Do you feel oppressed because the government does not currently recognize your polygamous or polyandrous marriage?
Apparently, there are some people out there who do because they show up to make their feelings known whenever and wherever there is a discussion of the same-sex marriage* issue. The pro-polygamy/polyandry folks maintain that, since marriage is a civil right that is applicable to gay and lesbian couples, it should also be applicable to polygamists and polyandrists.
Polygamy.com is just one of many organizations working toward the promotion and eventual legal recognition of plural marriage. I think their cause is a valid one and I support their efforts to expand and modernize marriage and family because I believe that those institutions must be updated to include broader options so that they do not become obsolete in this contemporary society in which women and children are no longer considered property. However, simple arithmetic makes the goals of the plural marriage movement separate from those of the marriage equality movement.
The recognition of same-sex marriages only requires that the current marriage laws be made gender neutral. Many of the marriage laws have already become gender neutral as a result of progress toward womens' empowerment, so making civil marriage a gender neutral affair between two people it is not that great a legal leap.
It is quite understandable that polygamists and polyandrists see the recognition of same-sex marriage as being a justification for their cause, but the marriage laws were designed to stipulate obligations and responsibilities and to confer benefits and protections for only two people. Many provisions and revisions would have to be made before our marriage laws will be able to adequately and fairly accommodate marriages between more than two people, regardless of the genders/orientations of the group.
The current property and inheritance laws associated with marriage simply will not work for more than two parties. For example, if one member of a group dies, how will his or her property and debts be distributed among the remaining members and how will the survivors handle the estate taxes? What will the group do about life, health, auto and homeowner insurance? Which member(s) of the group is(are) responsible for making end-of-life decisions when another member becomes permanently incapacitated and what if there is a disagreement (some want to terminate life support and the others do not)? What, if any, alimony will be owed to (or by) a member who leaves the group? How about child custody and support?
Of course there are reasonable answers to all of those questions, but those solutions have yet to be written into the property and inheritance laws associated with marriage. And before that can be done, the right to polygamy and polyandry must first be recognized via legislation, popular vote or judicial ruling.
I subscribe to the school of thought that teaches that there are no such things as "new" civil and human rights because civil and human rights are not invented, but rather discovered after always having existed and, that once they are discovered, they must be recognized.
* Yes, I know that some of them are just using the polygamy angle as a straw man because the position opposing same-sex marriage is untenable and logical fallacies, intellectual dishonesty and emotional appeals are pretty much all they've got for their "arguments."
Article comments
1 - Dave Nalle
Frankly, I have no desire to have more than one wife. One is enough for any sane man to deal with.
But despite that I can think of no legal, moral or ethical justification for prohibiting multiple marriages of whatever sort. Marriage is a contractual arrangement entered into by adults. You can form a limited partnership for a business with 2 or 200 people involved, so why not a marriage?
Dave
2 - Victor Plenty
I hear ya, Dave. In fact I've often thought Seinfeld had the right idea in that episode when Jerry and George combined their efforts, and for the first time were finally able to keep up with the time and labor demands of a relationship with one woman.
Polyandry makes a lot more sense than polygamy in today's world.
It could particularly be a good idea in China, where the government's one-child policy, combined with a cultural preference for sons, seems likely to produce a situation where men vastly outnumber women.
3 - polyman
POLYGAMY IS NATURAL AND NORMAL.
HOMOSEXUAL ACTS ARE NOT.
4 - Margaret Romao Toigo
There's already a shortage of women in China and the Chinese government is trying to do something about it.
5 - Bennett
This is well done, Margaret, as always. I caught some of the circus on the other thread and think your overall response via this post is brilliant.
Keep up the great work!
6 - Bill B
I'm curious to see whether or not the woodwork floodgates will open with those against gay marriage also coming down against plural marriages. You'd think so wouldn't you?
Maybe not.
I don't have a problem with it except you'd probably need nametags on the toothbrushes.
As pointed out it does pose some interesting questions though none that couldn't be hashed out.
I'm all for people pursuing their happiness as they see fit. Many opposed will point to negative data about such arrangements but I'd bet they'd likely be the result of problems with the PEOPLE involved rather than the structure of the families.
7 - Keep the Facts Straight
A couple corrections need to be made here.
First, polygamy is either polygyny or polyandry. The author's differentiation is only between those two subsets of polygamy. It is not very accurate to say "polygamy and polyandry" - it is either polygamy alone or it is the two subsets.
Second, as anyone who can quickly see, not only is the "Polygamy.com" site NOT an "organization" and is not doing anything at all, the site is nothing more than an old site that has not been updated in years and years.
