A bit of an argument has erupted among my closest blog neighbors over the question of gay marriage and polygamy. It began with Jon Rowe's post last month in which he argued that the arguments for gay marriage do not necessarily lead logically to the acceptance of polygamous marriages. Jon was not arguing that we should ban polygamous marriages, only that there are meaningful differences between gay marriages and polygamous marriages that could legitimately be cited to justify accepting gay marriages but not polygamy. The money quote, as Jon called it himself:
Note that the grounds for prohibiting polygamy seem entirely different than the ones for prohibiting same-sex marriage. But the two are related in this sense: We outlaw polygamy for precisely the same policy reason why we would demand the recognition of gay marriage: the meaningful chance for any individual to marry a person they love.
Jason Kuznicki then wrote a few days ago that he agreed with Jon entirely and he cites another blogger who argues that polygamous relationships are not really consensual, as they are based on power imbalances, and often involve those who are not yet adults. Kuznicki writes:
Many have written on this question from a purely theoretical standpoint; for example, there is Jon Rowe, who argues that we forbid polygamy for exactly the same reason that we should allow same-sex marriage, namely that two-person gender-blind marriages offer each person in society the best chance of finding a compatible mate. Restricting marriage by gender--or allowing a few powerful individuals to eat up more than their share of potential mates--does everyone else a disservice.
And now along comes Sandefur to disagree with both of them. He writes:
The reason for recognition of gay marriage is that if two men wish to be married, that violates nobody else's rights, and therefore I don't have the right to stop them. (Well, that's the rough version.) If that theory is correct, then the exact same thing goes for consensual adult polygamy: a person certainly should be free to marry any person he loves, who is also a willing participant.Note that the only argument that Rowe (or Jason Kuznicki) seems to be able to come up with against polygamy is to say that it isn't really consensual. Well, that might be true, but that begs the question. The relevant proposition is: consenting adults should be free to arrange their marriages as they see fit, so long as it violates nobody else's rights. Pointing to child exploitation in no way contradicts that proposition--indeed, it is perfectly consistent with it. Now, if in practice it turns out that there is no such thing as consensual polygamy, then polygamy would be banned, no problem. But if there is consensual polygamy, the state should not interfere with it.
I have to side with Sandefur on this one. The argument for gay marriage has nothing to do with the utility of gay marriage. Jon argues that "if widespread polygamy is allowed, its most common form will be one-man, many women and this invariably leads to large numbers of men without mates" and that "widespread polygamy invariably equates with significant numbers of males with no female mates. That is unfair and wrong. And that's what we seek to avoid by outlawing polygamy." Now I realize that Jon isn't really making an argument that this is sufficent to maintain a consistent position against polygamy or that polygamy should therefore be outlawed, but it still strikes me as a flimsy argument that doesn't even begin to engage the real argument for both polygamy and gay marriage. Sandefur correctly points out that the real argument for allowing both polygamy and gay marriage is that adults should be able to order their relationships as they see fit so long as those choices do not deprive another person of their rights or harm them directly in some way. And anyone who would seriously argue that polygamy should be banned because it would mean some men wouldn't be able to get a woman would justifiably be laughed at.
I don't think it does any good to try to come up with some rationale that would allow us to continue to ban polygamy while supporting gay marriage, especially when the rationale is this flimsy. I think Sandefur is right to agree with the conservative critics of gay marriage that acceptance of the premises of gay marriage also leads logically to acceptance of the legality of polygamy. I also agree with Jason, however, that the situation with polygamy is a heck of a lot more complex in terms of how you make a workable set of laws to govern such things as guardianship decisions, inheritence, insurance coverage, and so forth. As a practical matter, there is a lot more to do to pave the way for polygamous marriage than for gay marriage. But I do believe that, just like gay couples, those in consensual polygamous relationships have the right to form those relationships without government interference, regardless of whether I think they are a good idea or not. I think polygamous marriage is a very bad choice; I also believe that consenting adults have every right to make bad choices that don't harm me in any way.
- Log in to post comments
Instead of focusing on just the Mormon variety, we should look at the Arab variety as well. In that situation, most men still don't have multiple wives, for the simple reason that they can't afford them. Mohammed said that a man can have up to four wives _as long as_ he can support them and give them all enough attention.
