An AP article yesterday described a possible new (old) twist in the evolution of marriage:
HELENA, Mont. – A Montana man said Wednesday that he was inspired by last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage to apply for a marriage license so that he can legally wed his second wife.
Nathan Collier and his wives Victoria and Christine applied at the Yellowstone County Courthouse in Billings on Tuesday in an attempt to legitimize their polygamous marriage. Montana, like all 50 states, outlaws bigamy — holding multiple marriage licenses — but Collier said he plans to sue if the application is denied.
"It's about marriage equality," Collier told The Associated Press Wednesday. "You can't have this without polygamy."
Collier cleverly framed his application as being "about marriage equality." He's using the language of the Left to try to achieve something most commonly associated with an extremely traditionalist group, the Mormons.
In fact, Collier is himself a former Mormon who was excommunicated for his (de facto) polygamy.
So far, liberals have not weighed in on Collier's application. After the celebrations of this past week, they don't want to sound as if they're saying, "Well, we're not for complete marriage equality, only for our form of it."
But, if you're going to expand the definition of marriage to accommodate different lifestyles, why not polygamy, as long as it's entered into by consenting adults?
It's pretty safe to assume that accommodating this particular lifestyle would not sit well with the feminist wing of the progressives. If there were such a thing as polyandry without polygamy, the feminists might support it. But allowing rich, piggish men the luxury of multiple wives? Nah.
What would happen in divorce? If there are three wives, each of them can't get a half. And making the Mormons feel justified has never been high on the liberal to-do list either.
On top of that, Collier doesn't exactly look like the kind of guy whom liberals like to support. He's a 40-ish heterosexual white guy, and neither the bolo tie in the top photo nor the camouflage shirt above quite say, "I voted for Barack."
So….the silence will probably continue.
Full disclosure: I've always supported gay marriage, having seen it as a matter of equal rights. (I know most readers of this blog disagree, but so be it.) And as a libertarian at heart, I'm inclined to let people do as they want in their personal lives.
That said, I'm not sure how I feel about polygamy.
Posts
24 comments:
are Collier's wives twin sisters or just from the same Holler?
Steven --
No idea. (You've got your West Virginia lingo down; they don't use that expression in Montana though.)
I got it from justified.
I have mixed feelings about it too. I could see it working for some people though it seems pretty weird.
It seems a bit unfair on the men who can't find a wife. I wonder whether it would have a eugenic or dysgenic effect. You might think richer, higher IQ men would have more wives and so more children but then maybe each woman would just have one kid each. Also, could it mean higher t guys having more kids, leading to a higher t population?
Steven --
Those are all legitimate points. It does seem unfair, though I doubt it would catch on in any big way. Overall it would probably have a eugenic effect, as more successful, theoretically high IQ, men would have more offspring. Right now we have the opposite going on, the higher IQ's tend to delay having children and so have fewer of them, whereas welfare has allowed the lower IQ's to generate offspring as an unintended byproduct of sex and then have those offspring supported by the state.
Homosexuals have had equal rights, they could marry anyone of the opposite sex, just like anyone else. What they wanted was something new, a new right.
We need to avoid polygamy at all costs. When you have a large percentage of the male population without sexual partners, that percentage will create chaos in a society, criminal and otherwise.
Anon --
I'm not saying I support polygamy, merely that I haven't given it any thought.
@Anonymous
they want the right to marry somebody they are actually romantically and sexually attracted to rather than be in a straight marriage which is a sham pretense that is unfair to the other person.
You must be against gay marriage for religious reasons as most anti-gay marriage people are against it because they think Jesus is against it. Then they post hoc rationalise why it is bad for society, because if God is against it, there must be good reasons.
John--I would instinctively say that I do support polygamy because, why not, who cares and they're both adults and know what they're doing. Except for one thing: I don't think it's the governments problem or the insurance companies problem to cover or insure them for more than one spouse--and any other spouse related charges, fees, expenses, etc. Otherwise what difference does it make? Currently there are plenty of people (mostly men) who live together with 2 or more women (mostly in CA) and no one gives a dam. Brian
Brian --
Yes, no one cares about totters' living arrangements, but the whole question is, should it be legal? Honestly, I've just never thought about it.
There is quite a good movie about a man whose mother pressures him to take a second wife: LEILA (1997). It stars the meltingly beautiful Leila Hatami and takes place in Iran, where polygamy is nothing new.
The best-known book about American-style polygamy, UNDER THE BANNER OF HEAVEN (2003), depicts the men in plural marriages as shiftless white-trash psychopaths who use violence and mind-control to fill their harems with weak-willed, vulnerable women.
Mark --
Just looked her up, and yes, wow, she is beautiful. She's also intelligent-looking, which, to me, adds to her beauty.
I wouldn't be surprised if in practice a lot of polygamists were actually that way. And if a lot of the women who succumbed to them were pliable and vulnerable; it makes sense.
The question for Collier is: Would he support the right of a woman to have multiple husbands? Chances are, he wouldn't.
I'm not opposed to polygamy in theory, but, like other commenters on here, I can't imagine anyone who wasn't at least a clinical narcissist deciding on their own that they wanted a harem.
