Polygamy and Gay Marriage
Posted by Joshua Claybourn on 2 October 2005 | 23 responses
The debate over gay marriage almost always involves some form of a slippery slope argument, typically by those opposed to it, and polygamy is often chief among them. If we allow gay marriage, the argument goes, what is stopping any type of marriage, such as one between three people? Those advocating gay marriages or civil unions will usually argue such a result is ridiculous, unlikely, or both. (One notable exception is our own Ed Brayton, who is for gay marriage and who does “think that the arguments for gay marriage apply equally well to polygamy”.) Now comes news that a man and two women in the Netherlands have entered into a three-way civil union:
Victor de Bruijn (46) from Roosendaal “married” both Bianca (31) and Mirjam (35) in a ceremony before a notary who duly registered their civil union.
“I love both Bianca and Mirjam, so I am marrying them both,” Victor said. He had previously been married to Bianca. Two and a half years ago they met Mirjam Geven through an internet chatbox. Eight weeks later Mirjam deserted her husband and came to live with Victor and Bianca. After Mirjam’s divorce the threesome decided to marry.
Victor: “A marriage between three persons is not possible in the Netherlands, but a civil union is. We went to the notary in our marriage costume and exchanged rings. We consider this to be just an ordinary marriage.”
Red State contributors say this proves the slippery slope argument. What say you?
23 Responses to “Polygamy and Gay Marriage”
The political motto of God’s Own Party: “We believe in small, non-intrusive government as long as we have the laws in place to control people different from us good God-fearing Christians.”. Frankly, the slippery slope argument just has limits that the Right don’t want to admit. So what if consenting adults enter into unusual arrangments that suit them more than traditional relationships? I don’t care. It’s their life and I don’t buy into the arguments about how letting them live it will destroy everything good and decent. The big failure of the slippery slope argument is that they always toss crap in their about how it will go beyond relationships between consenting adults.
I think the slippery slope argument, in this instance, just doesn’t mean much. Yes, I think the same logic applies to both situations, but even if the slippery slope argument is true, why does that mean that gay couples shouldn’t be allowed to get married? You can make similar arguments against anything. “Free speech is a bad idea because it might lead to free speech for communists or Nazis.” Well yes, it might. In fact, it does. But so what?
As long as “marriage” is a word whose content we fill at will, the slippery slope argument applies. (Incest is next, right?) If, however, marriage is a natural institution that fulfills the need for human happiness, then polygamists will argue that their version of marriage has a long and honourable history. Happiness and multiple wives, however, definitely don’t go together in my view.
Dennis wrote:
Nor in my view. Hence, I won’t be participating in any polygamous relationships. But that doesn’t mean others who do view such relationships as conducive to their happiness should be denied that right.
Yes and no:
Yes: the great thing about the “slippery slope” argument is that you can apply it everywhere. Everything that’s objectionable can be interpretted as being a slippery slope to something much more objectionable. Liberals use it all the time (e.g. see the recent separation of church & state debates), not just conservatives.
No: Its really all about the size of the interest group isn’t it. There are a (conservatively) estimated ~15 million gays and lesbians in the US. That’s more than there are Asians or Jews! But there are far far fewer people who want to marry their sister, dog, etc. So ruthlessly speaking, discriminating against 5% of the population is tougher & less defensible than against the 0.0001% who might to marry their pet or family member. So if polygamy, bestiality, and incest are what you’re *really* worried about…well, the truth is that those interest-groups are just not large enough to get sufficient political momentum going for their causes.
But I’ll go out on a limb here and hypothesize that most of those making the “slippery slope” arguments are not sincere. They just hate gay people and want to frighten the public however they can.
In a liberal society, legalized polygyny (polyandy is so rare it isn’t worth address) allows a cadre of women to monopolize the financial resources of a single man, and since financial resources are on a power curve, so to will be the distribution of women among men.
In an authoritarian society, legalized polgyny allows wealthy men to monopolize the reproductive resources of a harem of women. Since financial resources are distributed along a power curve, so too will be the distribution of women among men.
In either case, in a wealthy polgynous society the disparate perceptions men have of women and women have of men will result in a large population of men at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder who have little chance of getting laid and no chance of succesfully getting married and having children. These men, traditionally, are the most disruptive members of society, criminally inclined in their quest to secure enough resources to be attractive to women on a long-term basis.
I’ve always thought of myself as more liberal than Ed, but in this case I must dissent. Even if this is not the slippery slope, acceptance of this is a social disaster in the making.
