So, how do you know when something is wrong with the world, and mayhaps reality itself? When you fucking find yourself agreeing with Charles Krauthammer.
In his most recent editorial, Krauthammer asks a pretty good question: If we're redefining (or maybe just finally defining?) marriage in such a manner that gay marriage is acceptable .... then why not polygamy? Apparently inspired by HBO's new show about sexy polygamists, Krauthammer suggests there is very little rhetorical ammunition left to deny those of the polyamorous persuasion their way of life. The gist is that marriage used to be about the exclusive contract of a man and a woman. We've changed the man/woman part ... so why not alter the limitation to only allowing two people to join in union?
Of course, Krauthammer is pretty annoying when he makes this argument - suggesting that the desire for gay marriage is a *symptom* of some deeper problem in the American family. I'm not sure where he's going with that, but he does redeem himself by admitting he has gay friends who he feels should be denied the right to fully and publicly express their love. So, I guess that's good.
But OK... The polygamy thing is what I'm interested in. Because, really, I think he's right. When you get right down to it, marraige is *just* a contract. There's no reason people - so long as they are rational and free - should not be allowed to enter into most any type of contract they want. As a (mostly) good traditional liberal, I can't really think of a reason to NOT allow this.
A lot of the classic arguments against polygamy trace back to concerns about what is "natural." But those have really pretty much been blown wide open ... Lots of family structures existed throughout human history. Many of them successful for long periods of time - why not this one? A classic critique is the sort of knee-jerk assumption that polygamy is just a way for empowered men to make legal harems of vulnerable women .. But there's no reason we have to assume that would be the modern case. We just allow women to have many husbands, maybe require some kind of a vetting/screening process (after all - you need a license to get married as it is) to make sure no one is being coerced, and finally ensure divorce options for all involved ... it would not be radically different than current marriages.
Probably the biggest snag is what it would do to things like ownership, definitions of household, or taxes .... But presumably these could be worked out. It would be a bit like owning a business, with many partners. There are shared assets and costs, and those are all figured out together.
The one question that pops up in mind, though, is just who would be allowed to be married to who? There are two ways polygamy could work:
1. Only people who have *no previous* marriage bonds could "marry" and form a "union." This group would then be bound only to the internal members. New members could join. Current members could exit. But no current member could "marry" another group or individual.
2. Any individual (or group) could form a "marriage" with *any other individual or group.* In other words, if you have a "marriage" of 3 people, each of *those* individuals could in turn marry other individuals or groups, willy nilly.
Obviously, that second scenario is much, MUCH less likely. The first scenario could easily conform to our current legal situation (it's like forming a "company," as mentioned above). Further, while different than most conventional family structures, it still basically coincides to the popular conception of "the household." And, anyway, the modern nuclear household - with it's highly unstable nature (read: high divorce rate) - is really *very* recent. Pre-WW II, many people lived in extended families, with aunts, uncles, and so on. So, this new polygamy would be a bit like a modified version of earlier family structures - just with more interchanging sex partners. In fact, polygamy (while not for everyone) could be *good* for many families - a nice way to pool resources, and provide more affection and stability for children in a busy, expensive postmodern world.
It's that second notion of polygamy - interconnecting networks of individuals and "marriages" - that is really interesting. It would be a *mess* of legal ties and economic confusion. But there's also something really exciting about it ... It speaks to a much more interconnected society, with people having freedom to make associations as they wish. In a world rampant with single parents, step-families, grandparents raising their grandchildren, half-siblings, and dating partners helping to rear children ... are we that far off from this *anyway*? A lot of the reasons for traditional marriage - like control of land or assurance of a clear line of inheritance - aren't really meaningful anymore, or can be overcome with science (re: paternity tests). It's just sort of interesting to wonder about the kind of social structures you would get out of such diverse, polynucleated families ... Beyond just resource sharing, what would it mean for patriarchy, heteronormativity, class/race boundaries, issues of ageing and so on? Families are foundational stuff, and often a huge preoccupation of hte law. Legally endorsing such diverse familial patterns could create a flowering of unique families that might challege the rigid, moralistic world we find ourselves in too often...
Just a thought... Damn you Charles....
