Well, gay marriage -- unlike polygamy -- mirrors our traditional conception of marriage, substituting homosexual partners in a fiscal and emotional partnership identical to that of heterosexuals. Polygamy, on the other hand, bastardizes the institution of marriage altogether, allowing one partner to commit without truly committing, to enter into multiple fiscal alliances, and to father a potentially unsupportable number of children in multiple marriages. Therefore, the two are not exactly the same.

And what, pray tell, is wrong with polygamy if all three parties consent? It has a lot of historical precedent, is practiced across a wide range of cultures and has at least implicit biblical approval.

For those looking at it as a constiutional manner, I agree that it would be very hard to differentiate between the two. But, as is more likely to be the case, it's a matter of the government choosing to grant gay couples equal benefits to promote marriage partnerships, I don't see how choosing to support legislative enactment of gay marriage (and simply expanding the scope of recognized partnerships) is necessarily contradictory with not supporting polygamy legislation.

Dorian, but polygamists would say that they most mirror traditional marriage because it's still a heterosexual coupling.

Joe, I'm not necessarily saying anything is 'wrong' with it, just that I don't see how one can make an argument for gay marriage without making one for polygamy.

The only way to write a law allowing same sex marriage is to allow anyone to marry anyone else.

This is a solution to anyone worried about estate tax. The tax law allows transfer of estates to spouses tax-free.

A widow can marry her sons and daughters and thereby transfer her estate tax-free from generation to generation.

Jake: That is absolute bollocks. What rationale, even if a law allowed folks to marry any non-family member they chose, would require permitting interfamilial marriages?

While there is no constitutional basis for gay marriage, nor polygamy, permitting homosexual couples to consummate their relationships, and secure their families, with marriage is -- without question -- the correct, and humanitarian, course of action. Gay marriage is inevitable in the United States, and the Republican Party cannot be against the inevitable, particularly when the inevitable is right.

I'm not arguing for or against gay marriage, I just honestly don't see how one can support gay marriage and be against polygamy. The concept is the same: I can marry who I want.

Oh Karol, b.s. You're smarter than that. Don't play coy. It's for two people who want to marry to be allowed to do so - how can you not differentiate. And I do think it's fascinating that one can be pro gay marriage but anti abortion. Is it tricky trying to decide which of "god's" words mean something to you? (More for Dorian than you, obvs.)

I can't believe that I am going to jump into a comments section solely to defend Dorian regarding abortion, but here it is. Ari, your argument unfairly assumes that Dorian's beliefs on abortion are faith-based. It excludes two rigorous (if, as I think, unconvincing) arguments: (1) the questionable constitutionality of Roe v. Wade and (2) a personal moral objection to abortion.

The former is shared by people across the political spectrum, regardless of religion and the latter is the position of well-known liberal (on everything else) Nat Hentoff.

Alceste:

With all the gender types out there, how are you going to write a law that includes all those types without allowing other types of marriages. That is Karol's point.

Tax lawyers have already written papers on the tax benefits of interfamilial marriages.

So it's crazy to think that a law could specifically state, each person is entitled to one marriage at a time to an individual with whom blood/DNA is not shared?

I don't get this, I know you folks are way smarter than this thread indicates. I know this, because I know you. What gives? Is the debate more fruitful if you feign obtuseness at the start?

Dorian:

I'm not sure what constitutional basis you're referring to.

Jake:

I don't buy into your slippery slope argument that "The only way to write a law allowing same sex marriage is to allow anyone to marry anyone else."

Why does expanding the definition of marriage from "one single man and one single, unrelated woman" to "any two single, unrelated adults" necessarily mean that we'd have to ditch the "two", "single", "adult" or "unrelated" parts?

For example, we let some family members marry (e.g. second cousins) and not others (e.g. siblings).

Why would altering the law to allow two men get married *necessarily* lead to a marriage free-for-all?

Dorian:

Never mind; I mis-read your comment.

Ari, regardless of whether you're for or against gay marriage, it's impossible not to see a polygamist's point-- should gay marriage become a reality. Why not their kind of marriage? I don't understand what's so offensive about comparing the two. The argument of polygamists is essentially the same as that of gay people: why shouldn't I marry whomever I choose?

I'm not sure why the government sanctions marriages in the first place.

I think equating the two is the same as likening legalizing pot to that of zoning for a meth lab in my neighborhood - tangentially there's a bond but the differences are massive.

I think equating the two is the same as likening legalizing pot to that of zoning for a meth lab in my neighborhood - tangentially there's a bond but the differences are massive.

There are differences but if pot became legal it would be hard to explain why other substances can't be. If the pro-pot argument is "I'm an adult, I can do whatever I want as long as I don't hurt anyone", then why can't the same argument be made for other substances?

I don't think Ari ever suggested that a comparison was offensive, just that it was not necessarily apt. If the question is framed as "I should be able to marry whomever I want to marry," then I agree that the argument is largely the same. But I think that's the wrong question.

