The American Spectator : The More the Merrier?

Text Size

The More the Merrier?

Challenging the illegality of consensual polygamy.

While the United States is occupied with the federal challenge to California's Proposition 8, Canada has its own pending marriage case, which is likely headed for the Canadian Supreme Court. Canada, which redefined marriage nationwide to include same-sex couples in 2005, against the backdrop of successful provincial lawsuits against the country's marriage law, could be moving on to bigger things -- literally. Specifically, polygamy and polyamory, as this case invokes the question of whether the government can continue to criminalize multiple-partner marriages. The case itself, initiated by the British Columbia Attorney General under a special provision of that Province's law, arises in the wake of failed prosecutions of polygamous sect members in British Columbia.

Advocates of polygamy and polyamory seem to have an ally in the Law Commission of Canada, a statutory body of government appointees who propose changes to modernize Canadian law and report to the Justice Ministry. In 2001, the Commission issued a report, Beyond Conjugality: Recognizing and Supporting Close Personal Adult Relationships, that questioned the continuing illegality of consensual polygamy in Canada.

Recently, the case has been uniquely complicated by an intervening interest group called the Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association. The Association is seeking an adjudication of sorts that the Canadian laws regarding polygamy (one man with more than one wife) do not apply to polyamory ("multiple conjugal relationships"). CPAA's "twist" on the law is that polyamory is just fine, and ought to be allowed, while polygamy can remain unsuitable for Canadian society. The rationale for their argument is the contention that, beyond the social science data that shows it is harmful, polygamy promotes gender inequality, and often involves coercion.

"Polyamory," by contrast, is strictly egalitarian and consensual, according to CPAA, and thus does not involve or promote one gender over the other. Affidavits filed in court detail (1) a woman and her male partner who live and have relationships with two other adults in the household (they also have a child living in the home) and who have agreed that each can pursue relationships with others, (2) a woman who lives with two other men (two of her teenage sons also live in the home), (3) a husband and wife who live with another adult (and the married couples' two young children and the third person's teenage children), and (4) a man who lives with a woman and another man (with whom he is raising a two-year-old child). Polyamory advocates also tout a lack of social science evidence showing any harm from its practice. In other words, the CPAA is arguing that since you can't prove that polyamory is bad for society, it must be good. By this rationale, we can all rest assured that Jimmy Hoffa is alive and well.

It may also be true that there is a dearth of published studies of harm caused by polyamory. This would not be surprising given the novelty of the practice and its small set of practitioners. There seems to be no shortage of breathless stories in newspapers and magazines about these kinds of arrangements but these do not equate to research. Any study of polyamorous "families" is likely to be plagued by methodological difficulties -- large holes in data, voluntary samples, reliance on self-reporting, small sample sizes, poor comparisons, and misplaced focus.

Even if the courts accept the egalitarianism, consent, and no data arguments as true, the proposed distinction between multiple-wife polygamy and polyamory in terms of social harms is spurious. In fact, it may be the case that acceptance of polyamory would, if possible, be more harmful.

For instance, the social science data we do have on children who experience a succession of relationships with parents' cohabiting partners (a kind of de facto serial polyamory, or as the sociologists call it, "multiple partner fertility") is not encouraging (here and here). They are at higher risk for abuse, behavioral problems, and household instability. The presence of two sets of unrelated children mentioned in some of the affidavits also does not sound promising for the well-being of younger children. We should not be sanguine, therefore, that children raised in polyamorous homes will be just fine.

If we take seriously the idea that marriage laws have an educative function, polyamory raises red flags. On each of the core functions of marriage -- promoting fidelity, providing a tie between children and parents, securing permanence for spouses and their children -- polyamory seems particularly harmful. Both traditional polygamy and polyamory promote types of infidelity (though the former is of a more orderly variety), of course, but the chaos of polyamory blurs distinctions of parenthood more significantly than does a setting where a child has an established set of parents and lots of half-siblings. The ethic of "choice" at the root of polyamory does not bode well for permanence either.

As complicated as the day to day existence must be for children in homes with multiple adults acting as "parents," the breakup of polyamorous relationships would be dramatically more complicated for children. There would be an exponential increase in the possible divisions of a child's time, of decision-making authority and demands for the child's loyalty, when the dispute involves three or more people than when only two disputants are involved.

Clearly, when it comes to marriage, the adage "the more the merrier" does not apply.

About the Author

William C. Duncan is the director of the Marriage Law Foundation.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (122) | Leave a comment

stephanie| 9.2.10 @ 6:48AM

When do the horses and dogs come in?

PJ| 9.2.10 @ 8:56AM

Very soon!!!!

Don| 9.2.10 @ 2:43PM

I fear you miss the point. The next barrier will be adult incest. Brothers and Sisters, Fathers and daughters, Mothers and sons. The logic of Legal precedent must be obeyed.

mzk1| 9.2.10 @ 6:51PM

I've been thinking this for a while.

What I find ridiculous is that prohibitions like Adultery and Homosexuality, which are common (albeit perhaps in a restricted form) to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, are all allowed - while polygamy, which only Christianity considers immoral, will get you hard time. (No, Judaism doesn't; there is a custom among the Jews in Christian countries not to allow more than one wife, and even that has exceptions.)

Of course, polyamory and polyandry are a different matter; once that happens, we will probably need to petition for government to stay out of the marriage business altogether, and the destruction of society will be complete.

Stormzeye| 9.2.10 @ 10:10PM

Why can't I marry my brother? I want him to get my Social Security survivor benefits because he's poor. Because we can't have children the consanguinity laws (prohibiting incest) would not apply. Why not?

Gigi| 9.7.10 @ 10:39PM

Why don't you make arrangements with a lawyer to will your benefits to your brother? And why don't you start now to put aside money for him and set up a savings or investment account? There are lots of ways to take care of him. Is he disabled? Is he unable to work? Is he elderly? Being poor is not in itself a disabling condition. Are there ways to help him out of poverty now?

Alan Brooks| 9.2.10 @ 7:15PM

Next stop, underage sex.
But where will the cutoff be? can they have sex with newborn babies? or do they wait 'til kids can hop in a hottub and swallow a quaalude?
It has to be sorted out.

Darin| 9.2.10 @ 7:00AM

When you legalize same-sex marriage, you cannot make polygamy or polyamory illegal. It then becomes difficult to justify age restrictions, opening the door for pedophiles to "marry". It next becomes quite reasonable for rapists to claim they "married" their victims even though the victim did not consent. After all, the rapist can state they "loved" the person, and denying them their love violates their rights.

Ridiculous? Based on what? Once you say gay marriage is OK, you have little ground to stand on against the above listed items.

