Robert George gloats that gay-marriage supporters, in this statement, have finally dropped the veil and blurted out what they really want: plural marriage and other forms of legal recognition for "committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner." Well, the statement is wrongheaded, and it's poorly drafted to boot (don't they mean more than two conjugal partners?), but George nonetheless gets it wrong.
First, there's nothing new here. Left-wing family radicals have been saying all this stuff for years. Second, what they're saying has no particular link to same-sex marriage. Few if any of the signers have been leaders of the gay-marriage movement. In fact, many of them (Judith Stacey and Michael Warner, for instance) have expressed ambivalence or outright hostility toward same-sex marriage. That's because, third, they're not particularly interested in including either plural relationships or same-sex couples in marriage; their agenda is to deinstitutionalize marriage by extending legal recognition to everything else-"conjugal" and otherwise. In other words, they don't want to put gays or polygamists on the marriage pedestal; they want to knock the pedestal over. They'd like to see a world where there'd be little legal or social difference between same-sex marriage and same-sex cohabitation.
Fourth, the likeliest way to get where these folks want to go is by not having gay marriage. The result, over time, will be to create and legitimize alternative family structures, including cohabitation benefits. Not by coincidence, "Beyond Marriage" folks are pointing to the recent string of judicial defeats for SSM as evidence that gay-rights supporters should "rethink and redirect" their energies away from marriage, and toward creating a host of marriage substitutes.
Finally, George claims that gay-marriage advocates "have made no serious effort to answer" the argument that there's no logical way to favor same-sex marriage and hold out against polygamy. On what planet? Here on earth, we have answered early and often-and we're still waiting for a substantive reply. If George wants to bone up, he can start here, here, here, here, and here (where he'll find a whole chapter on the subject).
9 Comments for “Not So Fast, Mr. George”
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
George claims that gay-marriage advocates “have made no serious effort to answer” the argument that there’s no logical way to favor same-sex marriage and hold out against polygamy.
The question nobody answers, of course, is why the private living arrangements of others should be subject to George and Co’s “approval,” or why certain living choices should be subsidized through government welfare benefits.
Ironically, the polygamy argument is better supported by arguments AGAINST same-sex marriage than for it. After all, anti-gay marriage advocates constantly point out that marriage is all about procreation. Well, chances are that one man and three women are going to be more successful in having a large batch of kids than one man and one woman. Assuming the “marriage is all about procreation” canard becomes established legal canon, then all the polygamists have to do to get their own multi-person marriages endorsed is embrace the anti-gay position and point out that nobody’s more capable of having kids than one man with a bunch of different women.
posted by DG on
I understand why people who believe in a single, essential, unchageable definition of traditional marriage are opposed to gay marriage. Indeed, very few cultures have traditionally defined marriage in a way that allows for gays to marry. What I don’t understand is why people who believe in traditional marriage oppose polygamy. Polygamy is part of the traditional definitions of marriage in Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Confuscian, Native American, and African cultures. Polygamy is explicitly and unambiguously permitted according to the Bible. The idea that marriage is exclusively between one man and one woman, far from being an unchangeable essential fact, is a value that is historically followed by a small minority of cultures.
The argument that (government recognition of-) gay marriage will so bastardize the (sacred, unchangable)institution of marriage that eventually we will be polygamous is bizarre and backwards. Gay marriage is new. It’s polygamy that is traditional and old.
posted by Joshua on
I don’t know what the Volokh Conspiracy equivalent of an “Instalanche” is supposed to be called, but that’s where I found a link here.
Anyway, the trouble with polygamy isn’t that it’s not traditional. The trouble with polygamy is that if it goes mainstream we’ll eventually be left with a large number of (straight) men who can’t find even one desirable wife because too many women have been taken out of the marriage pool by polygamists. What are they to do then?
