THE NEW POLYGAMY: Jason Kuznicki

...I think it is helpful to break the issue into three distinct questions.

First: Is there anything about the new polygamy that clearly harms the participants?

Second: Is there anything about it that clearly harms others?

Third: Is it desirable--or possible--to offer government recognition for these unions?

In a sense, question one is none of my business, as I am not in a union of this type. I can say, though, from knowing some people who are, that I do not see any indication of harm. It's not a scientific observation, of course, but I also don't know of anyone who has done any hard research on the topic.

As to question two, Jon Rowe's original point seems strong in some ways and weak in others. Rowe writes,

We outlaw polygamy for precisely the same policy reason why we would demand the recognition of gay marriage: the meaningful chance for any individual to marry a person they love. The gay man, like the single-unlucky male in a polygamous society cannot marry any person he loves.

Now, if consenting polygamy were overwhelmingly one-man-plus-multiple-women, this would certainly be a problem. If, however, these unions were balanced out by an equal number of one-woman-plus-multiple-men partnerships, then the objection would disappear. Likewise, it is difficult to see any danger to allowing gay-only or lesbian-only polygamous unions, as these do not upset the sex ratio that we are trying to preserve.

So far, then, I don't have any moral objections to consenting adult polygamous unions. I have tremendous difficulties, though, when I try to answer the third question, and to understand just how these unions will be recognized by the government.

Whatever long term social effects may arise from same-sex marriages, their legal institution would be very simple to bring about. This is not the case with polygamous unions, where, if we are to avoid the possibility of exploitation by one overly-powerful partner, the web of mutual rights and obligations among the participants must grow exponentially with each addition to the union. How would a group of eight, say, make decisions about property, children's education, and so forth? Gabriel Rosenberg makes some very good points in this area, and in general I agree with his rejection of government-sanctioned polygamy as too legally difficult and far too open to abuse.

So: To my polyamorous friends, please, do not think for a moment that I oppose your unions or that I think them improper. Please recognize, though, if you can, that where same-sex civil marriage could be accomplished easily, overnight, and with a minimal chance of abuse, the same does not seem true of civil polygamy.

more
posted by Eve at 8:11 AM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home