Greg| 9.8.10 @ 12:04AM

Faulty slippery logic. Would you say the same silly things back when the laws against interacial marriage were stuck down. Nobody is for legalizing violent crimes or going to allow the legalizing sex crimes against minors. Just silly.

BTW Polyamory is already legal... can't legislate love between two consenting adults.

JL| 9.8.10 @ 12:18PM

Not only that.. if we consider "marriage" to be a state of being that is defined by the churches.. then it has no place in law. We've learned that we need to take the church out of schools.. when will we learn that we cannot allow the church to make the laws? Until all people agree on ONE religion, it's too fragmented and confused to be trusted with lawmaking! I refuse to accept that a church that I do not believe in can partake of making laws that I am obligated to follow.

Jeri S.| 9.19.10 @ 12:15PM

I completely agree with you JL, when you stated "we cannot allow the church to make the laws". The US Constitution was to guarantee a "separation between Church and State", while allowing for "freedom of Religion" but which religion is true? they are all going to argue that their faith is the correct one, so who's going to prove it? I support Gay marriage, marriage between consenting adults, as well as relationships between consenting adults. It personal choice, and Personal Freedom, US Constitution allows us the personal freedoms, and the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness (14th Amendment). So who decides that a fundamental 14th amendment right is not allowed? Some Religion or religious point of View? Unfortunately, it's and ugly argumentive cycle.

Starchild| 9.20.10 @ 3:08AM

The slippery slope started long before same-sex marriage. When you allow heterosexual couples to marry, it becomes difficult to justify banning gay couples from doing the same.

So logically what you should be arguing for is eliminating marriage altogether.

Shamus| 9.2.10 @ 7:25AM

Consent is a barrier to bestiality and pedophilia. Animals and children lack legal capacity to enter into a legal contract.

Group marriage, however, could not be excluded were same sex marriages to be approved by the courts as a civil right.

Dave M. (now in S. Korea)| 9.2.10 @ 7:48AM

Shamus, It has been the tradition of our legal system that children do not have the "legal" capacity to consent. Girls without the legal right to consent have the Constitutional right to an abortion, without the consent of their parents. A legal marriage also used to be unquestionably between one man and on woman. Legalities can change, especially with leftist jurists.

Also, you claim animals cannot consent. What are you some kind of speciesist?

Shamus| 9.2.10 @ 9:37AM

Courts generally have not allowed animals to have standing in legal proceedings, but as you say, this could change. I'm not looking forward to the day that my cat sues me for refusing to prepare wild salmon in Hollandaise sauce.

Eric Cartman| 9.2.10 @ 2:28PM

Don't worry, Shamus. It won't be long. And I'm not kidding. http://www.slate.com/id/2228259/

Darin| 9.2.10 @ 8:29AM

Many of the same people pushing for same-sex marriage are pushing to lower the age of consent to as low as 12. You are saying you're OK with this because it would be "legal."

Slavery used to be "legal" in the US as well. It still is legal in some countries. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is right.

Shamus| 9.2.10 @ 9:51AM

I'm saying that I don't think US courts would go along with pedophilia. If it were my decision I would set the age of consent to be 18, but state legislators will make this decision rather than me. There are laws on the books today that I think are morally wrong, but the only real power I have to change them is through going to polls and voting.

RWinks| 9.2.10 @ 1:13PM

Shamus, Until recently, I didn't think US courts would go along with same sex marriage. Only 10 years ago most homosexuals thought the idea was absurd. What state do you live in where legislatures make such decisions? Going to the polls and voting only matters if one lives under self-government. The people of the USA live under judicial despotism and will continue to so suffer until despotic black robed lawyers are forced to stop making public policy decisions.

Starchild| 9.20.10 @ 4:18AM

"If one lives under self-government", one has the freedom to make one's own choices in life so long as those choices do not violate the life, liberty, or property of others. (See the Advocates for Self-Government, at http://www.TheAdvocates.org)

Unfortunately you're right RWinks -- people living in the USA can hardly be said to have self-government. Judicial despotism (and legislative despotism, and executive branch despotism) are the orders of the day.

Derek Leaberry| 9.2.10 @ 10:59AM

Perhaps we can return to arranged marriages of girls as young as 12 or 9 or 6. If two men can get married, why not a 10 year old girl?

Stephanie| 9.2.10 @ 12:40PM

Hmm, sounds like that "religion of peace" that flys planes into tall building and saws off reporters heads in from of cameras. Yep, line up those young 12 year old girls and let those muslim men pick out which one they like.
Speaking of pedophilia, does anyone remember NAMBLA in Mexifornia and how the ACLU defended their rights to have relationships with 13 year old boys? Said it was good for them. so maybe they can step in and speed things up so adults can have children of any age and gender.
The depravity.

Walter| 9.2.10 @ 2:02PM

Stephanie,

Your post reminds me of an editorial that I just read this weekend in the New Haven Register. The editorial was the first time that I read about a custom in Afghanistan where adult males take young boys (around 12-14) as their lovers. The editorial quotes an Afghan saying something about "women are for children, boys are for pleasure." I think that I've mis-remembered that, but that was the gist of the quote.

Rod Weinand| 9.4.10 @ 9:20AM

Walter. Check out 'Frontline' they did a program on it. Blew me away. Also the movie ' The Kite Runner' Beware it may change veiw's on Afganistan. Like Polo with goat heads.... R_

Starchild | 9.20.10 @ 4:21AM

Don't forget how Shakespeare and other "classical" authors encouraged this sort of thing, e.g. Romeo & Juliet, a tale of depraved pedophilia.

J.R.| 9.2.10 @ 12:42PM

Uh-huh. Right. 12. Sure they are. That completely passes the laugh test.

Who, exactly, and why should we believe you?

Recognized leaders? How many, and how recognized? Let's see who recognizes them. Name many (you said "many", so you'd better be able to name many). For each person, give name, nature of that person's leadership, the exact age that person has suggested, and a pointer to where we can find that person's public statement supporting what you claim. Press reports are acceptable if they give the person's actual words, describe when and where those words were spoken, and give a credible source for the information. Organizational statements are OK if the person is in a leadership position at that organization.

The rank and file? Point us to actual numbers, the methods used to get those numbers, and the credentials of the people who did the study, which had better include some social science PhDs. Original publications only. No hearsay.

I'm sure we'll all be fascinated by your evidence.

Starchild| 9.20.10 @ 3:12AM

Indeed, just because something is legal doesn't make it right! Just because it's "legal" to discriminate against polyamory, doesn't make it right.

Martin Luther King Jr. reminded us that we have a duty to violate unjust laws.

