Posted on 09/13/2014 5:10:33 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Should we really care if more than two consenting adults want to marry each other, or if polygamy advocates see the LGBT movement as an inspiration?
A few years ago, when I was rushing my daughter to pre-school one morning, a similarly tardy and exasperated-looking mom passed us on the stairs. My daughter took this as an opportunity to announce, “I have two moms.” The exasperated mom picked up her hunched shoulders to turn to Willa and, after a sigh, say, “You don’t know how lucky you are.”
This has happened to us a lot. On more occasions than I can count, overwhelmed straight parents have proclaimed how much they wish their family had two moms and, thus, extra help. This conversation often bleeds easily into a “the more the merrier” logic followed by some joke about polygamy. Like, “I’d sleep with 10 wives and husbands as long as it meant I could actually sleep in once in a while!”
And if most parents are being honest, the idea of more hands on deck is mighty appealing, even if we may not understand the emotional arrangements of open marriages and might legitimately be skeptical about the gender imbalances often found in polygamy.
Back in the early days of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender movement’s push for marriage equality, this slippery slope to polygamy was pragmatically taboo. After all, arguments about gay marriage leading to polygamy were lobbed almost entirely with the purpose of derailing the gay rights agenda. And there was also something inherently offensive about making the connection, along the same lines of suggesting that gay marriage would lead to people marrying goats. Never mind the fact that opposite-sex goat-human marriage had been looming as a dangerous temptation all along…
Still, people often mention polygamy and gay marriage in the same sentence (not to mention the same essay). Recently—in, surprise, Utah—a judge struck down a part of that state’s anti-polygamy law. Mind you, the Utah law makes it a felony punishable by up to five years in prison when someone “cohabits with another person” to whom they aren’t legally married. This makes me wonder whether Utah also outlaws the combustion engine, the Internet and other realities of modern life, but anyway there you have it.
The legal challenge came after the state sued the stars of Sister Wives, a TV show that follows the real life of one husband, his four wives, and their 17 children. Now here’s the thing: Sister Wives premiered in September 2010, but Kody and Meri married in 1990, Kody and Janelle married in 1993, and Kody and Christine married in 1994. In other words, all those marriages predate even the earliest adoption of gay marriage in America, which was in Massachusetts in 2004. And second, in the Sister Wives family, Kody married each of the women, but the women didn’t marry each other.
In other words, polygamy, as it generally is practiced in the United States, is a predominantly heterosexual enterprise—like heterosexuality (or the male ideal of heterosexuality) on steroids. After all, while the percentage of married women who have affairs has risen in recent decades, married men still do most of the cheating. Conservatives concerned about the high rate of divorce in America should stop blaming gay marriage but instead heterosexual infidelity—a prime culprit in 55 percent of divorces.
If couples want to bring cheating out of the deceitful shadows and instead incorporate it openly into their relationship—plus have more hands on deck for kids and more earners in the household in a tough economy—who are we to judge?
Seriously, I’m a bit too traditional and jealous for that sort of thing, but I’m also too traditional to wear jeggings outside the house. Still, you (mostly) don’t see me judging anyone else for doing so.
In 2013 when the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of marriage equality for same-sex couples, pro-polygamy groups heralded the ruling as a step away from the conventional one-man one-woman definition of marriage and, thus, as opening the door to polygamy. I get that, and to an extent pro-polygamy activists may be trying to latch their still-widely unpopular cause onto the increasingly victorious rainbow bandwagon.
But while it’s mildly understandable that some see these conversations as conceptually linked—“If we’re changing the marriage laws to include gay couples, how else might we change them?”—polygamy doesn’t inherently flow from gay marriage. If anything, what polygamy does flow from is a general opening up of options.
We increasingly allow Americans to define their own families for themselves while removing coercive public policy and judgmental social norms. And this idea, which is at the heart of everything from increasing access to birth control to the striking down anti-miscegenation laws to so much more, is exactly what conservative religious extremists have always opposed.
There are interesting arguments to be made for legalizing polygamy, from protecting children from secretive non-consensual multiple-marriage situations to how being “feminist” actually means not protecting women from these marriages but letting them choose for themselves. All compelling points. But the truth is, I don’t really care.
I won’t be entering a polygamous relationship anytime soon. I live in New York City, so I simply don’t have the space for more wives. And just like I don’t have the ass for jeggings, I don’t have the heart for non-monogamy.
But I do have a soft spot for allowing consenting adults to make their own decisions, and to be supported by their government in doing so, not constrained.
Thad Cochran says “neigh”.
What an immoral ignorant sqank
The assertion is “Any two people who love each other should be allowed to marry”.
If Sam loves Becky, and Becky loves Sam, Becky and Sam get married.
If Sam also loves Sally, and Sally also loves Sam, who are we to tell Sam and Sally they can’t marry just because Sam is already married to Becky?
They already did this -- don't you remember their decision to declare that the people of CA had no standing when Prop 8 came to them?
There is no basis for homosexual marriage. At least nature and human biology offers some justification for polygamy.
Sometimes the “slippery slope” argument really IS a slippery slope.
Probably marrying your pet fish will be the next LIB asshat push.
Have you seen her?
The last thing in the world I want is ten wives.
I love my wife, but sometimes one is more than enough.
I wonder whether we couldn't "normalize" marriage whereby a bunch of guys agreed so as to share a wife.
Kinda like a time share sort of thing.
After Mr. GG2 it would all be downhill. Why tamper with perfection?
But, you know, maybe next week . . . and won't that be fun for my kids!!!
Years ago, I remember a gathering where I was where there was this gay couple. The subject of gay marriage came up and I said I totally disagreed with the idea. The whole gathering fell silent as if someone was about to be killed. They asked me why and I said if the premise is that this is all about “marriage equality” then the only right way would be to let anyone marry anyone else not just gays. I suggested that this should include polygamists, polyandrists. If a bunch of gay guys wanted to marry they should be able to or a bunch of gay women. They are all taxpayers and should be allowed to.
Their response was that it should be limited to two people only to which I responded that that was not “marriage equality” but privilege for one minority. They were outraged and just threw a dramatic fit about how degenerate that would be to let everyone in the tent. This was an amazing conversation with gays preaching morality.
At the time I believed that since the tent had been broadened, there was no stopping this mess. I believe 50 years from now the whole marriage thing will be thrown back to individuals to do whatever they want. The whole thing is totally unmanageable.
Wow! Ten wives?
That means ten mother-in-laws.
Doesn’t sound too good once I think about it.
the fact that Sam is 42 and Becky is 14 is also irrelevant
if anyone says it shouldn’t be allowed as it disgusting... then they are using the same argument batted down for fag unions. if fags are ok... so are pedophiles.
there is no limit.
only solution would be to either revolt or leave the country
Everyone’s love is the same. Who are we to say that a sheep can’t love with the same heart? Who are we to discriminate against women marrying stallions? These are human / animal rights!
Remember. A camel can also have a broken heart.
And a broken hump.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.