Elf Sternberg wrote:
Do you really think that if we legalize polygamy today that tomorrow we’re going to have people running to the courthouse to get into them? Not a chance. Those who would participate in polygamy in this nation are a tiny fraction, far less than 1%, and almost entirely located in a single fringe sect of a minor religion. Polygamy will never fly as a mainstream arrangement in this country, for a hundred different reasons. It will never spread outside of a miniscule percentage of the population of Jack Mormons and swingers because it just doesn’t make sense to do. Why on earth would a wealthy man in our modern country want multiple wives to, as you put it, monopolize his wealth? The divorce laws would destroy him and he knows it. If a wealthy man is just driven to have a bunch of different women, he can have them without polygamy and the mistress arrangement is far less damaging. If you’re going to imagine that people are that Machiavellian and selfish, then I’d say that same ruthlessness is the reason why polygamy will never take root. Certainly the notion that so many people will do it that the losers won’t find anyone to have sex with them is fanciful in the extreme. And even if it was even the smallest bit realistic, so what? Some people have a hard time finding mates as it is, for various reasons; it’s not the government’s job to make sure they get laid.
There is one huge difference between gays and polygamists, far as I can tell. Gays are born gay the way heteros are born hetero. To deny gays the right to marriage, based on criteria they cannot control, is profoundly immoral and inhuman. The same dynamic does not apply for polygamists. So the slippery slope argument fails in this case.
As for other kinds of unions driven by biological criteria, say men and goats, to name Santorum’s favorite coupling (?), society has a right to say certain unions are positive and worthy of being promoted by society while others are not. Gay marriages would be a positive redress, a step forward for human rights, marriages between men and their goats probably would not.
Tim wrote: “As for other kinds of unions driven by biological criteria, say men and goats, to name Santorum’s favorite coupling (?), society has a right to say certain unions are positive and worthy of being promoted by society while others are not.”
Actually, Senator Santorum’s favorite coupling is man and dog.
This reminds me of the capital punishment debate, which is always framed in ways I find irrelevant, such as whether or not it is a deterrent. To me, certain criminals deserve to die, end of story. I don’t really care if it is not a deterrent.
Same here. I don’t care about the slippery-slope. “Everyone has a right to do whatever they want†has never been a guiding principle of our democracy. Libertarianism has never been the rule of law. Far from it being wrong for the majority to impose its morality on the nation, it was built into the system. So as long as a majority finds polygamy to be abhorrent, it is their privilege to impose laws against it.
Someone who wants to engage in a polygamous marriage may be outraged, but no more so than I am by the fact that some of my taxes pay for abortions. Living in a society means you win some and you lose some.
It’s worth pointing out that the argument over gay marriage (or polygamy) is not about the right of consenting adults to form whatever relationships they desire. In every State in the US, gays are free to live together as spouses and a group is free to live together as well (although in the latter case, when children enter the picture, it gets more complicated).
The question is about what recognition, rights and privileges society will confer on such relationships.
And, BTW, jprime, 5% is not a “conservative” estimate for the portion of society that is homosexual. Reliable estimates seem to range from 3-5%.
Citation for the 3-5% range of estimates:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=478685
David Heddle wrote:
Okay, so how about interracial marriage? The majority found that abhorrent only one generation ago and there were laws outlawing it all over the nation. Was that okay with you too?
Eric Seymour wrote:
But it is worth noting that this is the case primarily because of decisions like Lawrence, which was decried universally by the very same people who are against gay marriage now. But with that notation, I agree with you in a sense that the dispute is about official recognition, and all of the rights and protections that come with it. And as a corollary, of course, the question of whether it is just to discriminate by refusing those rights and protections to gay couples. Marriage brings with it an enormous range of privileges and protections, over 1400 according to the GAO, and many of them are the most basic things we all take for granted, like the right to have those closest to us involved in the most difficult and painful situations we can endure.
You and I can take that for granted (or will be able to if and when we get married, at least) and never have to give it a thought. I look at my friends who are in long term, loving and committed relationships and wonder on what possible basis I could deny that same right to them. I say they deserve such protections because their relationships are no different than mine and because they are human beings, deserving of the same dignity and equality under the law.
You’re right about this, according to reams of data I’ve seen.
But it is worth noting that this is the case primarily because of decisions like Lawrence, which was decried universally by the very same people who are against gay marriage now.
It is true that before Lawrence there were, in a few states, anti-sodomy laws still on the books. However, prosecutions were rare if not non-existent in the 20 years before the case that led to the SCOTUS decision. (There were probably more prosecutions for chewing gum in public in the places where that’s illegal.)