If people expect the government to subsidize their lifestyle, I say they can shove it. Do what you want, but don't expect me to pay for you when you can't support the thirty kids your wives have popped out.
I think polygamy is inherently unworkable simply for it's complexities.
How DO you handle power of attorney, for instance?
Gay marriage fits right into the standard marriage contract. All you have to do is make the language gender-neutral, and it works just fine.
Polygamy....I don't think you CAN make a standard polygamous marriage contract. I think you'd have to customize it for each marriage.
I can see removing laws making it illegal, but actually handling it would probably require an attorney to sort out the issues.
Polygamy is the kind of thing that should only show up in one of two circumstances: A large imbalance between the male and female population, or an extreme imbalance in male wealth and power. Polygamy is only seen in societies which exhibit one of those two traits. Otherwise, it's not a winning proposition. I'm not sure how this impacts the debate on polygamy's legality, but in this country at least, the issue is probably moot for all but a few isolated subcultures.
Morat is right. The trouble with polygamy is that it's complex and unworkable. If the state licenses polygamous marital relationships, it becomes responsible for overseeing their dissolution. If you have 39 spouses and 117 children, to throw out a random but not implausible figure, how do you deal with issues such as property division, child custody, visitation, support and alimony? Whose taxes are going to pay for expanding the court system to handle such legal nightmares? It's bad enough with 2 spouses. There has to be a practical limit on the number of parties to a marriage contract. Two, as in the number of people it takes to produce offspring with their own claims on the marital estate, seems eminently reasonable. I'll gladly pay for that, but no more.
Just because something is complex, dosen't mean it should be illegal. Think about how corporations work. There are so many little business regulations and loopholes that if you ever open up a corporate law book, it'll make your head hurt. Yet, we still let them do business... I would have to group "but it'd be so complicated" into the flimsy rationale category, right along with "but some guys wouldn't get chicks". Sorry, it just don't float. I also think that if a decent amount of effort was put into it, with feedback from those in such relationships, a set of workable guidelines could be drawn up fairly quickly and easily. A lot of supposed problems with a system like that are overestimated.
If polygamy were to be legalized, I would argue that a legal polygamous marriage would have to be agreed to by all parties. Or to put it another way, a woman who marries a maried man has to also marry his wife. (Likewise if a man married a married woman.)
There are two arguments for gay marriage that don't apply to polygamy, but they may not be strong enough to justify the outlawing of polygamy while allowing same-sex marriage. The first (which Jon Rowe brings up) is that homosexuality is a separate and distinct orientation from heterosexuality (we'll ignore bisexuality for a moment). There is no such thing as a polygamous orientation (i.e., those who prefer polygamy can also enter into standard male/female relationships). Truly homosexual people (Kinsey 6's) cannot form a valid heterosexual marriage. If we accept the idea that marriage is important both for societal stability and for maximizing human potential (as Jonathan Rauch notes in his wonderful book), then the existing marriage laws prevent completely homosexual people from entering those relationships. The Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a fundamental civil right (which is why convicted murderers are allowed to marry but not vote) so the refusal to recognize gay marriages is a violation of this fundamental civil right for homosexuals - that is not true for the polygamously-inclined.
The second, and related argument, is that the human species is NOT divided into male and female. Although intersexed people are rare (estimates in the US are between 75,000 and 150,000), they do exist, and they cannot be put into one gender category. Thus one man/one woman marriage laws prevent these people from entering into any valid marriage, as they are neither male nor female. More importantly, intersexed people are able to marry now, because there are no genetic tests required when a marriage license is issued, but these marriages have not harmed society, so the arguments about same-sex marriage lose some power.
I have long thought the intersexed were the best means of achieving gay marriage rights. This is a strategy similar to that followed by some feminist lawyers, like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who used the lack of fairness of certain laws (e.g., Social Security survivor benefits) to men in order to codify gender neutrality into the law.
"that the situation with polygamy is a heck of a lot more complex in terms of how you make a workable set of laws to govern such things as guardianship decisions, inheritence, insurance coverage, and so forth"
This is exactly why polygamous marriage is a contradiction in terms. The whole point of marriage, qua legal status, is to eliminate the need for contracts and complex laws, not to create a legal bramble bush. Marriage as a concept is meant to make things simpler. A marriage concept that makes things more complicated is nonsensical.
