This past week, Colby Cash wrote in the National Post about the prosecution of a polygamist in British Columbia, Canada:
Polygamy is a series fo marriages. For example, a man marries one woman at-a-time even as he adds a second wife or a third wife. The second wife does not marry the first wife; and neither of the first two wives marry the third woman. Each is the wife of their husband, not of each other.
In practice and in principle, I'd oppose treating polygamy on par with monogmous marriage, because of the significance of the core meaning of the social institution. Also, incestuous marriage (and tribalism) seem to coincide with polygamy and under-aged unions. This is a combination for the dismantling of our liberal democracy and very open and tolerant society. But this basis has been proundly undermined by the SSM campaign in Canada.
Obviously, polygamy is a form of marriage that is both-sexed, not one-sexed. And it does entail the contingency for responsible procreation. Major religions allow mutlple concurrent marriages but only as remedy, or prevention, of certain social ills that arise from abandonment or dire circumstances. No major religion subordinates monogamous marriage to polygamous marriage. Where cultural preference for polygamy exists, it is restricted based on concerns about family formation and well-being. Yet abuses of the allowance do occur, such as the "hoarding of wives and children" based on wealth, and that tend to become dominant in the practice. It comes to color social policy across the board.
Still, no society has sustained polygamy for all of its citzens. It is practiced by a relatively small minority wherever it is permitted. Polygamy becomes more of a privilege of wealth than an exercise in liberty.
Where the sexes are about equal in population, the practice of polygamy would quickly destablize society based on increased sex segregation. For example, if 100 men and 100 women comprised the adult population, and just 10% of the men had 3 wives each, then, 90% of the men would be left to compete for remaining 70% of the women. While most people marry, about 20% of the male population would be shut out of both monogamous and polygamous marriage.
Such a competitive scenario tends to encourage underaged bethrothals, even if only the informal kind.
And, given the common abuse of polygamous practices where it is allowed culturally, if just 1% of the men had 10 wives each, the above scenario would mean that 90% of men would compete for 60% of the women.
On one hand, the women could benefit from the social economics of supply and demand. In a society with modern protections based on consent, a woman could be at an advantage in choosing among available bachelors. The imbalance caused by polygamist would benefit the monogamist women.
On that basis, if a woman could freely choose to marry an already-married man, or to marry a man from bachelors, her pool of potential husbands is in effect 100% of the adult male population.
The practice of multi-marriage could advantage women even if some women are thus disadvantaged in particular circumstances. But divorce would be available for such women, as it is now.
However, for the sake of gender equity (as mentioned in Colby Cash's column), multi-marriage would not be restricted to men marrying mulitple women. Women, with the inclination and the means, could have multiple husbands. This might then neutralize the advantage/disadvantage ratio briefly described above.
I don't think a law in Canda could be sustained that barred either a man or woman from entering state-recognized concurrent marriages. On secular grounds, what would be the basis for such a prohibition, in the wake of the SSM merger with marriage in that country?
It can't be concerns about equal participation of the sexes in the conjugal relationship. If one sex is excluded, there can be no equality of the sexes within the arrangement. Sex equity is not the issue, then. But is that different from gender equity, somehow, and is that the wiggle room for those who support the SSM merger but oppose polygamy?
Without the core meaning of marriage, polygamy cannot be restricted based on concerns about integration of the sexes. It can'be be based on the pro-SSM side's paramount concern for integrating based on sexual orientations. Right?
Since the SSM merger deeply discounts the marital presumption of paternity, and thus negate the centrality of the contingency for responsible procreation, the anti-polygamists among the SSMers cannot defend the prohibition based on the unity of fatherhood and motherhood. They must find something else to put at the center of their prohibition -- something other than the raising of children.
Consent is not enough, either, for the SSMers must find some legal requirement that is absolutely enforced (no exceptions) based on age. The age limits do vary based on assumptions about maturity. These varied limits derive from that to which people consent when the enter marriage. So what is it that they consent to -- and how can that be used to bar multiple concurent marriages?
The issue of religious freedom is obviously raised by the particular polygamists who have been charged in British Columbia. However, as with the SSM issue, the court may filter out religion, tradition, custom, and even the core meaning of marriage. On a secular basis, is there any defence of the prohibition on polygamy that does not contradict the SSM argumentation that was used to push for the enactment of SSM in Canada?
It is not enough to say that the Government gets to decide, arbitrarily, what is and is not marriage. That was argued against, by SSMers, in the courts of Canada.
