Polygamy and Gay Marriage

Charles Krauthammer has done what I was expecting some conservative to do - blame the current discussion about polygamy on the gay marriage advocates. His position makes a kind of facile sense - those proposing legalizing gay marriage do so on the grounds that it is a free choice by adults, and hence should be respected by the state. On this justification, polygamy should be legalized too, since it is the free choice of adults as well.

This is not really a new argument. During the 2004 election, wingnuts were asserting that if we legalize gay marriage, we'd have to legalize all sorts of socially aberrant relationships, like polygamy and incest.

To risk getting eggs thrown at me, I'll concede that Krauthammer is correct - sort of. If the justification for gay marriage is autonomy - that free people can make whatever free decisions they like - then there is in fact nothing in principle to stop polygamy. Which is why I never liked the autonomy argument - it would force us to legalize all sorts of other behaviors we don't like, like drug use.

The challenge for those defending gay marriage is to find a rationale that closes the door to the conservative slippery slope critique. This is not an easy task, but I'll take a stab at it. The problem centers on why one marries. It is not for the sake of procreation - if that were the case infertile couples (and those that don't want children) would not be permitted to marry. It is not a financial arrangement, since women are no longer (as) dependent on their spouses.

No, the purpose of marriage is to make a solemn oath to share one's life with another, to become truly committed in a permanent relationship. In other words, to love for life.

If we accept this proposed definition of marriage, would gay marriage be admitted as an acceptable version of it? I would say yes - in principle there is no reason why 2 homosexuals would be incapable of being committed for life. Polygamy, I would contend, does not meet this standard. It is inconceivable that one could truly to commit to more than one person. Part of the nature of marriage is its exclusivity. If one requires additional partners, then it is an implicit suggestion that no single partner is capable of meeting our emotional needs, whereas we are assumed to be able to provide all of their needs.

The existence of polygamy in history demonstrates its real social failings - why it is not a true marriage at all. Polygamy has always been one male and multiple females, and has generally resulted in massive emotional and physical exploitation of women. This is not just because of abuses of polygamy, but is inherent to it. If there is a single person of one gender and multiple members of the opposite gender, then in sexual & psychological relations there is a massive asymmetry - the one man (it's ALWAYS a man) would have all the bargaining power.

Polygamy is just another manifestation of the patriarchy, and as such must be rejected. Yes in theory it could be one woman and multiple men, but this would not solve the inherent hierarchy which exists in any polygamous relationship.

That's my tentative position on this issue - everyone is free to comment, since I haven't fully considered all the twists and turns.

P.S. Yglesias, Marshall, and others are debating Harry Reid's contention that Bush is the worst President ever. I argued that he was just before the 2004 election here. The evidence of his 2nd term only strengthens my conviction.