LauraHollis| 9.2.10 @ 4:47PM

Shamus - that argument is often raised, but will be subject to challenge, and it will be contraception and abortion that provides the legal precedent. Specifically, we now allow girls as young as 13 to obtain birth control pills or abortions without parental consent and/or with a procedural for a bypass of parental consent. It will be argued that it is absurd to maintain that girls this young can decide whether to prevent or terminate a pregnancy, but cannot decide to have the consensual sexual relationship which produces the pregnancy.

Young boys will then be deemed to have the same capacity to consent, by virtue of an equal protection argument.

Thus, the "consent" requirement will be done away with by lowering the age of consent to absurd levels.

I will also go out on a limb and submit that there will also be some ethicists who will argue that certain animal species demonstrate affection and manifest their emotions in other ways, and so they should be deemed to "consent" to sexual congress with a human, as well. (Or at least, that as long as animal brutality is not involved, they are not harmed by it.)

I have been deliberately rational and non-inflammatory in my description of these depraved arguments, because I wanted to demonstrate precisely how they will be made.

And believe me, they will.

Noah| 9.2.10 @ 7:50AM

Actually polyamory was being pushed by the sexual avant garde. NEW YORK MAGAZINE had an article on a colony of such on Staten Island. The upshot was attempted murder. We're toying with volatile emotions here and they're not to be mocked. Neither is the WRATH OF G-D

Claypoole| 9.2.10 @ 12:30PM

Has anyone noticed that in many, if not most, cases of child abuse the abuser is Mommy's boyfriend? What happens to the child when Mommy has lots of boyfriends?

Walter| 9.2.10 @ 2:18PM

Claypoole,

I've been noticing that fact for years. I used to keep track of criminal child abuse charges in my local area as reported in the New Haven Register local news pages. The overwhelming majority of cases were perpetrated by the babysitting boyfriend while Mom was away. Indeed, I suggest that anyone who doubts it read the local news in their local newspaper and keep a running total of child abuse cases. I think that you will find the same pattern holds true.

What makes me really mad is the myth that Hollywood and TV perpetuate that child abuse is the domain of biological fathers who are crazy right-wing fundamentalists or corporate big-wigs.

JL| 9.8.10 @ 11:48AM

Clay, if they were truly practicing Polyamory, then there would be multiple, loving relationships, and the child would be protected seven ways from Sunday by genuinely caring "boyfriends". By the way? Lots of Mommies already have lots of "boyfriends"... but since they're sexual and not CARING relationships, the trouble starts.
Your stats are skewed anyhow.. child abuse is most commonly initiated by a close relative or family member. So whether there's one "boyfriend" or eleven, what will that matter when Uncle Bill decides to do something nasty?.. Actually.. it might HELP.. more people looking out for the child's welfare..

Starchild| 9.20.10 @ 3:18AM

Trying to equate polyamory with murder is absurd. If you're in favor of pandering to people (or deities) with volatile emotions, do you think the law should ban offending fundamentalist Muslims by burning the Koran, drawing cartoons of Mohammed, or banning burkhas?

JP| 9.2.10 @ 8:58AM

From a purely constitutional point of view, there are 3 cases that if taken as a whole point to a constitutional right to Polygamy. Those are Griswold v Conneticut, Roe v Wade, and Lawrence v Texas. The first case involved the right of married couples to buy artificial contraception, the case involved the right of women to procure an abortion, and the third case involved the right of men and women to participate in sodomy.

By right I mean a constitutional right. That is abortion, birth control, and sodomy are on the same levels as the right to own a hand gun or the right to free speech. What differentiates these 3 rights from our enumerated rights is that the enumerated rights were explicitly written into our constitution. That is, they were put beyond the writ of our legislators and courts. The other 3 rights were forced upon our nation via 5 or more Supreme Court Justices (in Justice O'Douglas' famous words these rights flowed from penumbras and eminations of the established Bill of Rights). In short, there has been a judicial tradition of reading into our laws hidden rights - the most often cited hidden right is the "right to privacy".

One other trend within the high courts has been the reading of foreign laws and legal trends into thier case law. Justices Breyer, Ginsberg, and Kennedy all believe that in some instances it is perfectly correct to inject the constantly evolving trends in global jurisprudence (of course, they do cherry pick those trends. I seriously doubt that they would use Iranian imposition of Sharia Law. But, you never know with our elites).

All of these trends point to the imposition of Polygamy by what Antoine Scalia calls "Our Robed Masters". Many decades ago, conservatives warned our nation that the Right to Privacy was nothing more than a concerted effort to force a redefinition of marriage on our nation. An anything goes mentality is what results. Our post-war university elites have long been at odds with "The West" in general and Christianity in particular. But those warnings fell on deaf ears. The prophets were ridiculed as crying wolf (as lates 2005, the proponents of the Lawrence case laughed off the idea that making sodomy legal via previous privacy precedents was being preposterious).

The proponents for Polygamy use the same legal reasoning that both abortionists and homosexuals have used - The Right to Privacy. This is the Pandora's Box that was opened in 1967 with the Griswold Case. And from a purely legal point of view, they do have a point.

Derek Leaberry| 9.2.10 @ 10:16AM

Polygamy, the end of age restrictions on marriage, and a reemergence of groups like the Oneida Society free love movement will be the natural road the queer marriage leads us. Thank Dick Cheney, Ann Coulter, Ken Mehlman, Ted Olson and George W. Bush, among others.

Starchild| 9.20.10 @ 3:22AM

Who do we blame for gluttony? Factory farms? Las Vegas casinos that serve buffets? The inventor of the twinkie?

David W| 9.2.10 @ 10:21AM

Just one word.... NMBLA. Okay, one acronym. this is a real organization that believes it is okay for an older males to have physical [and loving?] relationships with young boys. This isn't pedophilia. It is similar to what the homosexual Catholic priests were doing. It just takes one judge to start the ball rolling toward approval. If homosexual marriage is okay, then what moral values can be used to prevent anything else? There are none because one can't enforce values on someone else - no matter how offensive that behaviour may be.

KyMouse| 9.2.10 @ 10:47AM

Just a guess, but I suspect that interest in, or approval of, polygamy is more widespread than we think. I may have mentioned this before -- a young married couple started attending my small church group, and after a while casually mentioned that they had taken a "sister wife" -- and that the three of them had gone on a honeymoon together. They were informed that they would have to end that relationship, in keeping with God's commands in the Bible (which were shown to them), or stop attending. They moved on.

JP| 9.2.10 @ 11:57AM

What some are advocating is the Pre-Christian ideas on marriage. And to be honest, the Christian concept of marriage and family took almost 1000 years to instill in Europe. The actual Sacrement of Matrimony (The Making of Mothers) is not something one finds in Nature. It was Aquanis who said Christ's Grace works through Nature (and not against it). Matrimony is something alien to non-Western Cultures. But overall, it elevates Mothers, thier Children and leads Men back to Christ. The institution of the Christian Family survived, and it is one of the few areas where all Christians can agree on. It is obvious why it was attacked so fiercely by Progressives.

