Since I’m a bit old-fashioned, I think polygamy is rather weird.
And it would also be a practical nightmare. Thinking about it from a guy’s perspective, imagine having to remember multiple birthdays and anniversaries?
Not to mention dealing with a more complicated approval process if you want to get permission to join another softball league or take an out-of-town trip!
To be fair, polygamy could also mean one wife and multiple husbands, but what woman would want to subject herself to that burden?!?
She wouldn’t even know who to blame if she found the toilet seat in the up position.
But let’s look at the issue from a more serious perspective, especially because of the Supreme Court’s recent decision on gay marriage.
In a column for Politico, Fredrik deBoer argues that polygamists should also be allowed to marry.
Welcome to the exciting new world of the slippery slope. Following on the rejection of interracial marriage bans in the 20th Century, the Supreme Court decision clearly shows that marriage should be a broadly applicable right… Where does the next advance come? The answer is going to make nearly everyone uncomfortable: Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals? The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy.
Yes, he’s serious.
…the moral reasoning behind society’s rejection of polygamy remains just as uncomfortable and legally weak as same-sex marriage opposition was until recently. …If my liberal friends recognize the legitimacy of free people who choose to form romantic partnerships with multiple partners, how can they deny them the right to the legal protections marriage affords? Polyamory is a fact. People are living in group relationships today. The question is not whether they will continue on in those relationships. The question is whether we will grant to them the same basic recognition we grant to other adults: that love makes marriage, and that the right to marry is exactly that, a right. …the notion that procreation and child-rearing are the natural justification for marriage has been dealt a terminal injury.
He makes a very good point that polygamous relationships exist, regardless of whether they’re legally recognized.
But should they get some form of legal recognition? Mr. deBoer says yes, and asserts that polygamists should be allowed to marry, while being careful to argue that the slippery slope should be limited.
…mutually-informed consent explains exactly why we must permit polygamy and must oppose bestiality and child marriage. Animals are incapable of voicing consent; children are incapable of understanding what it means to consent. In contrast, consenting adults who all knowingly and willfully decide to enter into a joint marriage contract, free of coercion, should be permitted to do so, according to basic principles of personal liberty.
And here’s his bottom line.
…many progressives would recognize, when pushed in this way, that the case against polygamy is incredibly flimsy, almost entirely lacking in rational basis and animated by purely irrational fears and prejudice. …The course then, is clear: to look beyond political convenience and conservative intransigence, and begin to make the case for extending legal marriage rights to more loving and committed adults. It’s time.
But maybe “it’s time” for a different approach, and not merely because the marriage penalty might be enormous in a polygamous marriage.
Before looking at an alternative to government-sanctioned marriage for polygamists, let’s ask ourselves a weighty philosophical question. Is it possible for good things to happen for the wrong reason?
Consider what’s happening in Alabama, where the state senate has voted to abolish government-granted marriage licenses.
In Alabama, resistance to same-sex marriage continues. …we have legislation making its way through the house right now that could get rid of the entire institution of marriage as we know it in Alabama. Right now, if you want to get married you go to the courthouse and the probate judge gives you a marriage license. Attorney Jake Watson explains, “[SB377] does away with that and requires parties to enter into a contract and file it at the courthouse, as I understand it.” …The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 22-3. It’s now in the House.
The politicians presumably took this step because they don’t want gay marriage rather than because of libertarian principles.
But isn’t this the ideal outcome, even if the motivating force is hostility to gay couples? After all, why should the government have any role in sanctioning a marriage? In think that’s the right question whether we’re talking traditional marriage, gay marriage, or polygamous marriage.
Wouldn’t it be interesting if Alabama showed up the path forward, albeit unintentionally?
Sort of reminds me of how the Democratic Party in Virginia had a campaign of “massive resistance” to school integration during the civil rights era. Motivated by racism, the state government even flirted with a voucher system.
That’s odious, but imagine if vouchers had been put in place 50-60 years ago for a bad reason and had developed today into a model for better schools at lower cost? One that was especially advantageous to minority students! The old-time segregationists would be rolling in their graves.
Returning to the marriage issue, it’s also worth noting that there are additional benefits to getting government out of the marriage business. Churches would not face any pressure to alter their beliefs. Baptists could stick to traditional marriage, Unitarians could allow gay marriage, and Mormons (if they wanted to be retro) could allow polygamy.
Heck, maybe we could even allow statists to somehow marry government. Elizabeth Warren and the IRS would make a great couple!
And once we solve all those issues, all that remains is convincing people that they should find bakers and photographers without using coercion.
P.S. If the government was out of the business of marriage, that would eliminate an excuse for wasteful and ineffective pro-marriage spending by governments.
