23 June 2010

Gay Marriage: The Polygamy Argument

Stephen Kershnar
Gay Marriage and Polygamy
Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer
June 15, 2010

In 2008, California voters passed ballot initiative Proposition 8. It amended the California constitution to prohibit gay marriage. Its text stated, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” It passed 52% to 48%. In California, a federal judge is currently hearing a case on whether Proposition 8 is Constitutional. The case will likely to be appealed to the Ninth Circuit and then the Supreme Court.

The passage of Proposition 8 is part of a pattern. Over the past few decades, forty-one states and the federal government have adopted laws that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In all thirty-one states in which the marriage issue has been put to a general vote, same-sex marriage lost. It is legal in only five states (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont) and the District of Columbia.

The proposition was a response to the California Supreme Court’s ruling that same sex couples have the right to marry under the California constitution. The battle over Proposition 8 shook the state. Proponents and opponents raised huge sums of money ($39.9 million and $43.3 million respectively). Religious organizations such as the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), various conservative groups like Focus on the Family, and political figures like John McCain and Newt Gingrich supported it. The Mormons carried much of the load, pouring in money and a sizable volunteer army. All ten of the state’s largest newspapers opposed it, as did Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sen. Barack Obama, and an array of other groups, notably Jewish, Episcopalian, and Unitarian ones.

An issue here is whether the arguments for legalizing gay marriage also support legalizing plural marriage. Plural marriage can consist of different relationships, such as one man and several women (polygamy), one women and several men, lesbian groups, multiple heterosexual men and women, multiple bisexual men and women, and so on.

There are two interesting arguments for gay marriage. The first argument is that every person has a fundamental right to marry the person of his choice. This fundamental right might rest on his having the more basic right to shape his own life according to self-chosen principles. Alternatively, it might rest on his having a more basic right to be treated similarly to others with regard to state benefits, at least when he is not directly harming someone else. To my mind, this first argument is convincing.

The second argument is that gay marriage will benefit the gay people who are married, their children, and the rest of society. The argument sometime rests on the claim that gay marriage will neither lessen the rate at which men and women marry, nor harm the children of heterosexual marriages. The empirical argument is messy. One issue is whether children raised by homosexual couples are as well-adjusted as those raised by heterosexual couples. The American Psychological Association claims that they are, but others (for example, the dissenting judges in the landmark Massachusetts case on gay marriage) argue that the studies conflict and as a group they are inconclusive. Given that gay couples are already raising hundreds of thousands of children, another issue is whether having their parents marry will benefit them than if they do not.

The first argument supports plural marriage. If people have a fundamental right to marry who they want then this includes not merely a member of the same sex, but others as well. Richard Posner, a 7th Circuit Judge, points out that if a woman who wants to be a polygamist’s second wife is prevented from doing so, then her fundamental right is violated.

The second argument less clearly supports plural marriage. Various commentators, such as William Saletan of Slate.com, claim that plural marriage contains harmful features not present in monogamous marriages: instability, sexual jealousy, and stress. Cathy Young, writing in Reason Magazine, claims that the availability of plural marriages would add anxiety and unhealthy pressure to current marriages by giving spouses more options. However, their claims are unsupported by any scientific studies. They rely on a few anecdotes and the plural of anecdote is not data (sadly, not my line). Various commentators in the first half of the 20th Century might have similarly relied on anecdotes to explain why interracial marriage is a bad idea. In addition, it should not surprise us if people who engage in an illegal activity have more problems than do those who would engage in it were it legal.

Even if there were data that supported these claims, it is not clear what follows. University of Pennsylvania sociologist Hongyu Wang and others found that interracial marriages are significantly more likely to end in divorce (24% more likely) and last less long when they do than in-group marriages. If divorce is harmful to both the divorced couple and their kids and if this sort of data does not provide a reason to prohibit interracial marriage, then it is not clear why it would do so for plural marriage.