But Progressives do not realize the Nature abhors a vacuum. I seriously doubt that society will totally return to the Pagan institutions of marriage (but, you never know). I agree with those see Islamic ideas taking place of Christian ones - marriage inclusive. Mothers after all naturally are attracted to some type of protection. If the Christians cannot offer it, the Muslims will. And over 500 million Muslim wives would agree.

mzk1| 9.2.10 @ 7:08PM

It should be pointed out that the general conception of marriage in Judaism and Islam, and probably in many pagan cultures is that it is a pledge given by the woman to a man to have relations only with him. (There are other aspects, of course, such as social issues and mutual civil (monetary) obligations, such as support.)

The upshot of this is the basis of civilization, which is, knowing who your father is. In Judaism this is called Yichus, and determines such things as the Preisthood and tribal affiliation. Chronicles spends many chapters detailing such relations, and contains the statement, "and all Israel has their geneology (hityachasu)".

One generally knows the mother; if one also knows the father we have civilization. Ann Coulter's latest book details what happens when this does not exist.

Can DNA testing replace marriage? I wouldn't bet on it.

P.S. The Romans were mongamous, I believe. They were also quite licencious.

hoogontz| 9.2.10 @ 3:20PM

to be fair, polygamy was permitted in the Hebrew bible, and was often commended as a means of obtaining children hen the first ife could not conceive. This was considered better than divorcing the first wife. per the Greek those who held positions of authority in the church could have at most one wife. it is clear that the limitation for Christian males to one wife is subsequent to the second century. Similarly, the Church allowed for concubines, who had rights but were not wives, through the fourth century. For Roman Catholics ho acknowledge authority as well as Scripture, this is not an issue. For Protestants, iI imagine this is a b it more of a challenge.

JP| 9.2.10 @ 3:49PM

I don't believe the RCC ever condoned concubines (of course that didn't prevent many of the artistocracy to do just that). The RCC's tradition was primairily taken from a) The Jewish Tradition and b) Later from its own Traditions as passed down from the teachings of the Early Church. As I stated before, marrigage as we know it didn't come about overnight. It took 1000 years to develope not only the religious contexts, but also the legal privleges. Saint Augustine, was a typical Roman in his youth. He had many lovers, and from his own account it was difficult for him to live a chaste life - but he did. The Roman insitution was far different from the Jewish instiutions Saint Paul recounts how difficult it was to stop the practice of Temple Prostitutes in Cornith. And the Christian insitution of Matrimony was even more different. The treatment of women and children was the key to these differences.

The late Pope JPII gave a series of lectures in the 1980s, which have been put together and are known as the Theology of the Body. In it, the Pope traces the long series of thought that ties together Husbands, Wives, thier unification through marriage, and how this mirror's Christ's love for the Church. This thought took 2000 years to develope. And it appears we about to throw it out.

Starchild| 9.20.10 @ 4:27AM

I'm sure it took a long time to develop the institution of slavery, too. Just because something has been around a long time doesn't automatically make it good.

EQV| 9.2.10 @ 10:57AM

MTV has a series, called "True Life", which follows teens/early twenty-somethings through various dramas - drug addiction, being autistic, etc.

Recently they had an episode which profiled living in a polyamorous relationship. I remember watching, mesmerized - I couldn't believe my eyes - and thinking that - yup - that's exactly where legalized gay marriage leads. How can anyone discriminate against multi-partner marriages, if you can't discriminate against homosexual partner marriages? And MTV is proudly leading the way.

If adults want to live together in some kind of sick sexual relationship with six other people - whatever. Have at it. But you can't just turn a blind eye when there are children involved. What if these advocates of plural marriage and polyamorous relationships want to have - and even adopt - children? Where does it end?

What will happen to America? Literally it brings me to tears to think about our prospects in the coming years. What are our choices - totalitarian socialist government, or a bloody civil war - or secession?

If progressives think they are so right - they can have part of the country. Let them tax each other to death - and their government permit any form of "marriage" and any kind of licentiousness, yet control all religious expression, and eliminate capitalism and the free market.

Here's the deal - the liberals/progressives can have the South - heck, give them twice as much land - we conservatives will take the Dakotas and the colder regions. Of course we'd have to build a giant Berlin Wall to keep out the marauding, starving, murdering hordes. Because they'd never be able to govern a country themselves, without widespread corruption and starvation.

joli| 9.2.10 @ 8:48PM

No, the repressives can have the areas where they are already primarily concentrated--the coasts. We get Texas and Louisiana, which have most of the largest shipping ports in the nation, and all of flyover country.

DG in GA| 9.6.10 @ 11:02AM

Joli, don't give them the WHOLE coast! Let's give them New England and maybe Washington and Oregon. They already HAVE Mexifornia. But being a Southerner, I would prefer to keep our predominantly conservative Southeastern states.

JL| 9.8.10 @ 11:53AM

You're all sick. Depraved. You would discuss the concept of concentration camps and forced relocation, just because someone's idea of a relationship doesn't fit in with yours? Have you no couth at all? No morals? Your generalization and misinformation combined with your blind thoughtlessness are staggering. You should be ashamed.

mzk1| 9.12.10 @ 7:56PM

How long have you been paranoid?

Starchild| 9.20.10 @ 3:34AM

There's no need to choose between totalitarian socialist government, a bloody civil war, or secession -- though there is an argument to be made that the United States is too large to be governed as a single jurisdiction, and that this is part of what has led to out-of-touch, out-of-control government in Washington D.C.

If liberals and conservatives would just agree to stop using government and the law to force their morality on each other, I think we could all get along in relative harmony most of the time.

Of course each group would have to give up some of its cherished attempts to control the lives of others. Here's a short list (this only scratches the surface of the authoritarian, busybody tendencies on both sides, but it'd be a start):

LIBERALS CONSERVATIVES
high taxes anti-gay laws
gun control border controls
wage controls the "War on Drugs"
"hate crime" laws racial profiling
property rights abuse censorship
licensing laws curfews

Louis Jenkins| 9.2.10 @ 11:00AM

Wow, this is a catastrophie. Dogs and cats sleeping together! The libertarian in me says it doesn't matter as long as harm is not done to the individuals, the conservative says that harm can be done. But the Canadian courts says that there is no evidence against polaymory, therefore it must be okay. It has left me confused. I thought marriage was between a man and woman, and now the court in California has struck that down. Where will it end? I'm going to continue with the thought-Marriage is between a man and a woman, and all other constructs are a bunch of crap. Just because its legal doesn't make it "God Approved."