It does not necessarily follow that, by legalizing gay marriage, we would be deciding that anyone can marry anyone else as they please. A legislature could be saying (and is more likely to say) that it wants, as a matter of the public good, to promote single-sex partnerships. The legislature does not have to make the extra value judgment that everyone should be able to marry as one pleases (whether that be polygamy as you suggest or even incest as jake does).

While there may be a moral case that anyone should be able to marry as they please (there is certainly a moral and constitutional argument that the government should not interfere with these private relationships), the legislature has no moral or constitutional duty to promote certain private relationships simply because it has chosen to promote others.

Oh wow. Karol...I don't know what to say (ok yeah I do).

I definitely agree with Ari and I'm a bit surprised that you think the two are synonymous. Remember that post where you said that you don't have to be a polygamist to watch "Big Love"? Dawg...are you being brainwashed? Cuz I still watch the show to the point of obsession and I've never once thought that the two issues are cojoined.

To me, the definition of marriage is and always has been between TWO people. That doesn't mean that I judge or look down upon those who CHOOSE the Polygamist lifestyle. Cuz that's what it is...a choice.

But as a gay man, who didn't have a "choice", I'm distressed that you think the two go hand in hand. Gay marriage is between TWO people. TWO and PEOPLE.

I'm not saying destroy the polygamist lifestyle, but I AM saying that it's absolutely LUDICROUS to say that we're fighting the same fight.

Alarming news opens up ALL topics for debate and I appreciate that. But I guess...and please don't take this the wrong way...but I'm a bit saddened by your particular take on this topic.

The whole thing creates a dilemma for me that I never thought existed when visiting this site.

Do you truly not understand the plight of homosexuals working towards an equal and fair union?

Joe, did you read the Jane Galt piece? Both she and I are people who are not hostile to the idea of gay marriage, just have questions about the practicality of it. You can't be this defensive in the face of questions--as that's all this is. I do understand the plight of gay people, I just don't see how we won't be asked to understand the plight of polygamists just the same.

How about this. The state has a vested interest to outlaw polygamy because it is an institution designed to opress women, and is closely related to incest and pedophelia quite regularly.

Gay marriage on the other hand is not related technically or practically to things the state has a vested interest against. Unless, like a good Republican, you put gayness in that category.

"There are differences but if pot became legal it would be hard to explain why other substances can't be."

"Hard to explain" or not, pot is illegal, and alcohol is sold all over the place.

Why would it result in any more cognitive dissonance to say, "marriage is between two people" instead of "marriage is between two people, one of whom is male and one of whom is female."

Sam, if the women want to practice polygamy, who is the state to stop them?

You're missing Sam's point. He's not giving a reason why the state should stop any particualr polygamous relationship (and I hope it wouldn't), he's giving a reason why the state should not confer benefits on polygamous relationships as a general matter.

Sam:

"The state has a vested interest to outlaw polygamy because it is an institution designed to opress women"

That's simply not true, if there is consent. (Hell, without consent, straight marriage is awful; arranged marriages often involve young girls and relatives.)

First of all, if consentual, it's not designed to oppress *anyone*.

Second of all, regardless of "design", it benefits women over men. To wit: if a woman can choose their mate from a larger pool -- a one-on-one marriage where all parties agree or a co-marriage where all parties agree -- it benefits the ladies. If anything, it hurts men, because if someone has two wives, that's one less woman available for guys to wed. There would be a lot of single dudes.

Here I go reading Sam's second paragraph and miss the point myself on the more strident outlaw language in the first. My general comment still stands (without the stridency): the state has no business stopping the relationships, but the fact that there is a history of abuse in polygamous relationships is certainly a valid reason for not granting them public benefits.

I'm with Karol on this one. Marriage in the US was based on Christian tradition. By legalizing gay marriage you remove the traditional basis for restrictions on marriage, leaving only rational argument and public opinion.

OK, so we're not a Christian nation anymore, and that opens up gay marriage as a possibility. Why doesn't it do the same for polygamy? Why shouldn't three people get married it they want to?

Lots of coutries have legal polygamy, so apparently they've managed to work through all the "public good" issues. Presumably family law could be altered to take multiple spouses into account. And I don't think Sam's argument about it opressing women holds much water. It's a voluntary association which can be ended. Also, many of the problems you see now wouldn't exist if not for the fact that the people doing it illegally are doing things that would presumably still be illegal, like marrying thirteen-year-olds.

So this is my question: Can anyone give me a rational argument, not based on morality, why public opinion should be overridden in the case of gay marriage but not polygamous marriage? Because that's what we're talking about here - using the courts to make changes the people don't want. Oh, and by the way, "It's not the same thing" doesn't count - I could use the same argument to reject gay marriage, since it's not the same as heterosexual marriage.

Alceste: You put it far better than I did.

One can say "yes" to alcohol, Nicotine, and Caffeine while saying "no" to pot and meth. One can also say "yes" to marriage and gay marriage and "no" to polygamy and incest.

I would say yes to pot and gay marriage, Karol would not. That's fine and we can argue it on the policy merits, but to argue that my position is "impossible" or whatever is ridiculous, unless Karol, you plan on revealing yourself as a prohibitionist.