Except in rare cases, most polygamists are only looking for de-criminalization with marriage as a civil right just because government has no real constitutional authority to define marriage one way or another. Government has no constitutional authority to define marriage at all, whether for one man one woman marriage, for "same sex marriage" or for polygamy. The government that is allowed to define marriage as one man one woman is just as much authorized to later define it as "same sex marriage" or anything else. It is ironic how the party of limited government (Republicans) turns into the party of big government (Democrats) on the marriage issue, and they do not see that obvious fact.
For real details of what real pro-polygamists are doing in real time currently, see these sites:
Pro-Polygamy.com
A media site of op-eds and press releases that has been mentioned in the Wall Street Journal
TruthBearer.org
An actual organization of activists that
has been reported on Pat Roberton's 700 Club and other media outlets
Those 2 sites also include links pages to more activist sites.
8 - Winston Jen
OK, Polyman, how do you account for all the homosexuality occuring naturally amongst other animals in nature?
9 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Keep the Facts Straight, thank you for the clarifying the terminology and for contributing your perspective of the issue.
I visited both Pro-Polygamy.com and TruthBearer.org, but I was looking for something more secular and diverse. The literature over at Polygamy.com includes the Christian perspective as well as many others.
The purpose of the article, however, is to point out that the fight for the recognition of same-sex marriage is not the same as the one for the recognition of plural or group marriage because the marriage laws are designed for pairs and would be unworkable for groups of three or more.
10 - copperpenny1954
Mentioning books, try "Under The Banner Of Heaven". Websites, go to Tapestry.com
11 - Principle Voices
Great post! We at It is true that the same sex marriage issue is about gender neutrality. The similarities between the same-sex marriage issue and polygamous relationships is that both have been considered "criminal" (albeit in varying degrees from state to state), at least until Lawrence v. Texas decriminalized private, adult sexual conduct. That recognition of privacy with regard to adult sexual conduct should be applied to polygamous relationships as well, in that consenting adult, committed relationships that are polygamous in nature should not be criminal. Whether or not they should be formalized with legal recognition is a separate issue.
The authors of Voices in Harmony can be found at www.principlevoices.org, which is an organization that disseminates educational materials and information to the public, the state, and to the polygamous communities, and advocates for the empowerment of plural families to have a voice in policy-making and social activism.
12 - Lono
my wife and practive polyandry. She handles most of it, really. I pitch in with towels and socks and stuff though.
13 - Jewels
Polyandry, I seriously have considered the incredible benefits. Have the individuals in question in-line. One already snagged. Yep.
14 - Modern Polygamy
Multiple husbands can get more complicated than multiple wives. "Not tonight honey I have a headache." x5 "Who is your daddy?" Although having multiple incomes would be nice. However, if you are christian the Bible clearly puts the husband at the head of the household. That is not to say that the wives don't have a crucial role in the relationship. To think of them as servants is just wrong.
15 - Bob A. Booey
Marriage is a sham, an archaic legal construct that artificially defines relationships. The only reason to do it is if you want to have kids.
I don't see why people would want to marry one person, much less multiple people.
The only reason to marry more than one person might be if your spouse was infertile, but polygamy sounds weird. Most psychologist types seem to think it's hard enough to have one successful relationship or marriage, much less several. People get jealous, which is why you shouldn't have threesomes either by the way (not that anyone reading this will ever have to worry).
And I hope my girlfriend never reads this and asks me "Who the hell is Bob A. Booey?"
That is all.
16 - Investigating Life
Apparently, the author did not read the Pro-Polygamy.com site, despite comments to the contrary. It is a general, secular site that goes to the mass secular media.
The "different" views of other religions on Polygamy.com is little more than oudated copied stuff that does not reflect other views at all. It is only a site thrown up quickly years ago and does not reflect all polygamous views or "diversity" as the author here wants to imply.
If a legitimate author is going to present the issue, they should present legitimate sites. There is no credibility for an author to simply type "polygamy.com" in a browser and then saying, "There! I have my resource because I found a site by that one simple word."
17 - Investigating Life
For those needing real homework:
Mormon
MormonPolygamy.com
PrincipleVoices.org
18 - Investigating Life
Christian
TruthBearer.org
ChristianPolygamy.INFO
19 - Investigating Life
Secular
Pro-Polygamy.com
2Wives.com
20 - lgil
I need real practical information. I am considering secular plural marriage and want to investigate the day to day challenges of this kind of situation. I want to know how most marriages work out the sexual intimacy issues on a daily basis. How do they work out jealousy issues? What are sleeping arrangements etc....
21 - Dave Nalle
You might want to look to the Moslem scholarship on the subject since many Moslem countries allow polygamy with up to four wives. I believe studies have been done on the family dynamics of these relationships.
Dave
22 - Anthony Grande
Legalize polygamy AND elect Rommey as president then move our capital to Salt Lake City as long as we overturn Roe v. Wade and give states the RIGHT TO CHOOSE abortion for themeselves.