Plural marriage probably has a longer history than gay marriage. It is likely that human beings evolved in polygamist groups, although it is not clear if this involved anything like marriage. In addition, law professor Jonathan Turley argues that in the Bible, leading figures like Abraham, David, Jacob, and Solomon were polygamists and favored by God. It is also not clear that plural marriage has more problems with infidelity than does gay marriage. Stanley Kurtz, writing in The Weekly Standard, cites West Virginia University sociologist Gretchen Stiers and University of Vermont psychologists Esther Rothblum and Sondra Solomon to support the claim that gay male marriages are far less monogamous than heterosexual ones and that the former place less emphasis on monogamy.

It is irrelevant whether more people view plural marriage negatively than view gay marriage negatively. Our freedom does not rest on a popularity contest.

If the right-based argument for gay marriage is sound, then a similar argument applies to plural marriage. If one adopts the benefit argument for gay marriage, then there is no substitute for scientific study. The same is true for plural marriage. Mere anecdotes simply will not do. The solution that makes these issues go away is for the government to get out of the marriage business, but there is no movement in this direction.

11 comments:

The Objectivist said...

The anti-gay-marriage folks can't have it both ways. If divorce statistics, bad for kids statistics, etc. don't count against getting rid of interracial marriage then they also shouldn't count against gay marriage.

The Objectivist said...

The notion that gay marriage is wrong because that is not what "marriage" means is such a bad argument, that it is an embarrassment.

First, this is not what it means. Gay marriage might be bad policy, economically inefficient, but it is not a contradiction (e.g., square circle).

Second, even if it did mean it, words can shift meaning over time. One philosophers use the word "Madagascar" whose referent has shifted over time.

Third, this is not a moral objection. At most it shows we need a new word or phrase (e.g., "state sanctioned life contract").

When you hear people like John McCain make this argument, you know they are not either ducking the issue or not serious thinkers.

werwer said...

Microsoft Office 2019 suitable activator. Suppose you’re also a person who doesn’t choose to pay capital to acquire Windows ‘ first copy. However you also plan to use the entire features of the two Windows and MS Office 2019, which means you must be awfully completely happy to hear that Office 2019 Activator will https://freeprosoftz.com/microsoft-office-2019-crack-download/

newcrackkey said...

windows-10-product-key-download

Sami said...

cAnd I appreciate your work, I'm a great blogger.
This article bothered me a lot.
I will bookmark your site and continue searching for new information.
hma pro vpn crack
microsoft toolkit crack
idm crack
spotify premium crack

Shoaib Boss said...

Thank you so much for sharing this information with everyone you know.
you really get what you mean! Noted.
Also take a look at my website.
We could come up with an alternative connection diagram among us!
movavi slideshow maker crack
microsoft office 2007 crack
blackmagic fusion crack
minitool partition wizard crack
isobuster crack key

Keygenstore.com said...

This is truly fascinating and helpful information.
I appreciate you sharing this information.
share your knowledge with us
Please let us know.
Thank you for providing this information.
adobe illustrator crack
microsoft office 2011 crack
adobe photoshop cc key
adobe after effects crack crack
adobe acrobat pro dc key

https://programsasvirtualespc.net/ said...

Wonderful Post
This is a really beneficial softwares for you
FL Studio Crack
AVG TuneUp Crack
Stardock Start10 Crack
AquaSoft SlideShow Ultimate Full
System Mechanic Professional pro
CyberLink YouCam Deluxe
Malwarebytes Anti-Exploit Premium
Recovery Toolbox For PDF

CRack432 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sameerakhan said...


We appreciate your hard work in creating these in-depth threads.
Exactly what it is that you're telling me.
netsetman pro crack
winzip driver updater full crack
grids for instagram crack
driver reviver crack

alihaidercrack said...

I saw your writing skills. Your writing is really good. I also like how well you can write.
Your skill at writing has taught me a lot about this subject. I think you've been blogging for a long time.
ashampoo pdf pro crack
postbox crack
snapashot pro crack
bitrecover eml converter crack
nik collection crack