Eric, what makes you say the argument is about using courts to make gay marriage legal? The argument is about whether one "can" support gay marriage and not polygamy.

I don't think too many people in this thread were suggesting public opinion should be overridden by the courts (I know I didn't, and Dorian certainly didn't) - only that a decision by a legislature to recognize gay marriage wouldn't require legislative action on polygamy.

If it were a constitutional issue, you're probably right. If there were a consitutional right to marry and the consitutional right could alter the scope of marriage (as would liekly be the case if gay marriage were to be recognized by court action), it would be very difficult (although not impossible) to distinguish between any kinds of non-harmful, consensual relationships (whether they be heterosexual, homosexual, polygamous or incestuous). But I don't think anyone here is really trying to go down that path...

I'm not the kind of guy that reads everyone else's comments, so forgive me if I reiterate or refute some other debate by accident.

My comment is for Karol...the one and only.

Karol my friend...

"I do understand the plight of gay people, I just don't see how we won't be asked to understand the plight of polygamists just the same."

That is my exact point. And excellent choice of words, cuz you used the word "we" when I specifically addressed you. I'm more interested in your personal position than anything else.

My point is that homosexuals just want that same right that every other heterosexual American has: the right to marry the love of their life. Sure that's ideal, but that's the goal.

Polygamists ALREADY have the right to get married. And I'm not going to sit here and say that they SHOULDN'T have the right to marry more than one woman, if that's what they so decide for their lifestyle.

But I will DEFINITELY sit here and say that the Polygamy fight for more than one wife is a MUCH different and totally unrelated issue towards those of us working towards basic equality.

Can you really not see this? Why can't I marry the man of my dreams? I'm not asking for the 5 different men of my dreams. I'm asking for one. Just one Karol. Just one person that can give me what you have with Peter.

Polygamists say that they're called by God to have multiple wives and I agree that I'm called by God to have one husband. But that's just about where the similarities end. They can marry one legally and I can't. I'm not asking for the opportunity to marry one and then down the road, 2, 3, or 4 more. And if society wants to grant them that luxury, then I better get my WELL DESERVED one. Case in point.

I LURVE the fact that you are so openminded and that you question everything. I just hope that you can see this from my point of view for even a minute and understand why most gay men would see this as two completely different issues.

And I just happened to read Dorians first comment and holy shit. Excellent put. Next time I consult him (or ARI!) before commenting again. :-D

Alceste:

While you're correct in saying nobody mentioned the courts, nobody mentioned legislatures either. Personally, my major fear regarding gay marriage is the likelyhood it will be imposed by the courts without the consent of the public. I will be much happier if the decision is made by state legislatures, both because it will then reflect the will of the people and because it can altered if necessary based on experience.

Sam:
Of course anyone can support or not support policies whim. I guess the question would better be framed "do you have logical (as opposed to legal or moral) arguments in support of gay marriage that don't also support polygamy." So far I haven't seen anything particularily compelling.

Dorian:
In your first post you said gay marriage is more like traditional marriage than polygamy, implying we can stop the circle from growing based on a sense of tradition. But if tradition is so important, surely we can't allow gay marriage either?

Everyone:
I think the point about the removal of the Christian underpinnings of marriage stands: if we discard tradition and morality as the basis of marriage, what is the argument against polygamy? Again, assuming appropriate adjustments have been made to family law.

As one of the commenters in Jane's thread pointed out, China allowed polygamy for thousands of years, and the Chinese civilization was probably the most stable in history.

By the way, realize I'm an atheist and confirmed bachelor, so I don't really have a personal stake in Christianity or marriage. I just think Christianity provided the basis for the common view of marriage, and the introduction of gay marriage will shatter that basis.

Eric-

Certainly, our civil traditions are very important, but they are not (to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln) suicide pacts.

I've read most of the comments, and it seems to me that people are pretty hostile toward the idea of legalizing polygamy. As a personal matter (and I'm not at all religious), I find polygamy less offensive than gay marriage (and I'm hostile to neither).

I'll explain why: from a libertarian perspective, I generally believe that government should stay out of the marriage business (which, by the way, I don't think most gay marriage advocates really want), from not sanctioning or denying them to not giving tax breaks or other benefits to those who are married. If some guy wants to move to Montana and create a cult consisting of 15 wives who worship him, hey, not my business. But...

If the government is going to get involved in the marriage business then it should, at least, be in support of situations that generally encourage the creation and care of children. Polygamous marriages, like straight male-female marriages do that. Gay marriages do not.

So, from that perspective, I can generally support polygamous marriages over gay marriages if the government must be involved in marriage at all. But, again, I’m not particularly hostile to either.

My gay boss told me that gay don't really want to "get married" because they enjoy having so many different partners that it doesnt matter anyway. .. ?

Rachel:

And straight guys *don't* like the idea of having different partners?

And lesbians don't exist?

And your slutty gay boss is the spokesman for all gay people?