I think that this quote from Tim is the sticking points for me:
The reason for recognition of gay marriage is that if two men wish to be married, that violates nobody else's rights, and therefore I don't have the right to stop them.
Civil marriage by definition doesn't exist without the state's blessing. Consenting adults can have sex in whatever manner they like, and there's no state involvement necessary (or desired, I would hope). Religious marriage falls within the same sphere, I think. Sure, hold the hand of whoever you want, chant some words, yadda-yadda, whatever makes you feel good. Civil marriage is something else. It's a funky, special kind of contract the state offers to two individuals. I think one can argue an equal protection violeation if the state tries to tell one consenting adult that he can't enter into a contract with another consenting adult. That is, the issue for me is not whether a same-sex marriage violates someone else's rights, but whether it is constitutional for the state to offer a significant contractual benefit to man-woman pairings and not man-man or woman-woman, without any rationale beyond moral disapproval.
The question on polygamy for me is whether the social conservative's mantra of "redefining" marriage applies to polygamy as well as gay marriage. That is, if we argue that forcing the state to allow man-man and woman-woman pairings in the civil marriage contract is not a fundamental change in the nature of the contract, can others argue that forcing the state to allow triplings or "quadings" or whatever is not a fundamental change in the nature of the contract. I tend to think that, unlike gay marriage, polygamous marriage would constitute a complete annihilation of the concept of the equitable two-party contract that is civil marriage. But I'm still iffy.
I take your point Enigma, but there are many instances in which contractual arrangements will not be enforced due to needless complexity and collateral consequences. The state has no obligation to enforce contracts or other business arrangements that conflict with a rational public policy. Courts and legislatures draw such distinctions all the time. Polygamous marriage is likely to be a prohibitively expensive pain-in-the-ass to any state that might choose to license such arrangements. It is a perfectly rational public policy choice not to license such marriages. There really does have to be a limit. Where would you draw the line, Enigma? What if the entire adult population of Terre Haute, Indiana got married? How the hell would the state manage that? You license something, you own it.
If you have 39 spouses and 117 children, to throw out a random but not implausible figure, how do you deal with issues such as property division, child custody, visitation, support and alimony? Whose taxes are going to pay for expanding the court system to handle such legal nightmares?
Most of the conversation here has revolved around one-man/many-women polygamy, which has certainly been the most common by precidence. However, our enlightenment towards gender equality (if not gender identity equality) would mandate the posiblity of many-men/one-woman polygamy (or the more diverse many-men/many-women posibility).
You think custody battles are hard now, just wait until you have to deal with a woman with several husbands, any of whom could be the father of any one of her kids. Now you've got to DNA test the whole lot just to sort it out. Imagine if they had to deal with that problem before DNA testing technologies. Yikes!
Confusatives/amerinazis have been trying to USE the Bible in their argument that marriage consists of one man and one woman. That's the view of people who doesn't read the Bible, and don't know what they're talking about.
Though, of course, the Bible doesn't say it's okay for two men or two women to get married, it doesn't back up the neocomms either. Many of the leading figures in the Bible had more than one wife.
When presented with this fact, the confusatives assert, "Well, God implied through the hardships of Abraham, Jacob and King David that polygamy is not okay."
What crap. God doesn't imply what He wants, He commands it. Proscriptions against polygamy are not in the Bible.
In Jesus' Glorious and Holy name,
Dean Berry -- REAL American
I hate to tell you this, but so long as we cannot distinguish between same-sex marriage and polygamy, same-sex marriage will forever be a losing issue.
To my mind, though, the distinction is clear: One would be trivially easy to implement. The other would be nearly impossible. And politics, as we all know, is the art of the possible.
To my mind, though, the distinction is clear: One would be trivially easy to implement. The other would be nearly impossible. And politics, as we all know, is the art of the possible.
Well said, Jason. As always, you crystallize the nebulous.
I hate to tell you this, but so long as we cannot distinguish between same-sex marriage and polygamy, same-sex marriage will forever be a losing issue.
Even if that was true, and I don't think it is, I don't think it requires that I be intellectually dishonest (which is not meant to imply that you are being so). I really do think that at least the reasons why I support gay marriage also require me to think that polygamy ought to be legal.
To my mind, though, the distinction is clear: One would be trivially easy to implement. The other would be nearly impossible. And politics, as we all know, is the art of the possible.
