Anyone who wants more than one mother-in-law deserves them

The slippery slope arguments have started in the US, where there are claims that there will be attempts to legalise polygamy because now same-sex marriage is legal, that is the next step.

Welcome to the exciting new world of the slippery slope. With the Supreme Court?s landmark ruling this Friday legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states, social liberalism has achieved one of its central goals. A right seemingly unthinkable two decades ago has now been broadly applied to a whole new class of citizens. 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?one that forces the government to recognize, as Friday?s decision said, a private couple?s ?love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family.?

The question presents itself: 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?yet many of the same people who pressed for marriage equality for gay couples oppose it.

This is not an abstract issue. In Chief Justice John Roberts? dissenting opinion, he remarks, ?It is striking how much of the majority?s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.? As is often the case with critics of polygamy, he neglects to mention why this is a fate to be feared. Polygamy today stands as a taboo just as strong as same-sex marriage was several decades ago?it?s effectively only discussed as outdated jokes about Utah and Mormons, who banned the practice over 120 years ago.

Yet the moral reasoning behind society?s rejection of polygamy remains just as uncomfortable and legally weak as same-sex marriage opposition was until recently.

Anyone who wants more than one mother-in-law deserves them.

But the same liberals who pushed for gay marriage now find themselves in a bit of a pickle.

They seem uncomfortable voicing their objections, clearly unused to being in the position of rejecting the appeals of those who would codify non-traditional relationships in law. They are, without exception, accepting of the right of consenting adults to engage in whatever sexual and romantic relationships they choose, but oppose the formal, legal recognition of those relationships. They?re trapped, I suspect, in prior opposition that they voiced from a standpoint of political pragmatism in order to advance the cause of gay marriage.

In doing so, they do real harm to real people. Marriage is not just a formal codification of informal relationships. It?s also a defensive system designed to protect the interests of people whose material, economic and emotional security depends on the marriage in question. 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?

The same arguments apply…or do they?

The marriage equality movement has been both the best and worst thing that could happen for legally sanctioned polygamy. The best, because that movement has required a sustained and effective assault on ?traditional marriage? arguments that reflected no particular point of view other than that marriage should stay the same because it?s always been the same. In particular, the notion that procreation and child-rearing are the natural justification for marriage has been dealt a terminal injury. We don?t, after all, ban marriage for those who can?t conceive, or annul marriages that don?t result in children, or make couples pinkie swear that they?ll have kids not too long after they get married. We have insisted instead that the institution exists to enshrine in law a special kind of long-term commitment, and to extend certain essential logistical and legal benefits to those who make that commitment. And rightly so.

But the marriage equality movement has been curiously hostile to polygamy, and for a particularly unsatisfying reason: short-term political need. Many conservative opponents of marriage equality have made the slippery slope argument, insisting that same-sex marriages would lead inevitably to further redefinition of what marriage is and means. See, for example, Rick Santorum?s infamous ?man on dog? comments, in which he equated the desire of two adult men or women to be married with bestiality. Polygamy has frequently been a part of these slippery slope arguments. Typical of such arguments, the reasons why marriage between more than two partners would be destructive were taken as a given. Many proponents of marriage equality, I?m sorry to say, went along with this evidence-free indictment of polygamous matrimony. They choose to side-step the issue by insisting that gay marriage wouldn?t lead to polygamy. That legally sanctioned polygamy was a fate worth fearing went without saying.

The only fate worth fearing is several mothers-in-law. But using the same arguments used to promote same-sex marriage it is now only a formality that polygamy will be legalised. The only arguments against are really just emotional arguments.

Conventional arguments against polygamy fall apart with even a little examination. Appeals to traditional marriage, and the notion that child rearing is the only legitimate justification of legal marriage, have now, I hope, been exposed and discarded by all progressive people. What?s left is a series of jerry-rigged arguments that reflect no coherent moral vision of what marriage is for, and which frequently function as criticisms of traditional marriage as well.

As I have said repeatedly, if anyone wants more than one mother in law then they deserve them.

 

– Politico

31%
×