********************************************************************************************************************
My Weekly Artist Chart
My Weekly Track Chart
My Overall Artist Chart
My Overall Track Chart
In his most recent editorial, Krauthammer asks a pretty good question: If we're redefining (or maybe just finally defining?) marriage in such a manner that gay marriage is acceptable .... then why not polygamy? Apparently inspired by HBO's new show about sexy polygamists, Krauthammer suggests there is very little rhetorical ammunition left to deny those of the polyamorous persuasion their way of life. The gist is that marriage used to be about the exclusive contract of a man and a woman. We've changed the man/woman part ... so why not alter the limitation to only allowing two people to join in union?
Of course, Krauthammer is pretty annoying when he makes this argument - suggesting that the desire for gay marriage is a *symptom* of some deeper problem in the American family. I'm not sure where he's going with that, but he does redeem himself by admitting he has gay friends who he feels should be denied the right to fully and publicly express their love. So, I guess that's good.
But OK... The polygamy thing is what I'm interested in. Because, really, I think he's right. When you get right down to it, marraige is *just* a contract. There's no reason people - so long as they are rational and free - should not be allowed to enter into most any type of contract they want. As a (mostly) good traditional liberal, I can't really think of a reason to NOT allow this.
A lot of the classic arguments against polygamy trace back to concerns about what is "natural." But those have really pretty much been blown wide open ... Lots of family structures existed throughout human history. Many of them successful for long periods of time - why not this one? A classic critique is the sort of knee-jerk assumption that polygamy is just a way for empowered men to make legal harems of vulnerable women .. But there's no reason we have to assume that would be the modern case. We just allow women to have many husbands, maybe require some kind of a vetting/screening process (after all - you need a license to get married as it is) to make sure no one is being coerced, and finally ensure divorce options for all involved ... it would not be radically different than current marriages.
Probably the biggest snag is what it would do to things like ownership, definitions of household, or taxes .... But presumably these could be worked out. It would be a bit like owning a business, with many partners. There are shared assets and costs, and those are all figured out together.
The one question that pops up in mind, though, is just who would be allowed to be married to who? There are two ways polygamy could work:
1. Only people who have *no previous* marriage bonds could "marry" and form a "union." This group would then be bound only to the internal members. New members could join. Current members could exit. But no current member could "marry" another group or individual.
2. Any individual (or group) could form a "marriage" with *any other individual or group.* In other words, if you have a "marriage" of 3 people, each of *those* individuals could in turn marry other individuals or groups, willy nilly.
Obviously, that second scenario is much, MUCH less likely. The first scenario could easily conform to our current legal situation (it's like forming a "company," as mentioned above). Further, while different than most conventional family structures, it still basically coincides to the popular conception of "the household." And, anyway, the modern nuclear household - with it's highly unstable nature (read: high divorce rate) - is really *very* recent. Pre-WW II, many people lived in extended families, with aunts, uncles, and so on. So, this new polygamy would be a bit like a modified version of earlier family structures - just with more interchanging sex partners. In fact, polygamy (while not for everyone) could be *good* for many families - a nice way to pool resources, and provide more affection and stability for children in a busy, expensive postmodern world.
It's that second notion of polygamy - interconnecting networks of individuals and "marriages" - that is really interesting. It would be a *mess* of legal ties and economic confusion. But there's also something really exciting about it ... It speaks to a much more interconnected society, with people having freedom to make associations as they wish. In a world rampant with single parents, step-families, grandparents raising their grandchildren, half-siblings, and dating partners helping to rear children ... are we that far off from this *anyway*? A lot of the reasons for traditional marriage - like control of land or assurance of a clear line of inheritance - aren't really meaningful anymore, or can be overcome with science (re: paternity tests). It's just sort of interesting to wonder about the kind of social structures you would get out of such diverse, polynucleated families ... Beyond just resource sharing, what would it mean for patriarchy, heteronormativity, class/race boundaries, issues of ageing and so on? Families are foundational stuff, and often a huge preoccupation of hte law. Legally endorsing such diverse familial patterns could create a flowering of unique families that might challege the rigid, moralistic world we find ourselves in too often...
Just a thought... Damn you Charles....
********************************************************************************************************************
My Weekly Artist Chart
My Weekly Track Chart
My Overall Artist Chart
My Overall Track Chart
VIEW 4 of 4 COMMENTS
if that woman has multiple children with multiple men, how is that mother to juggle time with the men and children?
is not raising a child a 24/7 job?
again, this is with ideal mother and ideal father. wouldnt it simiply make sense for a woman to have multiple children with one single man? how does this allow for other "marriages?"