Slippery Slope

Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia, this infamous 1967 ruling nullified the state law that banned interracial marriage. This case secured the legal right of citizens in all states to marry the person whom they love without regard to race. This is an argument that is commonly used to support the gay rights movement; the right to marry the person whom you love. If gay marriage is legalized what will become of the boundaries of marriage? Will polygamy be the next civil-rights battle?

Polygamist families have kept a close watch on the gay rights movement. Although gay rights activists don't like being tossed in the same boat as polygamist, it is hard not to when both polygamy and gay activist share a lot of the same wants and goals, such as legal privileges and to gain social acceptance.

Traditional marriage is defined as the union of two people of opposite gender; one man and one woman. If the definition of marriage is to be ratified and gender is no longer discriminated against, then why should the number two? If redefining marriage to include a union of two men, then who's to say that it shouldn't be redefined even further to include one man and two women, two women and three men, or any other possible combination?

Say three women are all deeply devoted to each other. On what grounds would gay activists dismiss their union as mere activity rather than authentic love and self-expression? Simply because there are three people involved in the relationship instead of two? And on what grounds do they then insist upon the traditional, arbitrary and exclusionary number of two? Demanding equal rights for same sex unions while at the same time discriminating against relationships involving more than the traditional definition of two.

To a large extent, the debate is now less about homosexuality than it is about marriage. Legalizing gay marriage would naturally pave the way for legalized polygamy, bigamy, and incest. Not to mention the possibilities to extend as far as pedophilias, bestiality and necrophilia rights. After all we must be fair; everyone deserves the right with out discrimination to be with the person, animal or thing they love, right? Who are you to deny them of this right. When and where do we draw the line?

There are two court rulings in 2003 changed the legal landscape on sex and marriage. First The Goodridge decision by the Massachusetts Supreme judicial court, which legalized same-sex marriage in that state, which simply states that "The right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice. This is a fundamental right". And secondly the Lawrence v. Texas decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, disallowing states to criminalize private sexual behavior among consenting adults; such as sodomy between homosexual men. Could that include the right to marry more than one person? Taken together, both these rulings appear to support the right of consenting adults to practice polygamy, bigamy, or incest.

While legalizing same-sex unions is extremely unlikely to entice any heterosexual man to leave his wife and marry another man, having multiple partners could potentially be a temptation for anyone. Allowing Sara to marry Anne does not in any way change Sally's marriage to Bill; however allowing Sally and Bill to marry other people while remaining married to each other changes it drastically. If someone has two, three, or six spouses of either sex, and they are all presumably consenting adults; would that be such a terrible thing? If they are harming anyone, it is only them selves.

Polyamory advocates talk a lot about transcending sexual jealousy, but plural marriages are rife with jealousy and tension even in cultures where polygamy is or has been a longstanding tradition. My own personal belief is that polygamous relationships are likely to involve an imbalances of power, even psychological abuse. But that statement also stands true in relationships and marriages where there is only one man and one woman.

The Washington Times stated that there is an estimated 30,000 to 80,000 families currently practicing polygamy in the United States. One of the most recognized religion in the U.S that practiced polygamy was the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (aka Mormon). The church no longer permits this practice and excommunicates members if they are found practicing polygamy. The largest groups practicing polygamy today are the fundamentalist Mormons (FLDS), Muslims, Laotian Hmongs and a large number of evangelical Christians practicing polygamy are on the rise.

A national poll states that 92 percent of Americans disapprove of the practice of polygamy. What is historically odd, is that while gay marriage is gaining acceptance, there is greater resistance to polygamy. Yet until this generation, gay marriage has never been sanctioned by any society, at any time in history, any where on the earth that we know of. On the other hand, polygamy is and has been sanctioned; indeed common in large parts of the world throughout large swaths of history, most notably the biblical Middle East, Africa and through much of the Islamic world.

The social tolerance has flip flopped at least in the west. In today's society Americans are more excepting of someone who is gay; when historically it has never been socially accepted in any part of the world, yet Americans strongly disapprove of polygamy; which is and has been widely practiced all over the world and through out much of history.

One proposed solution to this mess is to simply get the state out of the marriage business. As the Cato Institute's David Boaz asked in a 1998 article for Slate, "Why should the government be in the business of decreeing who can and cannot be married?" Boaz suggested that people could simply enter private marriage contracts; either standard or personalized, and the government could enforce these contracts like any other agreement, with no differential legal treatment on the basis of marital status.

While the chance of privatizing marriage in the future is not likely and far from being depoliticized; marriage is likely to remain a major issue on the battlefield in the culture wars.