James Pawlak| 9.2.10 @ 11:17AM

If I move to BC can I marry George and Matilda, my pet goat and sheep?

Richard| 9.2.10 @ 11:19AM

Haven't you learned our gay judge that if if they love each other then anything goes. Get with it, dude.

Julia| 9.2.10 @ 11:40AM

This seems like an endorsement of Islam to me. Islam allows up to four wives and marriage to children. Legislation like this seems to be paving the way for Sharia law. I am not religious myself, but it's amazing to me how the left demonizes all religions except apparently Islam, the most extremist and hateful to women of them all.

Frank| 9.2.10 @ 11:42AM

Heather can have two mommies but, she can't have two mommies and a daddy?

NotALibertarian| 9.2.10 @ 11:47AM

This entire issue is a stark indictment of libertarianism. It proves that the pie-in-the-sky civil rights utopianism these people are pushing (into the conservative movement) would be disasterous.
Libertarians are constantly highlighting how Not Christian the founding fathers "really" were. But the lack of limits on the state to regulate sexual behavior is conspicuously absent. None of the founders -- religious or not -- envisioned debauchery as a God-given right.
Finally, it is important to note how closely pro-gay marriage supporters mirror the Left in their advocacy, focusing on ideology and good intentions, rather than real, effects of the policies they support. (Hey, who here wants to raise a family in Holland's Red Light district?!) Their argument is, don't talk to me about consequences of what my ideology compels me to accept. My ideology is so wonderful, it must be followed, regardless of who is harmed.

NotALibertarian| 9.2.10 @ 11:52AM

Uh, that should read: "But limits on the state to regulate sexual behavior is conspicuously absent."

Forgive me. English is only my first language.

Starchild| 9.20.10 @ 3:40AM

So you're saying it *isn't* a god-given right to choose to engage in debauchery if one has the means to do so?

In other words, you are denying God's gift of free will to humanity?

Well then. Where will you start? Outlawing buffet restaurants? Banning amusement parks? Going around letting the air out of children's bouncy castles? (If people learn to have too much fun when they're young, they may never break the habit!)

Jim| 9.2.10 @ 11:50AM

The three men accused of obstructing justice in connection with the murder of Wone in D.C. (for which there is a website) admit to being a threesome.

David| 9.2.10 @ 11:55AM

As I've argued on this site may times, if same sex marriage is allowed, how can anyone deny multiple marriage partners of any number? It just wouldn't be fair and it wouldn't be legal. Further, how can anyone deny any 2 consenting adults to marry? Mothers should be able to marry sons (a mother and son are currently in prison in Michigan for doing so), brothers should be able to marry sisters, etc. The primary reason for denying incestous marriage was that they would produce hideous offspring. That was back when everyone understood the primary purpose of marriage was procreation. But hideous offspring are not a problem when one can have an abortion at any time during all 9 months of pregnancy for any or no reason at all.

Either we stop same sex marriage or any number and combination of consenting adults should be able to marry.

Skip the animals and underage children analogies. They cannot consent.

NotALibertarian| 9.2.10 @ 12:24PM

I may be missing something, but why are so many people here so confident in asserting that children "cannot consent"? Do you really think that assertion would not be challenged? Radicals who think it is reasonable to challenge something as basic as the definition of marriage will think nothing of challenging the notion that children cannot consent. And judges will line up to breathlessly agree.

Connect the dots: A few years back we saw some conspicuous civil suits brought by children who wanted to "divorce" their parents. Add to that the existence of underground and not-so-underground literature (all of it specious) about the supposedly secret sexual lives of children.

Parents bring lawsuits -- on behalf of their children -- against school systems all the time. That implies that children have civil rights. If sexual proclivities become a civil right, the state will become obligated to recognize the "sexual rights" of children.

Starchild | 9.20.10 @ 3:46AM

I don't think anyone is saying children can't consent. Obviously kids consent to things all the time. They consent to go to the park, to eat ice cream (sometimes even vegetables), to wear certain clothing, etc. I think the argument is simply that they are incapable of consenting to anything involving sexuality until they turn 18.

Christopher Scott| 9.2.10 @ 12:46PM

There is a U.S. Supreme Court opinion that explicitly holds that a statute criminalizing polygamy is constitutional. Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878). The U.S. Supreme Court has had numerous opportunities to revisit this case over the years as there have been sporadic criminal prosecutions of bigamists with the most recent denial of certiorari in 2007. Therefore, the current law is clear that polygamy may be outlawed by the states.

Of course, the U.S. Supreme Court used to hold that states may criminalize consensual sodomy and it now holds that states are constitutionally prohibited from criminalizing consensual sodomy. I suspect that the logic behind a constitutional prohibition on criminalizing sodomy also suggests that states should not be able to criminalize any consensual sexual behavior between legally competent adults. However, I bet the U.S. Supreme Court never takes the next step by over-ruling Reynolds v. U.S. because polygamists are mostly not hip-and-trendy urbanites who socialize with the governing class. Whereas, the governing class does socialize with urbane homosexuals. As silly as this situation is, I think constitutional law often comes down to who the justices on the U.S. Supreme Court socialize with and they do not socialize with polygamists.

JP| 9.2.10 @ 1:08PM

You make good points Scott, but the Lawrence vs Texas case, which elevated sodomy to a constitutional right was predicated by The Right to Privacy. The controlling case law was Griswold vs Conneticut. Essientially, the majority opinion stated that the Privacy Rights expounded by O'Douglas in Griswold apply also to sodomites.

It is the courts application of Privacy Rights (as expounded by O'Douglas et als.) that will be argued in some future court case by Polygamists. And don't be so quick to discount the trends of our elites. They took up the Muslim defense in rather quick fashion. And there has been quite a bit of positive spin concerning polyamory coming out of Hollywood in recent years. And once 5 justices pick up the this trend, it will be difficult for them not to extend "Privacy Rights" to polygamists.

J.R| 9.2.10 @ 12:49PM

"For instance, the social science data we do have on children who experience a succession of relationships with parents' cohabiting partners (a kind of de facto serial polyamory, or as the sociologists call it, "multiple partner fertility") is not encouraging (here and here). "

Funny, I've never heard the word "serial polyamory" applied to that. It's more often called by its right name: "serial monogamy".

Probably we should ban monogamy.

Paevo| 9.2.10 @ 12:56PM

Yes, because som are unfaithful let's ban the entire institution of marriage. And because some steal, let's ban private property. And because some take the bus, let's ban automobiles... Etc. Etc.

