Polygamy, And Its Discontents

The college roundtable discussion continues (after an interlude which I did not post) regarding the touchy subject of whether gay marriage will eventually lead to the widespread acceptance of polygamy:

Friend 1 opens:

I’m kind of proud of this idea I had, which predicts that legalization of polygamy should follow on the heels of gay marriage. I didn’t read it or see it on TV; it’s my own thought. I’ve bounced it off of several of my friends, who generally agree with it. I wasn’t sure what you guys would think.

Both of you immediately locked polygamy into a conceptual model of Mormon male domination of under-age wives. However, I was not thinking so narrowly. Some years ago I did have an acquaintance with a polygamous trio. It was composed of a man, his legal wife, and a second woman who shared their house, bed, and finances. The three of them acknowledged that only two of them were legally bound, but nevertheless thought and spoke of themselves as being in a three-way marriage. The legal wife was bisexual, the second woman was lesbian, and the guy liked sleeping with two women. Are they still together? I rather doubt it. I do know that they were consenting adults, they were secular, they each were economically self sufficient, and they each got something out of the “marriage”.

The legalization of gay marriage, if enacted, would involve a re-definition of the purpose of marriage, an institution which is thousands of years old. The traditional purpose is twofold; the first, as you point out, is to promote responsibility for child rearing. A second purpose, according to religious people, is to conform to God’s wishes --marriage as a sacrament. Only the first reason could apply to polygamy, and neither apply to gay marriage. Acceptance of gay marriage depends on redefining marriage in terms of the pursuit of happiness, as Marc pointed out. Since the US was founded on a pursuit of happiness ethic, it may be that gay marriage will eventually be accepted here.

Jumping from straight to gay marriage is a very big step, which requires changing the very purpose of the institution. Is a second jump from gay marriage to polygamous marriage also a big jump, or is it a small one? It requires merely extension of the right to the pursuit of happiness from one group of consenting adults, to another group. A very small step, isn’t it? I’m not trying to make a “slippery slope” argument; I am not criticizing either gays or polygamists. Legalized polygamy just seems like a logical consequence of redefining marriage away from children and religious practice, and towards the pursuit of earthly happiness.

In your memos, I sensed some resistance to extending the “pursuit of happiness” franchise to polygamists. One implied reason was that homosexuality is claimed to be biologically based, while no such claim is made for polygamists. I don’t think this is relevant. A “biological basis” is not a prerequisite for being allowed to live one’s life as one sees fit. Must I prove a genetic urge to associate with animals in order to be allowed to own a horse? Of course not. Even if homosexuality is genetically based, as claimed, and polygamy is not, marriage enfranchisement based on a pursuit of happiness ethic would not depend on any “biological” arguments.

The putative biological basis for homosexuality is given great weight by activists. It has been an effective political argument, but logically it is pointless. The argument goes that since gays were (supposedly) born that way, it is unreasonable to treat them differently than straight people, by analogy to racial differences. That would be true only in the absence of any moral or emotional dimension to homosexuality. If someone believed that homosexuality is immoral or emotionally unhealthy (like alcoholism, or extreme shyness), then the “biological basis” could not reasonably modify any decision. If a job applicant for a policeman or airline pilot is judged to be emotionally unhealthy and therefore ineligible, the question of whether the applicant’s emotional state is genetically based, or has some other origin, is really not germane to the issue. The “biological origin” argument is persuasive only for those who already think homosexuality is moral & healthy; it preaches to the choir, and to nobody else.

Some may think polygamy is emotionally unhealthy. Should polygamous marriage be disallowed on that basis? Many who oppose gay marriage feel that homosexuality is emotionally unhealthy. If “emotional unhealthiness” is a legitimate reason to deny marriage rights to one group, it is also valid against the other group. Anyway, we’re back to my original idea. If marriage is redefined on a pursuit of happiness ethic, and gay marriage is permitted, I think that polygamous marriage is a logical followup.

Friend 2 responds:

Polygamy is pretty much an unknown topic as far as most people in this country are concerned. I cited the fundamentalist Mormon culture because it is the only significant example of it that has played any role in US history, hence it becomes the starting point for many discussions of the subject.

I tend to agree with you that legalization would not necessarily be a bad thing but I do have some reservations. Specifically, aside from the case you cited of an acquaintance who was married and had a live in girlfriend, all cases of polygamy in the US have involved either Mormons or other cult religions (Rajneesh, Branch Davidians etc.) and the women involved were not exercising free will. Defining what constitutes free will is a tricky proposition and in a culture like ours where religion plays such an important role it is nearly impossible to legislate. In general I agree that any person of their volition should be able to enter into a gay marriage or a polygamous marriage provided that all other parties--exercising free will--are in agreement.

