At Volokh.com, IGF contributor and lawyer David Link explains why, in legal terms, the differences between same-sex marriage are vast. SSM fits neatly within the existing legal framework of marriage; polygamy would require rethinking marriage law from top to bottom. "If the husband died, would the wives continue to be married to each other? Why or why not?...And every question like these leads to others." Could a wife divorce one other spouse but stay married to the others? Again, why or why not? How many spouses could contest a divorce? What about child custody? Who would be responsible for child support? Who would be liable for debt? The problem isn't just that the answers are unclear; it's that no answer makes more sense than any other, because no answer fits within today's concept of marriage. In that sense, polygamy is literally incoherent. Link concludes:
Polygamy would require a genuine rethinking of marriage. And its multiplicity truly does have the capacity to undermine marriage: psychologically, culturally and legally. In fact, polygamy offers exactly the kind of concrete danger to marriage as we know it that same-sex marriage opponents have only been able to insinuate.
18 Comments for “Parsing Polygamy”
posted by Bobby on
Government doesn’t have to recognize EVERY relationship under the sun. Obviously, in a free country you can marry one woman and live with 10 others, if your wives agree. That is consent.
But allowing a man to marry 10 women, that’s societal recognition, and we don’t have to give it.
There has to be limits! After same-sex marriage gets legalized, that’s the end of the line!
I will not put up with those who want to normalize paedophilia, bestiality, poligamy or anything else of that nature. I hope liberals are able to say “enough!” at some point.
posted by Randy R. on
We are. Don’t you believe us?
posted by Bobby on
I have doubts, Randy. In Holland, one of the most liberal countries on earth, there’s already a political party trying to legalize paedophilia, they are very small, but they exist. The fact that those people aren’t afraid to organize and tell the world that their fetish is normal tells you something.
Besides, on the left you’re never supposed to judge anything, unless a republican does it of course.
posted by dalea on
Uh Bobby what is your source of knowlege about the left? Where do you get these ideas you keep presenting?
posted by Gay Republican Lurker on
Part of me believes that “Bobby” is a left winger trying to parody Republican gays. Something about him just ain’t right…
posted by Craig2 on
“Big Love” has just started down here, and I was surprised at how balanced it actually is.
Why isn’t polygamy a popular option? Is it because of sexual exhaustion, financial stresses and the complexities of relationship polka that would operate if it were widely accepted.
And Bill Pullman has a seriously cute butt…
Craig Y
Wellington
New Zealand
posted by Bobby on
What the hell are you talking about, Gay Republican Lurker?
Part of me thinks you’re one of those fake republicans or RINO’s that don’t belong in the party. Who the hell are you to question me and my political beliefs? You call me a leftwinger? You’re out of your fucking mind.
Tell me, do you like Mayor Bloomberg? What are you? Some RINO piece of crap?
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I tend to find that those who demand “limits” on the lives of others tend to live rather limited lives themselves. It’s sad.
posted by Br. Katana of Reasoned Discussion on
Just because polygamy is complex doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be a discussion. The result could end up being “This isn’t workable.” A hundred years ago when women were little more than property it could have worked as it would be one man deciding to have many wives.
And what about many Mormons who practice multiple wives (never hear about multiple husbands)? They would be the logical people to ask about the practicality of the situation.
posted by Bobby on
“I tend to find that those who demand “limits” on the lives of others tend to live rather limited lives themselves. It’s sad.”
—So what are you saying? That there shoudn’t be any limits? Anything goes?
Look, I don’t demand many limits, I’m an individualist at heart, whatever an individual does that doesn’t affect me directly is fine by me.
But I do draw the line somewhere, so do most people.
As for my life, yes, it’s somewhat limited. What do you want? I’m not a freaking millionare, I can’t afford everything I want. But it’s a happy life, nevertheless, you can be sure of that.
posted by Sacramento Pete on
Katana: A discussion would be interesting. With a title like Beyond Same Sex Marriage, you would think they would actually discuss possible forms of polyamory instead of the airy catch-all that was written. But as the discussion between George and Rauch suggests, they weren’t trying for workable pragmatic solutions.
Wouldn’t a polyamory contract have to be a form of trust or limited partnership that existed independently of its participants to avoid the confusions outlined in Mr. Link’s post? I can’t imagine how to apply community property precedents to polyamory.
posted by Andrew on
Bobby, of course there should be limits. The limit on the legitimacy of any relationship is its consensuality. In the case of pedophilia and bestiality, there are entities involved in the relationship which are incapable of consenting to that relationship (children and animals). Therefore, such relationships are illegitimate. But the government has no business regulating the relationships of mentally-sound adults or favoring some kinds of relationships (such as heterosexual marriagE) over others (such as same-sex marriage or “group” marriage). As we libertarians say, government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether.
posted by David Link on
In response to Sacramento Pete, \\”Beyond Same Sex Marriage\\” is a Manifesto, in the grandest tradition of Manifesting. And it\\’s the rare manifesto that troubles itself with \\”workable pragmatic solutions.\\”
Katana is certainly right that just because the discussion about what legalized polygamy would look like is hard doesn\\’t mean those who want to shouldn\\’t have it. But I believe that these kinds of questions related to polygamy are qualitatively different from any of the kinds of questions that dyadic same-sex marriage poses. Perhaps trust or limited partnership law would have some applicability to polyamory, or perhaps not. But supporters of same-sex marriage don\\’t have any obligation to answer such questions. It\\’s only proponents of legalized polyamory who would.
And that, I suppose, is the point I\\’d like to emphasize. I\\’m quite comfortable answering the questions same-sex marriage raises for opponents – at least the questions that can reasonably be answered. But I would decline invitations to try and solve problems that the very different issue of polyamory raises because I don\\’t think they are implicated by same-sex marriage. Those who wish to think about, defend or even advocate for legalizing polyamory are welcome to go down that road, but I don\\’t see why I should be required to accompany them.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
there shoudn’t be any limits? Anything goes?
So long as it’s consensual between two or more consenting adults, yes.
posted by Hershel on
“So long as it’s consensual between two or more consenting adults, yes.”
—Well, I agree. But that doesn’t mean we have to give government recognition to everything that happens between consenting adults. And getting the government out of the marriage business is an idealistic dream. What we can do is get the government not to recognize poligamy.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
doesn’t mean we have to give government recognition to everything that happens between consenting adults
Who is “we?”
And why are rights which were once universal now “privileges” which come from “government recognition?”
Should we be begging the government for permission to live our lives?
posted by Hershel on
You know what I mean, Northeast, not everyone is a libertarian like you, there are people who want legal recognition of poligamy. “We,” whoever that might be, must oppose it. Criminalize it if it involves a child, ignore it between adults.
We must also discourage that behavior. Come on, people! This is fun. First we were judged, now we get to judge others. Let’s go!
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
not everyone is a libertarian like you, there are people who want legal recognition of poligamy. “We,” whoever that might be, must oppose it.
Why? I haven’t heard a reason beyond “that’s icky.”
We must also discourage that behavior.
Again, who is “we?” And there’s nothing stopping you from discouraging people — coercing people through application of government force, however, is a completely different matter altogether (and that’s what you and other advocates of “marriage licenses” are talking about).