Similarly, those who opposed the Lawrence decision almost universally do not wish to see gays prosecuted, but rather objected to the way in which it was decided and the precedents it might set (specifically, for gay marriage). Therefore, it’s unfair to say that gay marriage opponents also want to keep sodomy illegal, because the reality is the opponents of the Lawrence decision were mostly concerned about gay marriage.
Ed,
Ed that’s not a very clever question. Of course is was not okay with me (if you ever saw my wife you’d really know how stupid it is to ask.) There are many laws on the books that I don’t agree with. I think abortion is murder, but I have to accept the fact that it is the law of the land. I mean, what is your point?
David Heddle wrote:
My point is, can you really not think of any constitutional reason to strike down such laws? The court had no trouble finding one and did so unanimously.
Eric wrote:
I think you overstate the argument just a bit. Among intellectual conservatives, I’m sure the majority of those who opposed Lawrence did so not because they really wanted to see gays locked up but because they objected to it either on federalism grounds or on slippery slope grounds (both of which I disagree with, of course, but they’re not entirely unreasonable and are at least worth considering).
But among the rank and file, I doubt this distinction existed at all, nor are most of them capable of understanding such a distinction. For them, all that mattered was that those damn liberal humanists on the court were endorsing queers again and “destroying the moral fabric”, or some such simplistic nonsense. There is still a sizable pocket of people who really do want to see gays punished just for being gay, led by the likes of Judge Roy Moore, likely to be the next governor of Alabama. Not a majority, likely, but a sizable minority far larger than I think any of us would like to think (believe me, I’d be happy to be wrong about that if I was).
Ed,
I don’t want to get into your (in my opinion, odd) interpretation of Roy Moore’s legal writings again. However, I’ve been a member of churches that taught homosexuality is a sin for at least 20 years, met hundreds of Christians who believe that and decry the influences of homosexuals in politics and entertainment, yet I’ve never encountered anyone who openly desired to imprison gays for their bedroom activities with other consenting adults.
To me, that indicates that it’s a minority that is so small it’s not really worth talking about. But it does not appear that either of us has any data on the matter.
Little late to the party, but this post http://www.bakelblog.com/nobodys_business/2005/09/wedlock_is_nigh.html makes it seem that it is more of a cohabitation agreement (or some such).
Slippery slope possibility would depend upon the justification used by courts for allowing gay marriage (or overturning gay marriage prohibition).
If the justification is, as Dan Savage suggests, one of equal protection/rights/priviliges, then I don’t think the slippery slope is realistic.
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=23374
If, however, it is the justification that Glen Whitman argues, freedom of association/freedom of contract, and self ownership, then I think the slippery slope is relavent.
http://www.theagitator.com/archives/025619.php#025619
I see Glen’s argument as the purist libertarian position, and Dan’s as the purist liberal position. Equal rights vs natural rights I guess.
Do I have that right, Ed?
I think it also depends highly on how gay marriage gets here. So far, there is no push for any recognition of gay marriages in Federal court. The only court cases so far have been at the state level and based solely on state constitutions. So all this talk of slippery slopes is, at best, premature. Two states have now voted for civil unions for gays, Connecticut and Vermont (the latter prompted by court action) and a third, Massachusetts, has voted not to attempt to overturn their state court decision.
Despite the setbacks for gay rights in the 2004 elections, where many states passed anti-gay marriage amendments, I still think it is inevitable. The trend will hold, with a few more states following on and passing civil union legislation. The sky won’t fall, people will get used to the idea, and eventually the idea will move nationwide. This has been the pattern repeated many times and it will hold here as well.
The Catholic Church must pay !
After this past Sundays’ (Oct. 2, 2005) event by the Catholic Church collecting signatures inside the building, regarding the initiative petition to end same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. This IRS regulation, continues on with regards to the 501 status, therefore, its time the tax paying Americans takes action to ensure that the Catholic Church loses it 501 status.
The tax exemption status of religious organizations (501(c)(3) status ). It is very obvious that the Catholic Church does not qualify for this status any more. The church is actively attempting to influence legislation.
In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.
Legislation includes action by Congress, any state legislature, any local council, or similar governing body, with respect to acts, bills, resolutions, or similar items (such as legislative confirmation of appointive office), or by the public in referendum, ballot initiative, constitutional amendment, or similar procedure. It does not include actions by executive, judicial, or administrative bodies.
An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.
Organizations may, however, involve themselves in issues of public policy without the activity being considered as lobbying. For example, organizations may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.
Whether an organization