The main reason for marriage in a non-religious sense is to create a healthy and nurturing environment for raising children. There have not been many studies on the mental and physical health of children raised by two gay parents or in polygamous homes but the studies that have been made (from what little I have read) do not indicate any significant ill effects. I recall one television interview with a young man who was raised by two gay men and he seemed very reasonable and comfortable with his identity--and he remarked that he was not gay himself because that was not his inclination. It would be interesting to see a thorough study of the subject; I wouldn't be surprised if there is one out there somewhere.

In any case, legalization of either gay marriage or polygamy remains a moot point. Neither will ever be legalized outside of a few states or regions. I would not be surprised to see some states allow gay marriage on a county option basis, though such marriages would not be recognized in most other states. A national acceptance of such marriages would, I believe, have to be settled by the Supreme Court--and with the current makeup of the court that would be highly unlikely.

I see a more likely outcome as more a continuation of the current situation. Gay unions will still be accepted in many areas with the attendant legal rights for the parties involved and polygamy will still be accepted in Utah. This situation will probably continue because the alternative would be largely unenforceable. By this I mean that we can either accept the choices people make in their private lives--even if we do not fully agree with them--or we can try passing new laws or enforcing existing ones. The latter option is not likely to be accepted in view of the embarrassment that anti-sodomy or anti-adultery laws cause states or municipalities when a zealous prosecutor tries to enforce them. Most Americans, I believe, are not going to support the arrest and detention of men or women based on who they choose to live with, but religious sentiment also prevents a full recognition of non-traditional marriages. The result will be that straight unmarried couples will continue to live together, gay unmarried couples will continue to live together and multi-partner relationships will appear now and then. And as long as they are all based on the free will of all parties involved (and absolutely no child abuse) they should be accepted as lawful citizens of our nation.

I respond:

I was kind of baffled by part of Friend 1's argument, so I I'll focus just on that part. He says: "The 'biological origin' argument is persuasive only for those who already think homosexuality is moral & healthy; it preaches to the choir, and to nobody else."

Not necessarily. There are plenty of other states of mind that are emotionally or physically unhealthy that have genetic bases. I'm thinking principally of addictions and obsessive/compulsive disorders, many of which have genetic associations and physical expressions in the brain. Some can even be altered or controlled by drugs, so biological origin arguments are not just preaching to the choir.

What makes sexual preferences different than addictions is the moral, ethical, and cultural dimension that people have brought to them since time immemorial. What gay marriage advocates have been saying is that the custom of marriage should be available to them since their status as citizens outweighs whatever benefit might come from denying them marriage.

I doubt that gay marriage will be available to all, nationwide, anytime soon, since marriage customs, by tradition, have been reserved to communities and the states. No Supreme Court for this stuff! Unlike civil rights, gay marriage will have to be argued, county-by-county, state-by-state, for years, across the country. That may be for the best, as our Constitution forsees.

Sometimes I think gay marriage advocates underestimate the roadblocks to their project. On the other hand, they've proceeded an impressive way in a surprisingly-short period of time, nonetheless. I easily remember when no one discussed the issue - at all!

Polygamy can work, and has worked, in many settings. In Arab countries, and North Africa, marginalized women who might otherwise starve can find protection and community in polygamous marriages. Same in Utah. I remember when I lived in Salt Lake City, a TV station did a story on a local man who made it is mission to restore the pride to polygamous marriages. He had grown up in a traditional Mormon polygamous household and he saw it as being the very best kind of upbringing possible. He may have even been right! Outsiders often wonder what women see in such marriages, but a closer look reveals lots of hidden advantages, particularly regarding safety and community, that soothe some of the more glaring disadvantages.

I think what I resist about polygamous households in the U.S. is that it is a political threat. Anglo-Saxon tradition, based originally on small-farm freeholders, eschews arrangements where power is overly-centralized, where (name-your-enemy: pope, king, emperor, guru, etc., etc.) holds too much sway. People who grow up in households where power is invested largely in a father figure will apply their experiences by freely-choosing anti-democratic political arrangements - witness Arab countries, North Africa, and, yes, even Utah. That is one reason, I think, that 19th-Century Americans were mostly so dead-set against polygamy: it represented an Old-World phenomenon that, if it reached full expression, would prove an impediment to their own children's prospects in the New World.

Of course, it is possible to design much-more diffuse, modern polygamous marriages that might not be so dangerous. On the other hand, they might not be so stable either, which would be bad for the kids.

In comparison, gay marriage poses little political threat at all. Gay marriage advocates want to emulate the stability of traditional marriage. It is not a recipe for revolution - anything but!