JL| 9.8.10 @ 12:01PM

Perhaps look at it this way.. we allow people to perform "serial monogamy" all the time.. and it's been proven to be unhealthy for children quite often. So.. if you disagree with Polyamory, perhaps there should be a limit on monogamous relationships in a year, hm? What's the difference, to your kind of view? Is it more morally acceptable for someone to marry and divorce 11 times in their life, or to have a couple of loving relationships at the same time? Why is it legally ok for someone to sleep with twenty seven different sex partners in a year, but not ok to form a loving, long-term bond with more than one person over a lifetime? If you can divorce, fall in love, and remarry, obviously you can love more than one person.. . can you definitively prove that it's impossible to love more than one human at a time? NO. Because you love your children, your parents, and your spouse... all at once. Love is not a finite attribute. Love is infinite.

Dean from Ohio| 9.3.10 @ 9:06PM

Indeed, (Richard John) Nehaus' law states, "Where orthodoxy is optional, it will soon be proscribed." The conscience propels the extinction of witnesses against it.

Dean from Ohio| 9.3.10 @ 9:07PM

Neuhaus

Chuck Anziulewicz| 9.2.10 @ 1:01PM

William Duncan's attempt to conflate marriage equality for Gay couples with polygamy and polyamory is absurd. I could just as easily say, "Gee, if you allow a man to marry ONE woman, who's to say he shouldn't be allowed to marry TWO OR MORE?"

The quest by Gay couples for the same legal benefits and protections that married Straight couples have always taken for granted is a simple matter of equal protection as the 14th Amendment specifies, since the only difference between Gay and Straight couples is the gender of the two people in the relationship.

This whole "slippery slope" argument is really starting to get tiresome. I'll admit that people on all sides of the political spectrum are guilty of using this sort of argument. I prefer not to, since making connections between such disparate issues is usually pretty ridiculous. Consider the issues of polygamy and polyamory on their own merits (or lack thereof), but they have no more to do with Gay marriage than they do with Straight marriage.

NotALibertarian| 9.2.10 @ 1:10PM

The most revealing line of your argument:
" . . . the only difference between Gay and Straight couples is the gender of the two people . . . "

Your position arbitrarily assumes that it is reasonable to change the gender of the people involved, but it is absurd to change the number of the people involved. Changing the gender of participants is no less significant than changing the number of participants.
You complain that traditionalists equate two things that are not the same, and in the same post equate two things that are not the same: mothers and fathers.

NotALibertarian| 9.2.10 @ 1:32PM

Furthermore, you, Mr. Anziulewicz are conflating "change" with "keep the same". Keeping the existing nature of marriage means we avoid all of this nonsense. Once you start allowing judges to change definitions of words, there is no end to the changes judges can make.

Put another way, the settled laws concerning marriage are what prevent people from saying "Gee, if you allow a man to marry one woman, who's to say he shouldn't be allowed to marry two or more?" If you insist on changing that settled law because had "no right" to be settled in the first place, that is exactly what other interest groups will say. Whether you realize it or not, your "I could just as easily say" argument actually bolsters Duncan's case.

Starchild| 9.20.10 @ 3:51AM

The "settled laws concerning marriage" used to say that a wife was a husband's property, and that people of different races could not marry each other. People marrying at age 13, however, was allowed.

Would you say that people should have "kept the existing nature of marriage" and not changed the rules mentioned above?

JP| 9.2.10 @ 3:55PM

"William Duncan's attempt to conflate marriage equality for Gay couples with polygamy and polyamory is absurd."

Chuck,
You obviously have studied the constitutional contexts of the Gay Rights Movement and other activists. You need to read up on the landmark 1967 Griwold v Conneticut case and how it contsturcted out of thin air The Right to Privacy. Griswold was used as the primary judicial precedents for both Roe and Lawrence. These 2 case created the constitutional right to procure an abortion and participate in sodomy.

The language of Lawrence is rather up front in that it epxands Privacy to about any area of society. Already legal experts from the Univ of Chicago are arguing that right of polyarmory can be construed from the Lawrence opinion.

It is far from absurd.

mzk1| 9.2.10 @ 7:26PM

I think what you said is inarguable; of course Griswold versus Conneticut started all of the trouble.

David| 9.2.10 @ 1:19PM

Okay, I concede that the perverted will insist that children can consent. I forgot that our Sup Ct Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg believes that the age of consent should be changed to 12.

David| 9.2.10 @ 1:28PM

Good points Christopher. Nevertheless, how can anyone say it is "fair" or "just" or "equal protection of the law" to deny any consenting adults the right to marry once same sex marriage is allowed? It will not be hard to find sympathetic judges at the district and appellate court levels who will allow it based on the reasons I gave. That is exactly how the issue of homosexual marriage has come to this point. States pass laws, the laws are challenged in federal district courts, the laws are struck down, the rulings are appealed, etc. Polygamous and incestous marriages WILL be made legal if same sex marriages are allowed.

Michael Ejercito| 9.21.10 @ 4:22AM

"For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate states of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement."- Murphy v. Ramsey , quoted in Davis v. Beason as a rationale for upholding the Edmunds-Tucker Act against any "constitutional or legal objection".

Andrew Terhune| 9.2.10 @ 1:35PM

The obvious solution is to get the state out of the business of marriage and leave it in the houses of faith where it belongs. Let people of any number and gender make whatever contractual arrangements they want among themselves. The state's only interest is to protect the welfare of minor children, and then only if the parents or guardians (and is there any reason a child couldn't have more than two?) are incompetent.

NotALibertarian| 9.2.10 @ 1:48PM

No, actually that isn't the obvious solution. That is the libertarian solution. It has never been done in this country, and places that have put very liberal social policies in place -- try Holland's Red Light district -- have become horrible places to live and raise families.

The obvious solution is to allow people of any number and gender make whatever contractual arrangements they want among themselves by paying their lawyers to do it for them.

The additional obvious solution is to teach the actual, scientifically-documented social effects -- increased abuse, depression and suicide rates -- of these "arrangements" and lifestyles in our high school health classes, without falling all over ourselves apologizing, "Not that there's anything wrong with that!"

Starchild | 9.20.10 @ 3:58AM

So you think big government is okay, when it's enforcing what you believe is proper, or what is "actual" and "scientifically documented"?

I suppose that seems all well and good, if you believe that the people running government will always share your morality and your sense of what is real, scientific, and proper!

But let's not have any more of this dishonest rhetoric about believing in limited government from conservatives who want the State involved in things like marriage!

NotALibertarian| 9.2.10 @ 2:21PM

And the other obvious solution is to stop pretending that the participants in these alternative arrangements have any rights to "health and other spousal benefits" from employers or the state. The state has a compelling interest in supporting and nurturing stable, nuclear families -- natural parents with children -- to the exclusion of other arrangements, because that is the arrangement that promotes the general welfare for the citizenry, i.e., the rearing of future-citizens. People are free to live in as bizarre a fashion as the wish. But there is no rational or Constitutional obligation on the part of the state to equate their manner of life with traditional marriage.

