Don't Do Unto Others: The difference between gay marriage and polygamy. By William Saletan
Uh oh. Conservatives are starting to hyperventilate again. You know the symptoms: In a haystack of right-wing dominance, they find a needle of radicalism, declare it a mortal danger to civilization, and use it to rally their voters in the next election. First it was flag-burning. Then it was the "war on Christmas." Now it's polygamy. Having crushed gay marriage nationwide in 2004, they need to gin up a new threat to the family. They've found it in Big Love, the HBO series about a guy with three wives. Open the door to gay marriage, they warn, and group marriage will be next.</p>
My friend Charles Krauthammer makes the argument succinctly in the Washington Post. "Traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender," he observes. "If, as advocates of gay marriage insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices," then "on what grounds do they insist upon the traditional, arbitrary and exclusionary number of two?"
Here's the answer. The number isn't two. It's one. You commit to one person, and that person commits wholly to you. Second, the number isn't arbitrary. It's based on human nature. Specifically, on jealousy.
In an excellent Weekly Standard article against gay marriage and polygamy, Stanley Kurtz of the Hudson Institute discusses several recent polygamous unions. In one case, "two wives agreed to allow their husbands to establish a public and steady sexual relationship." Unfortunately, "one of the wives remains uncomfortable with this arrangement," so "the story ends with at least the prospect of one marriage breaking up." In another case, "two bisexual-leaning men meet a woman and create a threesome that produces two children, one by each man." Same result: "the trio's eventual breakup."
Look up other articles on polygamy, even sympathetic ones, and you'll see the pattern. A Columbia News Service report on last month's national conference of polyamorists—people who love, but don't necessarily marry, multiple partners—features Robyn Trask, the managing editor of a magazine called Loving More. The conference Web site says she "has been practicing polyamory for 16 years." But according to the article, "When Trask confronted her husband about sneaking around with a long-distance girlfriend for three months, he denied it. … The couple is now separated and plans to divorce." A Houston Press article on another couple describes how "John and Brianna opened up their relationship to another woman," but "it ended badly, with the woman throwing dishes." Now they're in another threesome. "I do get jealous at times," John tells the reporter. "But not to the point where I can't flip it off."
Good luck, John. I'm sure polyamorists are right that lots of people "find joy in having close relationships … with multiple partners." The average guy would love to bang his neighbor's wife. He just doesn't want his wife banging his neighbor. Fidelity isn't natural, but jealousy is. Hence the one-spouse rule. One isn't the number of people you want to sleep with. It's the number of people you want your spouse to sleep with.
We've been this way for a long time. Look at the Ten Commandments. One: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Two: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image … Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God." Three: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." In case the message isn't clear enough, the list proceeds to "Thou shalt not commit adultery" and "shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife."
Some people say the Bible sanctions polygamy. "Abraham, David, Jacob and Solomon were all favored by God and were all polygamists," argues law professor Jonathan Turley. Favored? Look what polygamy did for them. Sarah told Abraham to sleep with her servant. When the servant got pregnant and came to despise Sarah, Sarah kicked her out. Rachel and Leah fought over Jacob, who ended up stripping his eldest son of his birthright for sleeping with Jacob's concubine. David got rid of Bathsheba's husband by ordering troops to betray him in battle. Promiscuity had the first word, but jealousy always had the last.
Thousands of years later, we've changed our ideas about slavery, patriarchy, and homosexuality. But we're still jealous. While 21 percent of married or divorced Americans admit to having cheated (and surveys suggest husbands are more likely than wives to stray emotionally and physically), only one in four women says she'd give a cheating husband or boyfriend a second chance, and only 5 to 6 percent of adults consider polygamy or extramarital affairs morally acceptable. As the above cases show, even people who try to practice polygamy struggle with feelings of betrayal.
Krauthammer finds the gay/poly divergence perplexing. "Polygamy was sanctioned, indeed common" for ages, he observes. "What is historically odd is that as gay marriage is gaining acceptance, the resistance to polygamy is much more powerful." But when you factor in jealousy, the oddity disappears. Women shared husbands because they had to. The alternative was poverty. As women gained power, they began to choose what they really wanted. And what they really wanted was the same fidelity that men expected from them.
Gays who seek to marry want the same thing. They're not looking for the right to sleep around. They already have that. It's called dating. A friend once explained to me why gay men have sex on the first date: Nobody says no. Your partner, being of the same sex, is as eager as you are to get it on. But he's also as eager as you are to get it on with somebody else. And if you really like him, you don't want that. You want him all to yourself. That's why marriage, not polygamy, is in your nature, and in our future.
William Saletan is Slate's national correspondent and author of Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War.©2006 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC
Link to original article: here.
- Mood:
busy

Comments
And in regards to I do proving a point I do think it was written as an editorial....
There are a myriad of reasons why the government encourages certain behaviors - it's pretty much the role of government to ensure the well-being and strength of the nation - and this often involves tweaking laws to improve things like literacy, mortality, longevity, retirement age, income, etc. part and parcel of a democratic government's ability to control these things is through the management of incentive. That is, rather than passing a law that says "you MUST do such-and-such" (such as the one-child-per-couple law in china), they tweak the cost/benefit ratios of things to encourage people to do what is in the best interest of the country as a whole.
Assuming we stick with the same broad form of government we have now (ie we're not gonna go full on libertarian or anything), I have no problems with incentives and penalties, etc. Personally, I think they're a bit skewed in their attentions, but the ACT doesn't bother me. If marriage were legal in all the forms we're discussing here, but the government applied certain incentives to certain forms of marriage, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed. It's their right to try and persuade us to do things.