P.P.S. For those who appreciate humor, there are good gay marriage one-liners among the rest of the jokes you can peruse here, here, and here.
[…] the real issue is freedom of association, not whether gay marriage is right or wrong (I’ve always wondered why government should have any role in marriage, but that’s a separate […]
[…] what it’s worth, I wish the racist Democrats who controlled the state in the 1950s had adopted school choice. After all, […]
I think polygamy is a weird concept. However, I am in favor of same sex marriage being legal in the U.S. because I want everyone to have the right to marry whoever they want to. Gay marriage does not adversely affect people who are not gay. Claiming otherwise is absurd.
Here come the “Hate-Brigades”!
The most vitriolic hatreds that have continued to pour into every fabric and space of society, is that of the condemnation that the “gay-rights” groups have subjected all dissenters to. The SCOTUS has basically just declared open-season upon all who still choose not to bend their attitudes and opinions in favor of the political winds of “change”. What’s more, a good portion of the American populace have been hoodwinked into thinking that “all will be fine”. Not only that, the right for one to hold a differing opinion, will now become even more scarce in public discourse, out fear of safety and “legal” concerns.
Boy, what a day in the life of an American!
Brace yourselves, all ye who DARE to have an opposing opinion!
Reblogged this on Uncommon Sense.
In the current legal framework I support the Supreme Court decision.
But it’s a Faustian deal.
Married people enjoy special societal privileges, essentially subsidies. Expectedly, another group has long sought, and now finally obtained same preferential treatment.
Discrimination based on sex and marital status is forbidden. Except, of course, for that discrimination which has been imposed by majority.
Try to charge different rents to men and women, married vs unmarried, homo vs. hetero sexual couples. You end up with devastating fines and soon in jail if you insist. Yet, how much you really get paid is actually based on marital status.
Equal pay for equal work? Forget it. Whether you are married or single is what determines your true pay. And ironically, this discrimination does not come from your people exploiting greedy employer. It comes from the people themselves, the “community” who decides to tax you differently based on marital status. A single person typically works about half an hour per day more compared to his married counterpart. Unless he is married and his spouse also works, in which case he has to work a whole extra hour. So we don’t just have systemic institutionalized discrimination based on marital status, but we also have micro management of interfamily affairs through the People’s Tax Code. As Hillary would say, “This is the village”… … “Participation is mandatory”.
Again, like most major differences in ideology, the discord stems from a difference in quantitative, not qualitative, assessment of freedom. How much control can the community exert on the individual? What does it mean to be part of the tribe?
Given a certain size government, any preferential tax treatment of one group is essentially a persecution of other groups. A preferential tax treatment for married people in a country where government has to collect one third of GDP in taxes, is essentially a punishment of single people.
So, if I were a single person I may not be that happy that now yet another group has been added to the marriage subsidies.
On the legal technicalities, does the constitution forbid gay marriage? I don’t think so. But I don’t see where it says people should be given preferential treatment based on marital status either.
P.S. For what it’s worth, I don’t think that the next frontier will be polygamy, but rather incest. Why not establish a federal right to marry your cousin? Especially in the case of same sex marriage, where the utilitarian justification to preventing the high rate of birth defects associated with incest is no longer valid? Or perhaps your cousin is a woman over fifty whose chances of having a genetic child are virtually non existent. And even if biological childbearing between closer relatives remains banned, why not marry your homosexual or heterosexual cousin and adopt an orphan to whom you can offer the privileges of marriage?
I actually do wonder. Can you actually marry your homosexual cousin? What is the rationale for denying such union?
P.P.S. The bottom line is that progressives of all colors, parties and slogans want a society modeled after the preferences of the majority, preferably their majority — with few limits. That is the quantitative and essential difference. On that, progressives are the norm. America and its disproportionate wealth the exception. They cannot draw the connection. So now progressivism and its demotivating impact on the individual has reached a turning point, it is affecting national competitiveness. So the country is now on an institutionalized, structural subpar growth path which resembles the irreversible European predicament more and more with each passing day. The fast compounding growth convergence is thus poised to relegate Americans into the middle income countries group. Think Argentina in the 30’s. Except it won’t take the better part of a century for the decline to materialize. Everything human is irreversibly moving ever faster in this early 21st century, and growth deficits compound ever faster. Voter lemmings will get to live in the progressive bed they make.
P.P.P.S. The next best practical approach to a freer society with more voluntary participation into smaller ideological groups (perhaps by contract too) is localism. So those who prefer to live in a coercive village can do so and those who do not can reasonably escape to other villages. The threshold for federalizing anything, favorable or not, should be very high.