You are free to think that traditional marriage doesn't promote the general welfare, but loads of social science proves you wrong. You can try to convince enough voters of your point of view, but there are plenty of us who believe otherwise.

duane| 9.2.10 @ 1:38PM

So if the CPAA gets their wish that polyamory is to be legal with polygamy to remain illegal, what will be the criteria that legally distinquishes between the two?
What if the FLDS and Blackmore announce they no longer practice polygamy and are now polyamorists? It seems the only way to differentiate between the two would be on account of religious vs. secular motivation, if so, that would seem to blatently run afoul of the Charter of rights, since the behaviour would now be criminalized only if the motive is of a religions nature.

beverly| 9.2.10 @ 2:59PM

No one has mentioned Hollyweird's opening salvo in the war on couple marriage: "BIG LOVE," on HBO, a "comedy" about a polygamous "marriage." So the commenter who said the soi-disant "elites" don't think polygamy is cool is behind the curve, darlings.

They're sooo supportive of women, aren't they? /sarc

And gender is not a "detail."

KyMouse| 9.2.10 @ 3:04PM

As someone has pointed out in the recent past, polygamy is especially tough on poor men, which would include most young men who are just getting their careers started (or who work at low-paying jobs).

Wealthier men will attract more wives, leaving the poorer single men with a much smaller pool of gals from which to choose.

Not a good idea for society, in my view.

John Navratil| 9.2.10 @ 3:51PM

KyMouse,

Precisely. It forces a bachelor herd, the kinds of which are giving us problems in the Middle East. As I have written in the past, the jihadists are not leaving their loving brides and babies to fight the Great Satan and Saudi Arabia is still restless with their bachelors.

mzk1| 9.2.10 @ 7:21PM

This can be true, depending on the society. This is, I believe, true in some Moslem societies. In the early Soviet Union and in our inner cities, we also have bachelor herds, although these are caused by the breakup of the family.

However, it is possible for a society to allow polygamy and not be polygamous; I believe what the Christinas call "ancient Israel" was that way.

Not that I am recommending that the experiment be tried; I would rather go the other way and start prosecuting adultery, or at least make it a tort (civil action).

Starchild| 9.20.10 @ 4:08AM

The effect of polygamy on poor men is a legitimate concern, but I think the culture of polyamory is less jealousy-based than that of polygamy. You need not covet your neighbor's wife if she's yours for the asking. Indeed that's probably the only thing that *could* stop people from coveting their neighbors' wives (or husbands)!

Technology also offers a way out. If the demand for wives outpaces supply, more men will choose to have gender reassignment surgery.

Already, evidence suggests that more men are choosing to become women than vice-versa. This fact alone should give pause to those who would argue that women are oppressed in this society. People vote with their feet. Or with their genitalia, in this instance.

michaelle| 9.2.10 @ 3:44PM

Beastality - will push their morals on us next. A moral free fall!

JL| 9.8.10 @ 12:08PM

You cannot be serious. Equating bestiality with Polyamory? SO.. you have only ever had ONE romantic interest in your life, and you married that person, and you'll remain married to that person forever, correct? Because if you've managed to fall out of love and back in again more than once.. you're in danger of falling in love with your dog! BEWARE.
Polyamory merely accepts the concept that human beings have the capacity to love each other, more than one at a time. There is no part of it that accepts bestiality.

michaelle| 9.2.10 @ 3:47PM

Marriage is a religious union NOT the governments problem. The homos and polygamist can get civil unions - I'm against this but at least it will stay out of religion.

JP| 9.2.10 @ 4:05PM

You obviously disgree with the Founders. Our society was based upon the idea that moral people have the right to legislate local laws and customs without interference from a central authority (ie the Federal Government). The Constitution set up the framework (known as Federalism) that protected the individual and the local community. The Bill of Rights applied to both the states and the Federal Government. And as the 9th Amendment clearly spells out, the states have the authority to create laws based upon an agreed moral framework. As long as those laws didn't explicitly violate the Constitution and were applied consistently they were legal. The Constitution wasn't and isn't perfect; but, niether is Man. And if you show me a government that attempts to perfect Man, I will show you a tyrrany.

mzk1| 9.2.10 @ 7:15PM

Only a small portion of the bill of rights applied to the States, at least until the 14th amendment. However, states had (and have) their own bills of rights, many preceding the federal government's.

duane| 9.2.10 @ 4:41PM

"Wealthier men will attract more wives, leaving the poorer single men with a much smaller pool of gals from which to choose."

This happens now, look at Tiger Woods, Hugh Hefner, and any number of rich celebrities, they just refer to their women as "mistresses" or "bunnies". If polygamy is decriminalized, the number of people who take additional partners is unlikely to change. About "bachelor herds", are there now? Increased crime? What is the crime rate in Bountiful BC or CO City AZ as compared to other communities of similiar size? By this I mean actual convictions, not the endless allegations of rape, murder, child abuse...

mzk1| 9.2.10 @ 7:13PM

Not really. Islam (and to some extent Judaism) allows more than one wife, but more than one husband is adultery. The reason (aside from that it is the will of God - see the Torah) is obvious; you always know the mother, but not the father.

The only way this will lead to Islam is if people get sick of this garbage and figure they are better off under Sharia than having no morality at all. It could happen.

michigander_sandusky| 9.2.10 @ 7:46PM

"They sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind." (Hosea 8:7)

Albert Levy| 9.2.10 @ 11:00PM

What is wrong(not morally or poltically) about three adult women,all successful,all experienced in the world,all three say they are madly in love with each other.Why should they not be allowed to marry--or when you hear this,do you flinch a bit and say,well,that is not (psychologically) .normal.

It's not clear if the debate about homosexual marriage is about the nature of marriage or the nature of homosexuality.The latter is the elephant in the living room because many mental health professionals and many just plain ordinary citizens regard homosexuality as a developmental disorder.No one,to date,has been able to disprove that theory.No one wants to address this scientific issue for fear of being labeled--gulp!! a "homophobe(whatever that means!)Science has been sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.

Homosexuality is not in the same category as gender and race.These two are biologically caused and are not behavior.Homosexuality is not biologically caused(not one shred of evidence) but is about sexual behavior.The first two are immutable.Homosexuality is changeable and many young boys grow out of it.Yes,they do.

Joe| 9.11.10 @ 1:13AM

Actually when it comes to psychology, homosexuality is not considered a mental disorder or illness. While it does appear in earlier versions of the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), it does not appear in the third or fourth editions, the third edition I believe was published in 1980. So for the last 30 years gay people have officially been perfectly sane and as well adjusted as the rest of us.

mzk1| 9.12.10 @ 8:11PM

Actually, unless I have my numbers mixed up, the DSMIII listed homosexuality as an illness, provided you didn't want to be. The other perversions (like cross-dressing) were listed, IIRC, without comment.