Additionally, don't you think that it's the responsibility of the government to reflect the people it governs? Part of the reason American democracy has worked so well, to date, is the inclusiveness of it. Sure, there are all sorts of things (take it from the girl who spent the last two days researching blue laws in Bergen County, NJ) that are rooted in religious traditions, but overall, we've been successful for a long time in setting up a system of government that wasn't overly exclusive. I think we're moving away from that. I sure as hell don't feel represented by this government. If we make concessions that a two-parent-heterosexual households with kids is the way to go, and those people get the tax breaks, that's only the beginning of excluding anyone who doesn't buy into that norm. Like, say, just about everyone on this thread.
All I'm saying is I think it's important to distinguish between prohibitions and disincentives. A government that allowed the various the forms of marriage we are discussing, even if they disincented them, would be a far fairer government than one we have now.
So, how unfair is it that I could decide that I want to save money on my taxes, and be able to do so, just because my boyfriend and happen to have the appropriate anatomy?
That being said, I'm not completely anti-marriage, and it's something I may do one day. I just recognize that the current definition and application of it here in the US is awfully discriminatory.
Unfortunately, I think it's also clear that poly can't win this battle at this time. Sometimes I'm pleased to see it getting discussion, but the [voting] public is not ready for it yet. Current lawmakers are more likely to punish poly lifestyles than help them gain acceptance. In ten or twenty years, it should start to backfire. ;)
Saletan paints humans as all having the same motivations as he does. Normally I like to think humans are motivated more similarly than they think, but not right now. ;)
Thanks. :)
The author does conclude by saying that polyamorists do in fact have the right to carry on multiple relationships. Also, as far as i know there is nothing illegal about a primary couple being married, and living an open and consensual poly lifestyle.
However if two polyamorists of the same gender who are in a primary relationship wish to be married, they're shit out of luck. To me, that's a more pressing issue.
At the risk of being guilty of a double standard, homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice the way polyamory is. Certainly, monogamy is not a biological predisposition. Besides ducks, i can't think of any other animals off the top of my head that are monogamous creatures. However, marriage is a legal union (unfortunately there is no Water Foul Divorce Court - i would kill to see a duck in a suit giving a closing argument) The legal contract of marriage affords those who enter in to it an wealth of rights and privileges.
As stated above, a lot of the financial issues can probably be taken care of through living wills, and binding contracts. However not to sound like Rev. Lovejoy's wife for saying this, but what about raising children? Divorce is nasty enough as it is, and i can't imagine a custody battle that involves multiple parents.
What i'm trying to say is, a heterosexual couple can get married and live a polyamorous lifestyle while reaping the legal benefits of marriage, while poly or not, homosexuals are still denied that right.
The tax thing is only a benefit if one of you doesn't work. There are health insurance benefits, but progressive companies have extended that to non-married couples. I know there are some automatic inheritance mechanisms, but I'm perfectly capable of writing my own will. That's all I can think of, so what am I missing?
"One isn't the number of people you want to sleep with. It's the number of people you want your spouse to sleep with."
Many, many people feel that way. I struggle with it myself. And it's a constant struggle to convince myself that the rewards of openness are worth the stings of jealousy.
But, as I sit here in an air-conditioned office wearing clothes and having eaten cooked food, I have to disagree with the "natural" argument.
to summarize though: his argument is pretty much baseless, as his point was that marriage is designed to stave off jealousy, but i would contend that it doesn't really work to do that very effectively and really just creates a situation in which there is "cheating". if you actually have a healthy relationship, mono or poly, there is no such thing as cheating; either because you're not doing it, or because what you're doing isn't "cheating".
logically though, conservatives labeling polygamy/amory as, "what will happen if you let gays get married," is an obvious choice because they most readily fly in the face of what people think "marriage" is. "values-based"(fear-based) individuals eat that shit up.
do i think the government should promote family? of course. they'd be foolish not to. do i think the government should realign what "family" can consist of? absolutely. marriage as an embedded religious institution is ridiculous though. i completely respect straight, monogamous people who choose to get married, but holding it to a higher standard than any other functional relationship is no longer useful.
I mean, I won't deny I've met my share of shady dudes just wanting to fuck around, but you know what I mean,
The government has no need to define this special "magical" marriage relationship. Of course the conservatives are never going to want to hear that. It's really just a facet of seperation of church and state. Marriage is primarily a religious institution, and should therefore be none of the government's concern.
Why is it SO hard for many people to understand that letting people do what they want, even if it's not what you would want, is just fine? (provided its, concenting, no one gets hurt and all that jazz)
State Laws Triggered by Legal Marriage - a Sample
Assumption of Spouse's Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Certain Property Rights
Child Custody
Crime Victim's Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner's Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Name Change if Desired
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner's Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits
Couples married by a state government are automatically granted a broad range of rights at the federal level. These rights affect federal employees such as civil servants and the military.
Federal Laws Triggered by Legal Marriage - a Sample
Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse's Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks for Married Couples
Veteran's Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
For the purposes of nearly all of the above items, same-sex couples are considered legal strangers, and thereby unable to be covered by them.
Ba Dump CRASH!
I get angry when all poly relationships are defined in articles like this as being one man who has multiple wives who treat each other like sisters. My boyfriend's wife and I do NOT treat each other like sisters.
I get angry because there are so many variations.
And because, even if we ARE talking about polygyny only, and it's bad for women, wouldn't legalizing it HELP them? Give them legal protection? Give them resources when divorces happen? Help them with custody and children?
*sigh*
I'm not ever going to be able to marry my loves, not in my lifetime, not in this arrangement, not legally. And sometimes the weight of that is crushing. It's hard not to get sad, you know?
I do certainly share a lot of your frustrations on this issue, even though I personally don't really want to be married to anybody. That might change if marital institutions were ever impressively redesigned... but then again, maybe not. I'm pretty independent.
Nice to meet you.