I Love You Two
Three might be a crowd, according to custom and the dictates of your particular religious order, but that still doesn't explain why only couples are allowed to marry. I'm not kidding. As long as the state is still doling out all these special rights and privileges to married people (unfair marriage-privileging, in my book); it's not only wrong to limit which consenting adults can marry, but how many can tie the knot.
UPDATE: Ouch!
I've been spanked by Cathy Seipp.
Why should marriage be limited to one man and one woman? Because human nature's default mode is polygamy and women as chattel, that's why. in most societies, throughout most of history, men were NOT expected to limit themselves to just one wife. Although I guess the Islamicists think it's dandy.
Cathy Seipp at December 14, 2003 4:41 PM
Yes, but wise, non-Muslim women today could choose to have five man-servants -- uh, husbands.
Amy Alkon at December 14, 2003 7:51 PM
Sorry, Cathy, but you're making a mistake. Your suggestion that plural marriages means "women are chattel" is an awesome non-sequitir. Plural marriages means just that. Plural marriages, not necessarily a bathroom with towels that read "His" and "Hers" and "Hers" and "Hers" and "Hers" etc. Or worse, some bathing pool to be shared by the women. What's to stop a plural marriage from being one woman, two men? Or three men or three women? Or however many you need.
The argument about polygamy in times of yore is valid, I believe, because it gives a less than equal partner even less leverage. "Wifey doesn't want to toe the line? The hell with her, then. I've got three others."
In Western society, however, women have far more leverage than previous era, when polygamy was actually sanctioned.
The whole problem with your argument is that you assume a causal relationship. You're assuming that polygamy is the cause of women's lowly status. I participate on an AOL discussion board about the religious beliefs of Mormons, and they would argue the opposite: women's lowly status is the reason for polygamy, not the other way around. In a society which doesn't view women as viable members of society who can hold jobs, own property and funds, etc., being someone's wife, even someone's third wife with the other two still in "blessed wedlock" is her only protection.
To truly have a society in which plural marriage was practiced in such a fashion, we would have to cancel property, employment and rights to own funds for all women. In today's society, I can't see someone like Madonna wearing a burqa and being one of four on a literal chain attached to "big daddy." More likely, Madonna would hold the chain and have her own stable of studs to keep her happy.
I guess the point is, you're assuming that plural marriages means one person heading the union with many underlings. Who's to say that they can't function more like a committee, with every partner having equal leverage. Because I can't see a regression coming any time soon, in which we can just confiscate the money and property of all women and force them to give up jobs. And as long as they have those things, or even the right to have those things, they have leverage. And lack of leverage is what made poligamy "work" as it did.
And with that, I wanted to say it was a pleasure posting with you and I do hope you get the chance to read my reply. I'm a great admirer of yours and Amy's writings. And although I am against plural marriage -- since I prefer to be "half" of the decision making process rather than a third, fourth or fifth -- if circumstances ever forced me into a plural marriage, I'd willingly be in yours or Amy's stable, if I had to be in anyone's. (That is, if gay marriages are not legal in the hypothetical world we've created.)
Patrick at December 15, 2003 11:13 AM
By the way, Amy, Muslim males can have no more than four wives at any given time, although Muhammed himself had seven. I'm told some do actually do short term marriages (like measured in hours) just to enjoy a certain benefit of wedded life and then are summarily divorced. Such things are available in at least some Muslim countries.
Patrick at December 15, 2003 11:16 AM
Thanks, Patrick, for the kind words about my writings. (And Amy's.) But I remain unconvinced about plural marriage, because I have a dim and skeptical view of human nature.
Cathy Seipp at December 15, 2003 12:19 PM
Re: the entire marraige debate, here in NJ the state legislature is doing an end-run. Although currently gay marraige is still illegal here, they are working on a bill that would extend all the legal and financial rights of marraige to non-traditional couples, without them actually having to be married.
This, if passed, will get the state government out of the discriminatory morality business, where it has no right to be in the first place.
Will they extend that to relationships of more than 2 people? Hmn. Doubtful at this point.
The Prop at December 15, 2003 2:12 PM
Why even limit it to the human species? I think people should be allowed to marry their cats, if that's what makes them happy.
Lena Purina at December 15, 2003 8:38 PM
Whatever will keep their cats away from me.
Amy Alkon at December 15, 2003 10:27 PM
Y'all are approaching this polygamy thing from the wrong angle, namely, its impact on women. The plain simple mathematical fact is that polygamy benefits upper tier males and lower tier females. And while the wimin at the top of the food chain may bitch and moan about having to share their cream of the crop min with middle and lower class strivers, its pretty hard to argue that woman kind is worse off by avoiding a life of single motherhood or marriage to the shiftless, lazy bums of this world. Regarding Amy's point that today's Martha Stewarts could take on 5 manservant husbands- please! Even a young, fertile, Martha would still have one womb to share. No showering of mantoys can make up for that.
The real problem with polygamy are the nasty societal effects of all those left out single menfolk. All those eunuchs were castrated for a reason, you know.
Lloyd at December 16, 2003 1:28 PM
On a practical note: While I agree that the government has no right to tell us who to love, copulate or live with, does anyone really think that our society is equipped to deal with the legal and economic ramifications of polygamy? Homosexual marriage (the right to which I support) is feasible because (at this point) it involves only two people, and therefore most of the laws that pertain to heterosexual marrieds could be theoretically applied to heterosexual marrieds - the laws that allow a married couple of file a joint tax return, for instance, or for spouses to inherit property from one another free of estate tax. Does anyone have any idea how to make those same laws work in a polygamous marriage? And does anyone really want to imagine how ugly divorce and child custody proceedings could get when there are three or more brawling spouses? Frankly, the only group of people I can imagine benefiting from legalized polygamy are lawyers.
Stephanie at December 16, 2003 6:29 PM
On a practical note: While I agree that the government has no right to tell us who to love, copulate or live with, does anyone really think that our society is equipped to deal with the legal and economic ramifications of polygamy? Homosexual marriage (the right to which I support) is feasible because (at this point) it involves only two people, and therefore most of the laws that pertain to heterosexual marrieds could be theoretically applied to heterosexual marrieds - the laws that allow a married couple of file a joint tax return, for instance, or for spouses to inherit property from one another free of estate tax. Does anyone have any idea how to make those same laws work in a polygamous marriage? And does anyone really want to imagine how ugly divorce and child custody proceedings could get when there are three or more brawling spouses? Frankly, the only group of people I can imagine benefiting from legalized polygamy are lawyers.
Stephanie at December 16, 2003 6:30 PM
"Chief Justice Warren Burger [...] wrote 'in constitutional terms there is no such thing as a fundamental right to commit homosexual sodomy.'"
Dear Justice Burger,
This will probably be a stretch for your plaque-ridden imagination, but try thinking about a world where consensual sex between adults was something of a non-issue, and about all the energy that could then go toward doing brilliant work, making witty comments, and cooking really fabulous dinners -- instead of your dreary pre-occupation with the right to "commit" sex.
You clearly need to be re-educated. Your first homework assignment is to pleasure your wife while she reads "Song of Myself" by Walt Whitman out loud.
best of luck,
Lena
Lena at December 16, 2003 10:55 PM