I have no doubt this is true, I just don't think it has anything to do with the reasons why I support gay marriage. For me, freedom is the imperative and imperatives don't yield so easily to practical considerations. People can make practical arguments against gay marriage as well, but I don't find those arguments compelling in that case either.
I think that homosexual marriage and relations are immoral in the Christian tradition. Also, I think it is difficult to impossible to have ethical standards without religion. In the West both Christian Ethics and Marriage are on the decline. In this context polygamous marriage, homosexual marriage, marriage between parent & adult children or among siblings is fine. All these individuals have the Liberty to engage in the relationships that they wish to. This is the logic of Lawrence v. Texas and the entire Enlightenment tradition that puts autonomous adult individuals in charge of their lives. The Supreme Court (I think) has been legislating from the bench. All this means that marriage is increasingly meaningless.
Most human cultures are polygamous. They are no great social or legal complexity is establishing polygamous relationships. For example, 33% of all births are without benefit of marriage. A male can and does impregnate multiple woman already. We are already 60% of the way to a formal recognition. A polygamous marriage can be no worse then female headed households.
You have to look at the history of marriage. The Catholics banned polygamy (a very strange decision, historically the West was the first civilization to ban polygamy) and considered marriage a sacrament. The reformation stated that marriage was a covenant. Civil courts replaced church courts and civil law replaced cannon law. A covenant was more then a contract. It was life-long commitment among the Couple, their parents, children, God, and the community. However, when the covenant was broken (by desertion or adultery) the innocent party could dissolve the covenant. In the late 1800s the US Supreme Court banned Mormon Polygamy on the grounds that it violated Christian morality. The Husband was the head of this marriage relationship. In the US and the West, the Enlightenment shifted the basis of marriage from covenant to contract. Coverture ended and marriage increasingly became a contract between equals. This shift was gradual, but was finalized by 1970 with No-Fault Divorce. Basically, a husband or the wife can terminate a marriage at will for any or no reason. The lawyers added the notion of marital property with this change to No-Fault divorce. Previously, property was owned by who every had the Title. Now all property acquired during a Marriage is considered marital. Contract law is stronger then family law, a person has more contractual protections when he or she buys Toaster from a Store.
Husbands are the not the heads of families. Parental consent is not required. Wives do not have to provide sex within marriage, and most states now recognized marital rape, wives do not have to move with their husbands. The Husband has a duty to support the wife, but the wife has a duty to support her Husband. In most states fornication is not a crime. Birth control cannot be limited. Abortion is legal, although males are now responsible for children they conceive and the woman decides to carry to term. In around 1/3 of states Adultery is not a crime and not to be considered in a divorce settlement.
These legal changes followed massive social changes in the West. I think the major social reasons for the change in marriage has been: /
1.Control of Fertility (birth control and abortion), and the lower birth rates
2.Lower Child Mortality
3.Production moves outside the Home, first men and then women become specialized
4.Greater Female Labor Participation, closing the income gap with males, and the ability to own property
The results are clear 33% of births occur without marriage and the divorce rate of first marriages is around 44%. Around 70% of these divorces are initiated by women. The effects on children are uniformly bad. Around 12% of kids from intact families get in serious trouble, over 25% of kids from divorced families get into serious trouble.
There is the interesting policy consideration the most attractive men would have most woman and thus leave unmated males. This was an issue in the Mormon experience. The Germanic tribes tended to enforce monogamy so that each man could have a wife. However, with divorce and prostitution, this problem can be solved. The value of women should increase in the arrangement as men bid for their services. The same problem occurs with any scarce "good." If rich men buy all the BMWs, there will be many men without BMWs. This is just the way the world works. The lower income men can share a wife, pay for a wife, hire a prostitute, etc. Market arrangement should allow people to "buy" the mates they want. Each individual involved can terminate the arrangements when they no longer work for him or her and/or a better alternative becomes available. In point of fact this is already the world we live in. Gay marriage can only is an issue when Christian Marriage is almost dead. You can argue that certain relationships are bad, like collusion in pricing or monopolies. But I do not see a legal or ethical basis, except the inertia of Christian tradition.
