enter into it. My point was simply that polygamous relationships shouldn’t be afforded the same benefits and sanction that monogamous relationships enjoy.
You’re right that my logic extends to divorce too. And while I wouldn’t restrict access to divorce (just as I wouldn’t preclude people from joining polygamy), it should generally be discouraged, especially when kids are involved.
An adult should be free to marry (or live with) any consenting adults. If a woman wants to marry a man who is already married, she should have that right, as long as all agree. If another spouse disapproves, he or she should be free to divorce. I have blogged extensive about this. I have more than a passing concern.
Sorry, it is early. My correct URL is attached to this one.
” I do not believe that polygamy should be afforded the same societal sanction or benefits that monogamous relationships enjoy.”
Then you aren’t a libertarian, if only because monogamous relationships shouldn’t receive benefits either.
Yes and no. My position is consistent with moral libertarianism (insofar as I support the decriminalization of polygamy), but I’m not a political libertarian because I am fine with the state incentivizing certain relationships (though I’m negotiable on that point too).
Jon, I’ve read through your post, and while I find much to agree with here (primarily, the decriminalization of polygamy), I still can’t understand your position on benefits for polygamous relationships. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that you essentially oppose the state incentivizing polygamy because, like Andrew Sullivan states, it’s “bad social policy.”
You seem to be taking a utilitarian approach to the benefits issue. Wouldn’t such an approach also view civil unions as a sufficient alternative to an official state-endorsement of gay marriage? After all, the incentives for this “good social policy” are the same for homosexual unions as heterosexual marriages in many states; the only major difference is in terminology. And yet previously, you seemed to view gay marriage as a civil right. I don’t see how your approach is consistent with the view that gay marriage is a civil right.
Also, opponents of gay marriage (and homosexual relationships, in general) have used research and even mainstream science at one time, to argue against gay rights. Is it safe to allow the state to rely on the conventional scholarship of the times to determine what is a good or bad social policy and then, legislate accordingly? I know we are talking about benefits and incentives here, but let’s be realistic, such arguments are often expanded to validate or reject the legitimacy of their respective institutions.
As for my position on benefits. I don’t think the government should incentivize marriage or any other intimate contract. In other words, let’s privatize marriage. And then the state doesn’t have to be in the business of determining a “good” or “bad” social policy.
“You seem to be taking a utilitarian approach to the benefits issue. Wouldn’t such an approach also view civil unions as a sufficient alternative to an official state-endorsement of gay marriage?”
Were the issue merely benefits, then yes–civil unions would sometimes suffice (though, per DOMA, civil unions wouldn’t be entitled to significant federal benefits; then there’s the issue of interstate portability). But in my post, I mention the importance of BOTH “societal sanction [and] benefits.” And even where civil unions are afforded the same benefits (and again, they often aren’t), civil unions simply don’t enjoy the same sanction or affirmation that marriages do. It’s a separate but equal concern, essentially. And so long as non-procreative heterosexual relationships enjoy the trophy that is the title of ‘marriage’, so too should gay couples.
“Is it safe to allow the state to rely on the conventional scholarship of the times to determine what is a good or bad social policy and then, legislate accordingly?”
Yes. Don’t get me wrong–there are definitely some risks that inhere in technocracy (rule by or reliance on experts). You mentioned one such risk: That the experts get it wrong (as many experts had with homosexuality only decades ago). But I’d rather the government be involved in social policy and occasionally get things wrong than have no government engagement whatsoever.
I’m sympathetic to the view that the government should get out of the marriage business. I held that view for a long time. But because I believe the government’s function is the maintenance of society, and because the institution of marriage is important to that maintenance, it’s understandably why the government would have an interested in incentivizing marriages.
I’m libertarian enough on moral issues that I’m still uncomfortable with the government criminalizing polygamy, its adverse effects aside. But I do have enough faith in government (and the experts they hopefully consult) to grant it at least limited influence in social policy.