"they want the right to marry somebody they are actually romantically and sexually attracted to rather than be in a straight marriage which is a sham pretense that is unfair to the other person."
Nobody has to get married. And folks are attracted to all kinds weird things: Shoes, horses, five year olds. You want marriages for every sundry perversion?
"You must be against gay marriage for religious reasons as most anti-gay marriage people are against it because they think Jesus is against it. Then they post hoc rationalise why it is bad for society, because if God is against it, there must be good reasons."
How much do you charge for your psychic services? How could you possibly know why I'm against gay marriage? I'll enlighten you 'though. I'm a deist, no religion involved. I'm against gay marriage because it's revolting. Nothing I can do about my feelings, I was born with feelings like that. As to my rationalizations, it ain't difficult to come up with reasons why homosexual marriage is a bad idea; a joke, actually.
Who would want to share their husband and/or wife with someone else? A narcissist (as another commenter pointed out) would have no problem doing so. I'm opposed to polygamy because it can't possibly lead to good mental health for all involved (I'm thinking mainly about the women). Some "spouses" would be treated better than other "spouses," causing emotional damage. In God's original plan, multiple spouses didn't figure in (just expressing some of my religious beliefs).
-birdie
Birdie --
Yeah, I can't imagine polygamy would ever become that widespread, except among the extremely wealthy, who could keep wives at different houses, the way Sir James Goldsmith did in the UK. Warren Buffett effectively had that arrangement for a long time, too, with his mistress and wife in San Francisco with whom he no longer lived.
I know this isn't what you're referring to, but I've heard that guys who've had sexual threesomes (a common male fantasy) end up saying it was a big headache, constantly having to worry about what they were doing to whom and worrying about making sure neither woman felt neglected.
If I remember correctly, Warren Buffett's first wife left him, choosing to live apart from him. For whatever reason, they didn't divorce and a former co-worker of her's became friendly with Warren Buffett, becoming his girlfriend in time. Now, she's his wife.
-birdie
birdie --
Forty billion (or whatever Buffett had at the time) certainly buys a lot of freedom.
My impression of Buffett's first wife (who was with him as he built his wealth) was that she was not a gold digger. From the articles that I read about her, she seemed like a pretty good woman. The girlfriend (who became wife #2) seemed to be a decent type, too. I personally wouldn't care to have such an arrangement.
-birdie
Birdie --
Yes, Buffett's first wife probably married him when they were relatively young and he wasn't wealthy yet. The money, and freedom, came later.
I see two questions: what do people think of polygamy, and should it be law based on the US constitution?
Since the Supreme court has found that a bunch of Christian men in the late 1700's buried in the constitution the right of homosexuals to marry - what is the probability that the authors of the constitution intended the right for gays to marry, but not for three person heterosexual marriages?
But the Supreme Court lately seems unrestrained by the constitution or the reading of plain English. The Court is more concerned with their legacy, what they perceive to be the best for current legislation, and their view of society and social issues. Therefore I'll bet the Court would vote down polygamy because it would cause problems with insurance and divorce law, and because it is not riding a wave of social acceptance - or at least a wave of socially enforced politically correct thinking.
For society as a whole, my opinion is that polygamy would be less damaging than gay marriage. Especially if it panned out that most men in polygamous marriages had the ability to provide well for their wives and all the children. Then the children would benefit from a mother and a father - with sexually consistent roles, and financial security.
- Ed
Many of these polygamous marriages rely on welfare to fund their lifestyle, especially when there are many children.
Anon --
That's a good argument against.
How about polygamous homosexual marriages?
I tend to agree with the conservative position that expanding the definition of marriage erodes the very meaning of marriage. It isn;t about sex and and isn't about procreation, but it is about a bond between two complementary companions who are building something constructive --- and something that contributes to the society they live in --- together. Why can't that be three or four or ten companions? I just don't think human psychology works that way. Spousal privilege as regards testifying in court is a formal recognition by the law, that married people should have an inviolate shelter in each other --- even from the reach of that law. Hopefully one's ONE spouse is that one special person in the whole wide world with whom one can feel that kind of ultimate trust and loyalty. If, on the other hand, one has multiple spouses, some will invariably be privy to greater intimacies, greater trust, greater privileges, and greater loyalty, leaving others out in the cold. Then you'd have the remaining spouses serving rather auxiliary and even servile functions.
Ambivalent Misanthrope --
Most homosexual marriages are, in effect, polygamous. Even though I support gay marriage, I'm happy to point out that with most of them, monogamy was never intended to be part of the equation.
I certainly agree with your latter point about how multiple spouses will result in all sorts of inequities when it comes to sex, trust, work load, etc. That's just human nature, you're not going to feel exactly the same way about different people, and different people have different work ethics.
That said, I'd also add that it's their problem. If they want to do it, my instincts are to say it's up to them. Some of those same arguments can be used against traditional marriage: there's never a completely fair distribution of labor, the spouses end up lying to each other, and after ten years the majority of marriages end up becoming just an accumulation of petty resentments. Go ahead, called me a starry-eyed romantic.
Post a Comment