In the US marriage law, marriage is mainly a Contract. The idea of marriage as a status was dealt a fatal blow with the end of Coverture. States do establish a default will between spouses that will override an individual's will. But, this can be changed via contract (pre or post-nuptial agreement) or by a divorce. Contacts trump any status considerations between adults. Marriage obligations are unenforceable. No court has every said a husband has to give a wife X dollars or that wife must provide sex. People will live together until one of them decides not to. All the courts concern themselves with is on what terms to end a marriage. The courts have three decisions:
1. Identification and Division of Marital Property
2. Alimony Award (if any) and its Duration.
3. Child Custody and Child Support Award (handled via tables relative to parental income)
Contact Law could handle #1 and #2; parental agreement or court decisions would handle #3 (Custody). Once Custody is determined, Child support is a Table Look-up. The tables are designed to consider all the children that a Parent has a legal obligation to support. This is a by-product of a 33% illegitimacy rate. From a legal perspective polygamy is not a problem. I do not see any legal problems with polygamy, except for the bigamy laws. But we have already established that individual's liberty interests trump the states ability to define what marriage is. I do not know if the Supreme Court will follow up on the logic of its reasoning, the court does pay some attention to elections, but the above is clearly the case. The supporting cultural changes will be harder to come by, but given the end of Christian morality, post-modern "tolerance," and the vast human experience with polygamy, the cultural changes should come. How can you prevent people from choosing what they jointly want??
There is the more general issue of Ethnics (accepting a higher order then one's own desires) in the functioning of a stable social order. I do not thing what we have in terms of "marriage" can last more then 40 to 70 years, but I do not have a clear idea of what might replace it. It most likely will involve a Technical Singularity and/or Religion. .
I think we need to distinguis between marriage in the religious sense and marriage in the legal sense.
If two people choose to go through a religious ceremony and call themselves "married" in a purely religious sense I don't see that there is any reasonable way that that could be prevented. Equally if a religious organisation refuses to hold such a ceremony for a couple I do not see that it should be compelled to reverse that decision.
However that does not extend to the legal status of marriage. What is needed here, I think, is a clear statement of the purpose of marriage as a legal status. On the basis of that we can determine if it is reasonable to allow gay marriages of polygamous marriages. What is required is valid reasoning, consistently applied.
However, I will add, that I do not see how gay marriages could be reasonably forbidden without significant restrictions on heterosexual marriage. Polygamy is a different situation altogether, but my feeling is that if women are being exploited it is better to give them as many of the legal protections currently associated with marriage as we can - even if that means legal recognition of polygamous marriages..
People can make practical arguments against gay marriage as well.
Well, what would be an example of such a practical argument, and how would it stack up against the manifest and manifold practical considerations against licensing polygamy? Gay marriage and polygamy may be difficult to distinguish in a moral sense, but practically speaking, they are indeed apples and oranges. One can easily fit into the prexisting legal framework, while the other would require a massive and costly legislative and judicial overhaul, with vanishingly small prospects of success. People are free to enter into all sorts of contractual arrangements, but they are not necessarily entitled to call upon the state to enforce them. Inefficient, impracticable contracts do not get their day in court. That's just the way it is. It's called resource allocation.
To clarify my point, I do not think the government ought to prosecute people for living in ceremonially blessed aggregations of 3 or more adults and calling themselves married. I just don't think such people necessarily have the right to call upon the limited resources of the state to sort out the inevitable problems that are unique to such relationships and do not exist in binary marriages.
Does this make any sense?:
Allowing a person the right to have multiple spouses in law would be okay so long as each of that person's spouses had the same right, otherwise the husband(for example) gets a right that his wives(for example) don't: the right to marry more than one person. Every person should have the right to the same number of spouses, and that number is currently "1". This number does not currently disadvantage anyone over anyone else, and there is no reason to change it.
There are some very goods points here, most of which I had never considered. But the law frequently draws arbitrary lines:
drinking age: 21 years old.
vote: 18 years old.
One can only be a citizen of 1 state at a time (i.e. I cannot be a citizen of both Ohio AND Michigan simultaneously - I only get 1 domicile).
driving age: 16.
So why not say you only get 1 spouse?
besides, 2 or more wives? Wouldn't that constitute cruel and unusual punishment?
I hate to tell you this, but so long as we cannot distinguish between same-sex marriage and polygamy, same-sex marriage will forever be a losing issue.
