Giving Polygamy a Chanceby Russell E Saltzman
Pr. Steve Sabin writes in
Forum Online (
http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=1466.msg55127#msg55127):
"In reading [California state supreme court decision allowing gay marriage], the larger issue for the majority was equal standing before the law for relationships consensually contracted by adult citizens, and the equal availability of the obligations and privileges afforded such private contractual relationships by the state."
Hear, hear. I'm all for "relationships consensually contracted by adult citizens." So, heads up everybody: I’m thinking of trying out polygamy, pretty soon now. I could use the extra income a second wife would provide. Retirement is coming in a few years and, well, the 401(k) is sort of sputtering. So, a second wife, and preferably one with a teaching degree and no outstanding student debts. The primary wife recently became an older second-career teacher, but her student debts, whew. By the way, I've learned to emphasize "second career" over "older."
I’ve been playing with budget figures and it would work fine. It’d be okay, too. I think it is reasonably certain that within a few years some state supreme court somewhere will declare it is discriminatory not to issue marriage licenses for plural marriages composed of three persons in a relationship "consensually contracted by adult citizens."
That’s what the Massachusetts supreme court did in November 2003 when it heard
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, brought by several gay couples. A constitutional convention subsequently defeated an amendment to the state constitution forbidding same-sex marriage, so I guess everybody was happy with the original decision.
And in California, the state supreme court just did the very same thing on May 15, ruling for equal marriage rights for all the guys who want guys and all the gals who want gals, despite a 2000 state referendum on the books (Prop. 22) limiting marriage to opposite-sex persons, which, incidentally, was adopted statewide by a 61% margin. But as these were only voters and not judges expressing an opinion, it hardly counts for anything at all.
Couples OnlyWhat? Yeah, yeah, I know. Those decisions were for
gay couples, two persons only, any two people but just two per marriage. A silly restriction, in my judgment.
Seems to me, as soon as somebody says marriage can no longer be defined in terms of a woman and a man, it can then be defined by something else, like me and two women. Or the other way ‘round, say one woman and a couple guys, just to keep the equal rights perspective in play. Once we finish overturning, in Thomas Jefferson's phrase, “the laws of nature and of nature’s God,” well, hey, the way is open for my second wife. As long as I still have my looks and haven't become Viraga-dependent, I figure I'm a good catch.
So, with the reasoning of the California and the Massachusetts courts before me, so what if three people wish to join in matrimony, holy or otherwise? Is anybody in a position to say no anymore? Not in my book.
It’s all personal choice, isn’t it? Not all opposite-sex couples bother with marriage these days. Gay couples, really, hardly bother with it at all. But if they want to, though, increasingly marriage is available for them same as for opposite-sex folks — or not, as they like.
M&M'sThere are some media images we’ll have to overcome on polygamy. Muslims and Mormons. Call them M&M's for short.
Early Islamic polygamy arose as a way of caring for the widows of slain
jihadists, and their children. In that sense, it wasn’t much different than what is described in the Hebrew scriptures as Levitical marriage. Of course, it’s been spiffied up and tricked out and expanded by male Arab societies a bit beyond what the
Koran had in mind originally. But we in the West have gripped about Arabists not modernizing things, so it hardly seems fair of us to complain when, in the area of polygamy, they have. I don’t know if I would want to have the widow of a fallen
jihadist as my second wife, with or without a teaching degree. If I get really serious about it, I may have to consider it if no other options arise.
The other image is the spectacle of "fundamentalist polygamist Mormon sects,” as the press always refers to them. To believe the press and, alright, DNA tests, they seem to have a propensity for under-aged child marriage. But I don’t think this a real problem in any social sense, merely one of poor marketing in the end. Mormons like these have to get new members some way, and what better way exists than propagating their own as often and as early as possible.
I think the M&M' s can be handled with a couple good reality shows.
Constitutional RestrictionOh, and I really want to avoid another misunderstanding. Two people are called a marriage. Three people, a plural marriage. But add a third wife and make it four, and the arrangement becomes a “commune” living in a “compound” surrounded by federal agents.
This isn’t what I want at all. So I do think marriage "relationships consensually contracted by adult citizens" legally should be strictly reserved to just three persons. Any more and that’s just too weird. This may take a constitutional amendment but it would be worth the effort.