P.P.P.P.S. Mr. deBoer’s prediction of near imminent legalization of polygamy seems a little far fetched. If nearly everyone is uncomfortable with it, rest assured it will remain banned — constitution be damned.
My vague impression is that for the time being we seem to gun down polygamists. With the blessing of the constitution apparently. If the people want to put you under the guillotine then they will. The constitution only adds some inertia to the process and gives the crowds the chance to think about it a second time. But the constitution cannot hold back a protracted attack by the majority. It will be pushed aside.
P.P.P.P.P.S. Mr. deBoer’s bestiality and consent argument also seems a little shaky. Did the cow I just ate consented? Did the dog consent to the ultimate fate of his genitals? Can’t touch them but can cut them off. Seems like, the main majoritarian motivation against bestiality is a criminalization of the associated human feelings, not the protection of the beast. Besides I’ve seen many one male dogs who clearly go beyond consent into outright eagerness.
Polygamy? Can you imagine how many columns the IRS tax forms will have?
Single, Married, Group, Small Group, Large Group, In group but filing separate, In group but one spouse is a non-resident cousin for part of the year, Married filing jointly and you are married to Elizabeth Warren.…as an individual… as an agency…
How many more polygamy volumes in the IRS tax code to cover all the permutations?
re: “After all, why should the government have any role in sanctioning a marriage? ”
While I would prefer to not have government be involved with any task where it needs to decide whether 2 (or N) people are married, unfortunately the government we have now does have various policies which differ between single and married people. Although obviously we’d prefer to get rid of all the programs involved (like the tax code and various benefits), as a practical matter that won’t happen anytime soon. In the meantime therefore the government has to have some definition of marriage it uses for its policies.
In addition currently may private businesses like insurance have contracts and policies which differ depending on whether people are married. While it would be nice if each private entity explicitly defined what they thought of as married, unfortunately they seem to be implicitly relying on the government to do so. To some degree the Supreme Court decision illustrates that it could be left up to the courts to define marriage, and in theory this could be handled by the courts deciding what the meaning of married is rather than the legislature (where then the precedent may differ based on jurisdiction), it isn’t clear the non-libertarian world would go along with that preference for judicial rather than legislative decision making in terms of having a centralize marriage roster kept by the government (or rules regarding when a “common law” marriage exits). To some degree it also makes sense that if private companies expected the legislature to effectively define marriage for them rather than defining it in their contracts, that perhaps it may be better to have it defined legislatively merely as a default that can be over-ridden.
The issue should be to allow private companies to over-ride the definition of marriage within their contracts, to make it either broader (e.g. polygamy) or narrower (in the case of those whose religious beliefs lead them to be intolerant of arrangements we think should be allowed like gay marriage, but of course libertarians defend the right of people to be intolerant and to decide what contracts they wish to create).
Dan, you are right on. It would certainly decrease the IRS involvement in the family unit somewhat. Enjoy reading your articles.
I agree with the central theme here, Mr. Dan – get the government out of the marriage business. However, I think your wish for finding bakers and photographers without coercion is a dream. The left will continue to push that and, with the Supreme Court’s recent ruling, now they have a legal basis for their demands. The next thing that will happen is that somebody serving as a church pastor will refuse to conduct a marriage ceremony and will wind up facing discrimination charges. The left demands that others be tolerant of their views, but they are the least tolerant of someone else’s views.
Perhaps State governments should issue only “civil union” licenses. The couple can then plan their own formal (or informal) procedure – be it a “marriage ceremony”, a “commitment service”, or other. They could go to a church, a justice of the peace, a ship’s captain, or whoever is authorized by the State to sign the license. Government should stay out of the religious issues and not try to define “Marriage” or “Holy Matrimony”.
I like the Alabama approach. Keep the government out of intercourse. When pushing for population control in the 60’s, the U.S. foreign aid program fostered and fed anti-gringo ire of many in Latin America. It insinuated contraception as a policy requirement in foreign aid. It put the U.S. in bed between couples having sex. Well-meaning, but dumb.
Ultimately, populations diminished in Latin America for a lot of reasons, among them being urbanization, the employment of women, delayed marriage, and alternative uses of leisure time, like viewing TV.
Government defining when, and the right way, to copulate is a bit much. Just get out of the way! Let custom define acceptable social behavior as much as practicable, without resorting to using the force of law. Stop over-regulating, not just in marriage, but in other sectors of social programming as well. Indications are that these interventions are largely ineffective, inefficient, costly, intolerant, and mistaken distortions of Individual choice, imposed by the dominantly correct political power.
[…] By Dan Mitchell […]