As long as you're willing to allow them to define the issue, you're probably correct. But, on the other hand, one might define the issue in another manner that might be more to your liking. FOr example, one might say the same thing about opposite-sex marriage. That is, as long as we cannot distinguish between opposite-sex marriage ("OSM") and polygamy, OSM will forever be a losing issue. (I'll use hereinafter "SSM" as an abbreviation for "same-sex marriage" and "OSM as a abbreviation for "opposite-sex marriage.) I've seen this SSM->polygamy ("->" means "leads to") on more message boards and wing-nut web sites than I can count. But let's get something--uh--straight. One doesn't need SSM->polygamy. It is quite the case that OSM->polygamy. I understand that the wingnuts would like to suggest that "oh, if we allow OSM, then that will lead to polygamy, people marrying their pets, people marrying their cars, and the sky falling." What they apparently wish to ignore is the fact that "oh, if we allow SSM, that will lead to polygamy, etc, and the sky falling." Quite frankly, if one believes what is written in the Bible, polygamy--of an OSM sort--existed long before monogamy, so it is quite clearly the fact that if we allow OSM, we will have polygamy. One might seriously wonder why they ignore that issue.
But are the opponents of OSM suggesting doing away with OSM because it might lead to polygamy, people marrying their pets, people marrying their cars, or the sky falling? Decidedly, NO. As far as they're concerned, OSM is fine and dandy with them. But to more of a few of them, SSM is not. One might seriously wonderwhy
On the other hand, if the issue is framed--as I usually frame it--what is the rational basis for government refusing to give legal recognition to relationships of same-sex couples (so-called "gay-marriage") on the same basis that it gives legal recognition to relationships of opposite-sex couples (so-called "marriage")(NB: anyone paying attention would know that this is the least restrictive issue regarding the 14th amendment's equal protection clause), the issue becomes a bit different, doesn't it? It suggests that those who want to deny state recognition have to come up with some rationale for the discrimination. The only rationale that anyone has come up with is the procreation and child rearing issue, but that has been shot down more times than I can count. So, the only rationale for denying SSM is bigotry, and that's a topic for another comment.
Regarding Andy's "You have to look at the history of marriage. The Catholics banned polygamy (a very strange decision, historically the West was the first civilization to ban polygamy)" give me a break. Polygamy had been banned in ancient Greece and Rome long before the Catholics came around. Or the Christians, for that matter.
On the issue of polygamy, it should be noted that the US Supreme Court actually did weigh in on the issue. In 1878, in Reynolds v. US. Relevant portions of the opinion can be found at http://members.aol.com/testoath/Reynolds.htm There are a number of interesting issues regarding that case. A minor issue is that, as should be clear, the US Congress has the plenary power to legislate in regards the territories--in contrast to the states. On the point of this post, the Court recognized evidence suggesting regarding polygamous societies, which is relevant to the equal protection issue:
Two points in relation to SSM regarding that. One, it should be fairly evident that the same issue would not arise in connection with SSM. A second issue is that, irrespective of the fact that one might take issue with that evidence now, is there any evidence to suggest that it is erroneous? Maybe the proponents of polygamous relationships might want to take the issue up with the relevant authorities. If they believe that they have been discriminated against, more power to them. I express no opinion on the issue.
In the West both Christian Ethics and Marriage are on the decline. In this context polygamous marriage, homosexual marriage, marriage between parent & adult children or among siblings is fine.
While we are struggling to differentiate polygamy and SSM arguments, there is a clear rationale for not allowing incestuous marriages. One of the key benefits and results of marriage is that the state recognizes a family relationship based not on blood, but on the contract (adoption is the other way the state can recognize non-blood relatives as family). For these purposes, there is no need to allow incestuous marriages because the parents and children are already related through the recognition of blood relatives. Hospital visitation rights, inheritence rights, all confer based on blood relations without the need for marriage.
The only distinction between blood families and married families is in the tax code - two blood relatives cannot submit a joint tax return - but that could be handled through the tax code, and would not require the creation of incestuous marriage rights.
As far as polygamy being practically unworkable, I think of Robert A. Heinlein's "line marriage" from "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress." It was essentially a family corporation. There could be any number of husbands or wives and all decisions were made democratically. It was mainly a way to preserve capital and provide a stable environment to raise children in a harsh, though rule-of-law based society.
Keith: Very entertaining in a book, very useless in real life.