Of course, there’s no analog for this problem with same-sex marriage, of either men or women. Since those people who are inclined to enter into a same-sex marriage presumably aren’t inclined to enter into an opposite-sex one in any case, the effect on the marriage pool would be a wash.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
The trouble with polygamy is that if it goes mainstream we’ll eventually be left with a large number of (straight) men who can’t find even one desirable wife because too many women have been taken out of the marriage pool by polygamists.
Why should the government be involved in forcing women to be the sex partners of men? Isn’t that essentially government-sponsored sexual abuse — “our job is to ensure that every heterosexual male gets nookie?”
In addition, what’s preventing marriages with one woman and many men? As in most issues “conservative and cultural,” the considerations of white straight guys — and ONLY white straight guys — are considered.
posted by Bobby on
If a man wants to marry 10 women in a church, that’s his business. If he wants that relationship recognized by the State, that’s MY business, and I don’t agree.
If he wants to marry one woman, and live and have sex with another 9 in the same house. The law can’t stop him nor it should.
But poligamy should never get legalized. That kind of thinking leads to worse things. In Holland there’s already a political party that wants to legalize bestiality, pedophilia and ban the eating of animals.
I read about it yesterday, if I find the link, I’ll post it.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
If a man wants to marry 10 women in a church, that’s his business. If he wants that relationship recognized by the State, that’s MY business, and I don’t agree.
No it’s not.
You and other statists have to get over this pretention you’ve got that the state has business “recognizing” some relationships and not others based on whether you like those relationships or not. Either everyone gets the power to define their own relationships in mutually-agreed-upon arrangements, or we’re all children who cannot handle our own affairs and need to be micromanaged by government nannies like Hillary Clinton or George W. Bush.
posted by kittynboi on
“”””If a man wants to marry 10 women in a church, that’s his business. If he wants that relationship recognized by the State, that’s MY business, and I don’t agree.””””
What if a man and woman want to marry but you object to those particular two people marrying for some reason? Is it your business then?
posted by Anonymous on
Bobby:
Well, you forbidding people to form consensual free unions with one or ten persons, gay or heterosexuals, using the power of goverment IS MY problem, since is allowing the goverment to push for people to live their lifes in a specific way discriminating among them. That is a violation of the most basic human liberties. I don
posted by Anita Wagner on
Let’s not forget the polyamorists in all this. Polygamy and polyamory are significantly different in principle. By ignoring the polyamorists and focusing on religious polygamists, SSM advocates appear to be uninformed at best and disingenuous at worst.
I?m willing to give SSM advocates some benefit of the doubt, however, since the Bush administration is certainly unwilling to grant funding to determine the number of self-identified polyamorists in the US. Unlike the long-established and well-organized LGBT community, the infant but growing fast non-religious polygamist polyamorous segment of the population is only beginning to organize and advocate for itself.
Polyamorists are egalitarian individuals with the desire and ability to openly, honestly, and romantically love more than one person at a time. Although we have no reliable data on the number of religious polygamist and polyamorists in the US, it is highly likely that the number of polyamorists already significantly outdistances the number of religious polygamists. This trend will continue while there is no reason to believe that the number of religious polygamists will significantly increase.
As a bisexual polyamory activist, I am weary of seeing SSM combatants on both sides trot out the dispossessed male argument. Though relevant to a stagnant minority of religious polygamists, it is irrelevant here. Notwithstanding the small minority of religiously polygamous women, feminism liberated American women a full generation ago. They and their equally well-educated, well-employed daughters are simply unwilling to return to any form of overt patriarchy. In my observation, there is absolutely no reason to believe that any observed structure of polyamorous families dispossesses anyone. Some men share a woman with another man or two, and some will be a part of a family with more women. With egalitarianism as a highly-held value, it all balances out.
Finally, it is ludicrous to lump multi-partner marriage with pedophilia and bestiality. Adult human beings are able to give fully-aware consent ? children and animals need protection because they cannot consent. It would be refreshing to see SSM advocates make this point.