Random question: does legalization of gay marriage mean that we must legalize polygamy as well?
Provided, of course, that all these marriage contracts are between consenting partners…why should polygamy be illegal?
My very unsophisticated rationale is that two’s a party, three’s a crowd. And that polygamy (of the one male, multiple females variety) will inevitably create a gender imbalance in society based on which men hold power and wealth. I mean, look at Hugh Hefner. Blecch.
Coming from a family in which polygamy was practiced, there are some horror stories passed down about how second, third, fourth wives were treated, and the tangled relationships that resulted. I guess it could be argued that monogamous marriage doesn’t have such a great track record, either. Still, I think the human capacity for jealousy should not be underestimated. Thus: couples of any sex, fine by me. But two’s the limit.
Thoughts? I don’t think my rationale has any legal basis, considering that the idea of marriage as currently touted by most people is “legally binding union between adults.” Legally speaking, what would be the logic of permitting marriage between a man and a woman, two men, or two women, while not permitting it between 3+ people?
My very briefly thought-out rationale for allowing gay marriage but not polygamy would be that a polygamous marriage could not possibly provide legal equality for all parties involved. Marriage is a binding legal contract between people who wish to share their lives. It gives one rights to a spouse’s assets and over things like a spouse’s medical care.
A situation in which one partner is legally bound to multiple spouses, but in which the other partners are bound only to the “central” spouse, is inherently unequal. The “central” spouse, who (in most polygamist systems) is entitled to marry more than one person, has more power and more rights in the relationship than his or her multiple spouses, who cannot marry more people. That unequal distribution of power is not present in gay marriage.
Now, if all of a polygamist’s wives agreed to be legally bound to one another, would that make things equal? Maybe, but that starts to seem more like a corporation and less like what we would call marriage.
Comment by Lindy — July 9, 2007 @ 10:37 am |
Makes sense, Lindy. Though unsurprisingly polyamorists also are interested in plural marriage. I think it just gets unwieldy beyond two people, especially with issues like divorce, inheritance, finances, etc.
Comment by apricot — July 9, 2007 @ 11:43 pm |