Power of attorney and child custody issues would break that badly.....or require a lengthy and well-thought out prenuptial agreement worked out in detail with a lawyer.
The problem with polygamy is pretty simple: You can't make a "One sized fits all" legal solution like you can with marriage or gay marriage. Each polygamous marriage would be a nest of unique legal issues and problems.
As I said before: I'm fine with getting rid of laws making it illegal, but creating an actual polygamous marriage would require a great deal of custom legal work for each marriage.
The conditions are all spelled out by the compact that creates the line marriage in the first place. You only opt-in if you agree with the rules. I don't see how it really affects power-of-attorney. Instead of an individual having power of attorney, the majority decision of the remaining husbands and wives have the say. While I am sure there would be exceptions and disputes, its not like there are none of these issues in monogamous marriages.
How did communes and Israeli Kibbutz', or even the Shakers handle these kinds of issues?
Love the discussion. I will consider the points made after my Post and Respond. Polygamy has existed in the majority of human cultures. The West is the historical exception. In fact I think monogomy was important in establishing the individual (vs the family) as the basic unit of social action. The West developed the notion of childhood, which is the foundation of the Individual.
A Greek or Roman man could have only One primary Wife, but he could have as many concubines (Secondary Wives) as he wanted. Any slave in his household also was his sexual property. The Jews permitted polygamy until around 1500 AD. The gradual Christian insistence on no concubines or sexual access to slaves was a dramatic change. This is in part why ancient women found Christainity attractive, their status was much better.
Following the reasoning of Lawrence v. Texas and both the Vermont and Mass. Courts people have a liberty interest in gay sex or marriage. I do not see that the state has any rationale to prevent any interested parties in getting married and being recognized by the state. This includes adult siblings, parents and children or N adult people. This would make marriage meaningless, but this is what happens when you put individual autonomy above God's moral order. We are already well down this path.
The decision in Reynolds was based on God's Law.
"Congress, in 1862 (12 Stat. 501), saw fit to make bigamy a crime in the Territories. This was done because of the evil consequences that were supposed to flow from plural marriages. .... The fact of the matter is, America's laws were based on the Bible, and the Court ruled in those terms."
As Lawrence v. Texas (see: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html and the whole range of decisions on the Separation of Church and State demonstrate, the Supreme court has determined that God's Law does not apply to the US Constitution or any State Law
In many states today First cousins can get married. This is a common marriage form in Arab cultures. A blood relationship does not prevent a marriage one on any rationale grounds. Adult children can marry their parents; there is no compelling state interest to prevent this (perhaps bad taste in violating the incest taboo, but again this is no worse then gay marriage)
The arguments that Polygamy is impractical do not make sense. It has been a common arrangement throughout history, by defintion it has always been practical. The division of property, alimony, and child custody/support are currently worked out on the basis of Court decisions, not any status relationship. There is no reason why the courts could not decide these issues for a polygamous marriage or that the people involved can decide it themselves. They cannot contract away their child support obligations, but the State tables already outline what they are. These child support obligations apply to non-married parents and would equally apply to polygamous parents who divorced.
Admittedly, Group relationships are more complex, but not hugely so. We already have firms, baseball teams, departments, etc. that are much more complex legally. The problem is mainly one of social norms. The Christian nations do not have a tradition of polygamous marriage. We are not sure how to make it work. However, the same applies to gay marriage. We can and most likely will work it out via trial and error. It will be no worse then what we have today and might even be better.
I do not think that college educated women will Not be interested in polygamy. They have a wide range of options. However, for non-college educated women there are a wide range of advantages to Polygamy, assuming the contract terms can be enforced. I think African-American women and immigrant women would find many advantages in long-term access to the resources and support of a higher status male and the cooperation of sister-wives. We already see the beginnings of this in our current serial polygamy. More affluent men get married faster after divorce and to much younger women. The key issue is one of norms, not law. Hence, it will most likely take a polygamous church (e.g., the Mormons to spearhead this issue. The women of NOW will go nuts, but they do not have a rational leg to stand on. Free choice amoung consenting adults is hard to stop and applies to both gays and polygamists.
A related outcome is that more marriages become meaningless and unstable because the state and society have to why to enforce their terms. There is no good way to enforce a monogmous, gay or polygamous marriage (See God's law above). As noted previously this is why the first marriage divorce rate went from 5% to 45% in the 20th century, around 50% of all pregnancies end in Abortion, and illegitimacy went from 4% to 33% of all births.
