The last presidential election before this one – the Bush/Kerry battle of 2004 – took place when I was a senior in high school.
Fortunately, I had friends and family who were willing and eager to discuss politics, so it was a particularly enjoyable few months for me.
One of the burning issues during that election season was gay marriage. In the corners of the verbal boxing ring that sprouted up anywhere from German class to the kitchen table stood three main points:
1. Homosexual marriage is OK.
2. Homosexual marriage is questionable, but “civil unions” are OK.
3. Homosexuals are going to hell.
From the fourth corner of the boxing ring I stood asking (quite seriously), “What about the polygamists?”
If we’re going to be in the business of expanding the definition of marriage to mean something other than “one man, one woman,” it seems unfair to open it up to one “alternative” group and not another.
If you’re going to give the vote to African-Americans, you can hardly exclude former Asians, Mexicans or South-Pacific Islanders.
And that, of course, is a good thing.
Once we make the realization that skin color is no basis for withholding civil rights, we can apply that principle universally.
Likewise, acknowledging that love comes in different forms and different arrangements, we cannot judge which types are “right,” “natural” or worthy of being eligible for the social and legal rights associated with marriage.
Some people (everyone in group three and some in group two) would argue that the love between gays, polygamists, etc., is not appropriate or is not real love.
If that’s your thought on homosexuality, I’m probably not going to be able to change your mind.
Since the polygamy thing is a little obscure, though, I’ll explain.
I have no idea how many polygamists are in this country, nor how many there would be if the institution were legal. Probably not very many, but certainly a few.
My dad gets wary when I defend polygamy. The law against it, he says, is to help ensure equal rights for women – to discourage their indoctrination into a worldview that promotes their subjugation.
He may be right. Polygamy, however, does not necessarily mean inequality, and there is plenty of female inferiority complex building going on in ways other than multi-partner marriage.
If polygamy seems “unnatural,” it is simply because it goes against Western cultural norms. The attitude against it is certainly not universal.
“OK,” you might be thinking. “So we’ll legalize gay marriage, and we’ll legalize polygamy. But what about other alternative forms of marriage? What about people wanting to marry their brothers or deciding that they’d like their life partner to be their rabbit?”
Legalizing gay marriage does (and, indeed, should) lead to something of a logical slippery slope. Traditional marriage, however, leads to the same avalanche.
One possible solution: abolish marriage.
I don’t particularly understand why the government is involved with marriage.
I certainly support it as a religious or personal commitment, but I don’t quite get the business of giving away tax breaks for having fallen in love.
Traditionally, communal property and inclusion on her husband’s health insurance helped protect a woman if she did not work, could not work or was deserted by her husband. These considerations are not nearly as relevant as they were in pre-feminist days, but the insurance issue does remain an important point.
Of course, people in a post-marriage society could still enter into contracts associated with the institution (including each other on insurance plans or deciding to share their property), but this would happen by appointment with a lawyer, not as the automatic result of a church wedding.
One could establish such a contract with a different- or same-sex partner (or partners) or with someone else entirely: a mother, a best friend, etc.
For many people, this situation would be like marriage is now.
What this gains us, however, is a separation from the traditional Western morals that have shaped our current legal system.
Clearly, not everyone fits into the mold.
Instead of determining whom to admit and whom to exclude, it may be best simply to abandon the system entirely.<br/>&#160;