Sliding down the "slippery slope" to polygamy

As a descendent of polygamists, I find it incredibly offensive when people akin same-sex marriage to polygamy. I think the "slippery slope" argument is ridiculous. When people ask about what I think about polygamy, I try to answer objectively and say that if it is possible to eliminate the "oppression of women and children" part of it, and we can show that it doesn't hurt anybody at all, then I'm all for it. I understand that this is a touchy subject, especially since our country used it as an excuse to discriminate against the Mormons, who were forced to give up polygamy to get their own state. Recently, we had a guy in our Facebook discussion group who said that if we could totally prove that same-sex marriage would not lead to polygamy, he would be all for it, but he couldn't see how it would be possible to keep this from leading to legalizing polygamy. /sigh So I had this to say:

[Same-sex marriage opponent], I think I understand your concern. If we purely argue the marriage is a fundamental right, you feel that this might mean that we have to extend rights for everyone eventually, and for example, allow polygamous marriages. This is not true however, and I think I can convince you. At least I'm up for the challenge.

Rights are not absolute. Just like the different powers of government (the voters, the president, Congress, etc.) are not absolute, neither is a right. Let's take the freedom of speech for example. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right. However, we have plenty of limits on freedom of speech in the interest of the greater good. Same thing on the right to bear arms. I dont think it is legal for us to have bazookas in our homes. (At least I hope not.) Rights are expanded or limited in the interest of protecting the rights and welfare of others.

The right to marry is a fundamental right, but this doesn't mean that it can't be limited. It is limited, and in May the Supreme Court had expanded it to include same-sex couples. Just like any other right, the social welfare aspect of it was considered. In this case, there is a lot of evidence that supports legalizing same-sex marriage: the thousands of families that are already headed by same-sex couples, the major mental health and medical associations all support legalizing same-sex marriage based on empirical evidence from over 25 years of research, the studies that indicate that children of married couples actually fare better that unmarried couples, etc. etc. From a public policy standpoint, it makes sense to support same-sex marriage.

The difference with polygamy is that there is no positive research that supports it. In order for us to ever get to the point of even considering legalizing polygamy, there is going to have to be thousands of families that can be studied over many years, and then those studies are going to have to have positive evidence that support it, which I doubt will ever happen. The reason is that it is the "permanent monogamy" aspect of marriage that is stabilizing for families. When people say "I choose you and forsake all others" in marriage, they are committing to not sleeping around and to staying with one person and building a life with that person. Polygamy would undermine this aspect of marriage as we know it. Same-sex marriage actually strengthens it because we are encouraging everyone to be in stable, permanent, monogamous relationships that are recognized and protected by our government with a single binding civil contract (not the thousands of dollars worth of legal documents that are required to give same-sex couples the same protections as married couples).

Also, a personal anecdote for you. My ancestors are polygamists. They were not Mormon though so I can't speak for them, but I've heard stories from family members about the way it was. Whenever a second wife (or concubine) was added to the family, it was very destabilizing to the family. Sometimes it was devastating, especially if the first wife hoped she would be the only wife. The children are sometimes jealous of children of the other wives. The father has to split his time between families. Again, if anyone can prove that polygamy isn't going to hurt anyone and will help the general welfare of society, then go ahead and try, but I will bet on my ancestors' graves that this won't happen.

Anyway, [fellow marriage equality proponent] quoted this in a previous post [from a New York Times article written in 2004], which sums it up nicely:

"After identifying the social function that marriage serves, it is easy to allay the fears of those worried about a slippery slope to an 'anything goes' definition of marriage. Marriages between brother and sister? Incestuous marriages strike at the core of the bonds of trust and the functions of care that a family requires. Polygamy? One husband and numerous wives invites increased jealousy, deception and subjugation, and mocks the importance of 'forsaking all others,' essential components of the stabilizing function of marriage."

I also had the following to say to another person who said that there was no way that same-sex marriage would be legalized in our lifetime and that all us marriage equality proponents would "never be happy until we become a genderless society with no values and no limits":

No, a lot has happened in our lifetime. I'm really happy with the way things are going. And marriage equality is going to happen too, and it's already happening, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

There is one thing about this that makes me really happy. I'm really happy that we've left the traditional definition of marriage behind... the one that made my grandmother the second wife, where she married out of obligation and left her true love behind. The one that had to do with oppression of women, status, property, and strictly procreation. The one where love and commitment were not a prereq or even goals. That is what traditional marriage is. One thing I know for sure is that my grandmother wanted better for her daughters and grand-daughters. Our society has encouraged the evolution of the modern definition of marriage into one of love, commitment, stability, a declaration of permanent monogamy, finding a soulmate, creating and nuturing a family out of LOVE, not obligation, not a need to create heirs for men, not control. Not only that, we encourage people to make this declaration in front of family and friends and society in general, which makes us work all the harder to keeping our families intact. And our government will acknowledge this family unit with a legal status of marriage (with the protections and responsibilities that come with it). This modern meaning of marriage in itself is inherently a stabilizing force in our society. In light of this, why would you not want to encourage all people to marry? To find a partner in life to which they can emotionally and physically commit their hearts and minds to, settle down, raise children? Why do we not want to give their families the best possible environment possible (with the status and protections of a civil marriage)?

I know that my grandmother would have voted no on Prop 8. In fact, everyone in my family did, and since we are all old-fashioned traditional folk with family values, who are married with children, I find your comments about how we'll "never be happy until we become a genderless society with no values and no limits" quite short-sighted. Perhaps our goals concerning society have a lot more in common than you think.