Marriage is not a Status, because once entered either party can break this "status" for any reason. A true Status relationship is not subject to voluntary ending; it can only be violated. There is no idea of Fault in modern marriage. Marriage is currently a very limited contract right. The obligations its defines are operative only until one person decides to end the marriage.
Instead of an individual having power of attorney, the majority decision of the remaining husbands and wives have the say. While I am sure there would be exceptions and disputes, its not like there are none of these issues in monogamous marriages.
So if you're in a coma, and Wife A says "He'd want me to pull the plug" and Wife B says "He'd want to fight for life" who gets to decide?
While you can drag out damn near anything in court if you have enough money (see the Shaivo case in Florida), the law is still pretty clear on who gets to make the decisions. Claiming power of attorney and the right to make medical decisions is a "group decision" sounds wonderful, but what about deadlocks? What about when, say, you have a committed minority dragging it through court? They'd have a hell of a lot more standing than Shaivo's parents, for one.
Then, of course, comes the fun of divorce -- how much of the marital assets are "yours" in a polygamous divorce? What if one of the husbands is being "divorced" by the other husband and both wives?
What if two people are being kicked out by three others? Do you now have one regular marriage and one triad?
Like I said -- it sounds REALLY good on paper, but would crumble quickly at the first snag. Hence the need for a lawyer -- probably several -- to have a fair polygamous marriage. Basically, you'd need an iron-clad prenup from hell just to get the damn thing working right, spelling out how to handle damn near every eventuality -- from child custory and power of attorney to how every possible permutation of divorce or death is handled.
It depends on the rules of the compact. In Heinlein's novel, these issues were settled by seniority, the wife that had been in the relationship the longest would get to break the tie.
Polygamy as practiced in the USA is notable for the lack of rights women have in these arrangements. It is difficult to get a divorce if one is not in a recognized marriage. If these women were really married to to their husbands, polygamous marriage would no longer hold much attraction for the men. One divorce is bad enought; consider the effect on a man to undergo serial divorces.
The way to end polygamy might be to actually legalize it.
Something that I've yet to see discussed with regards to polygamy is the genetic factor.
conceivably, (er, no pun intended, really!) polygamy results in a larger pool of genetically related individuals who cannot (for both legal and genetic reasons) reproduce.
Half-siblings are prohibited by law from marrying partially on the assumption that children of such marriages are more likely to suffer from detrimental reinforcement of "bad" genetic traits.
If you have a community of polygamous families, the chances inbreeding increase much more dramtically within 2 or three generations.
I suppose that the diversity is increased by the multiple number of geneticly diverse mothers (assuming a polygynous culture), thus mitigating reinforcement of negative traits.
Any genticist out there who can project the amount of inbreeding in a community of say 100 polygamous families?
I dunno, but limiting one half of the gentic input of one half of the baby-making equation (the males, in this case) can't be good. It increases the chances of consanguinity through the father's side of the family remarkably. Especially if the first generation has a high ratio of brothers.
I admit to being woefully ignorant of the mathmatics and gentics of such a situation. Am I barking up the wrong tree?
Jean Dudley.
What about the American Myth of the possibility of becoming rich if you work hard enough? The reality is that there are incredibly few self-made millionaires, and that the vast majority of incredibly rich became wealthy not through their own ingenuity, but by exploiting workers at low wages, or by inheriting the wealth of their fathers who had gotten wealthy on the backs of others.
Polygamy could be propped up with a similar myth: Only the very best males are worthy of passing on their genes, or having multiple wives.
As long as women are a commodity, polygamy will be of the polygynous variety.
On the flip side of that, I've read accounts of Muslim women in polygamous situations who work together with their sister-wives to put pressure on the single male as a means of obtaining some power in the relationship. However, I suspect that is anecdotal, and that divisiveness is more the norm between wives than solidarity.
Polygamy of the polygynous sort is an extreme example of a culture that devalues women, reducing them to commodities to be collected. In a divisive household, the male must hold enough power to subjugate all of his wives. In a united household, he holds almost no power at all against the united face of all his wives.
I think it's important to note that Mohammed stipulated that each wife must have her own house.
This is mainly about cousins, but it addresses your issue:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/041001.html