The DSMIV removed all of the perversions. This was extermemly controversial, and many considered it political. In other words, it was about as scientific as Galileo's recantation.

That being said, I think mental disorders are generally defined (note: I am not in the profession and have no training; I do know how to read, however, and after reading a lot from people in the professions making fun of the DSMIV, I looked at both manuals) based on what fits in with society and with the person, so in a way it has changed. Personally, I am disturbed that people try to stop people from helping those who have homosexual tendencies that are against their beliefs. To me, nit allowing reparative therapy is gay-bashing.

Dweezlebub| 9.3.10 @ 12:48AM

To me, the only Liberal argument with polyamory (revulsion at the pervs and dorks that go for that kind of thing is another issue) is that while people should be free to set up any relationship they want, goofy or not, the fact is that most of the polyamory will be polygyny practiced by Muslims. Maybe a little competition from FLDS, but not much I'll bet. The problem is that women will inevitably, I think, be 2nd class citizens in such arrangements. I buy into the argument that this maked it anti-democratic. Thus the impass over whether the govt should sanction traditional marriage or get out of the sanction business altogether.

Petronius| 9.3.10 @ 1:48AM

Then and now:
"Sex between two people is a beautiful thing. Between five, it's fantastic."
Woody Allen doing stand-up on the Ed Sullivan Show circa 1966
And there was that Serta commercial debut of their first king size mattress. An Arabian Sheik trying it out in the showroom orders "one King; 41 Queens." In this PC era we will never see such as that again. And there's always next season.
We could be offered shows like The Zoolywed Game; The adventures of Ozzie and Harriet, Heather, Helga, Hortense, and Their Daughters; My Darling Sister's Clones, and a remake of Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice in 3 Unnatural Acts.
Before I get flamed for satirical treatment of this discussion, I beg the question: Just how many more such assaults can the traditional Family withstand? The more deviant behavior we allow, the more precarious our existence becomes. Life style choice, however perverse, now has judicial sanction at federal level. The human debris are now more Free than thee and me. how it will all end....?

Joe| 9.11.10 @ 1:03AM

The traditional family has not existed very long when you look at human history. Even where it does exist today only about 15% of our worlds societies hold up monogamy as the only good way to live. The remainder of the world has accepted practices of polygyny, polyandry, mistresses, or one of the many other forms polyamory can take. Just because our Christian based society has practiced exclusive monogamy since the Catholic church outlawed the practice in the mid 1100's doesn't mean that is how everyone should live. (sources: George P. Murdock’s Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, www.patriarchywebsite.com/mono.....istory.htm)

mzk1| 9.12.10 @ 8:00PM

Please tell me of non-primitive, non-decadent societies of any decent size that accept anything but Mongamy and Polygany.

mzk1| 9.12.10 @ 8:01PM

Polygyny (more than one wife)

Joe| 9.13.10 @ 9:14PM

There are w large countries with laws that allow more than one husband, Senegal is one but it is small and arguably primitive. But polygyny is a form of polyamory, whether I think that flavor is desirable or not.

Roland Lindsey| 9.3.10 @ 3:28PM

I'm poly, live with my long-term wife and girlfriend and our three children between us, and neither us nor any families in our community reflect what you describe. Our children have never been happier or more secure than they have been since our girlfriend and her son moved in.

All the kids have three parents available to them, vastly increasing the chance that any one parent is available to them, and have never been so financially secure as they are today.

We all love each other and are thriving, and our relationship doesn't hurt any of you. Perhaps as some of you get to know poly folk, your opinions may change, just as I am certain some of you changed your opinions on gays once you got to know them.

NotALibertarian| 9.3.10 @ 5:38PM

It is not your singular experience that concerns me. It is the miserable result your particular living arrangement yields when applied to a population EN MASSE. A singular, anecdotal description in which a parent insists his own children are happy & well-adjusted doesn't at all address the concerns of reasonable, thinking people on this issue.
There is a wealth of science that contradicts what you want people to accept.

Luna Lindsey| 9.3.10 @ 6:52PM

Can you point to this wealth of science?

The fact is, polyamorous families simply haven't been studied. With such a lack of scientific research, all we have is anecdotal evidence to base rough hypotheses upon.

The studies that have been done mostly involve polygamy, specifically FLDS and other Christian fundamentalist polygamy. There are a large number of factors there beyond just the multi-parent situation, for example: living under the legal radar due to the illegality of their lifestyle, specific religious dogmas, fundamentalist attitudes towards women, top-down hierarchical community leadership, dependence on concepts such as absolute obedience, etc.

I've done a good deal of reading about FLDS polygamy in North America. I am also polyamorous and involved in the polyamorous community in Seattle. I can tell you there are as many differences between the two groups as there are between monks and hippies.

In the absence of solid scientific research either way, you would do well to listen to the anecdotes that exist. After all, you don't even have a counter-anecdote to offer... do you?

If you do have links to counter-anecdotes or science, please paste them. Otherwise, you're no more qualified (in fact, slightly less-so) to judge the issue than we are.

NotALibertarian| 9.3.10 @ 9:55PM

Thanks for the response.

Evolutionary psychologists Martin Daly and Margo Wilson are famous for their studies in the effects of stepparents living in households with stepchildren.

They have documented overwhelming evidence that the bulk of stepchildren are at increased risk for abuse and neglect from stepparents. Not only do stepparents not take care of their stepchildren as well, they are at drastically higher risk for fatal beatings. Shocking figures came in showing the frequency with which abusive stepparents generally singled out stepchildren while sparing their own children from attacks.

Here is one link to some of their findings:
http://psych.mcmaster.ca/dalyw.....ildren.pdf

Luna Lindsey| 9.4.10 @ 10:13PM

Thanks for the reply, and for the link. :)

The evidence you cite for step-parent risk seems sound, and it is also intuitive. There are many possible reasons for this, including the fact that this population is pre-selected to have existing issues (after all, in order to have a step-parent there was likely a prior divorce or breakup, possibly due to prior abusive relationships.)

However, step-parenting is not illegal, and you have not backed up your overall point. It is not fair to conflate issues of step-parenting with polyamorous parenting issues. For starters, not all polyamorous parents have step-children. Some get together before becoming parents (just like monogamous people), so the children are there from the get-go, not "addons" from previous relationships. So this is a case of apples to oranges.

Those of us who merge families are just like any merged families -- In my case, I had a regrettable divorce many years ago. My son is better off having 2+ parents (in this case three) than he is having a single parent. I was a single mom for most of his life, and there are a number of studies about how single-parented kids are at risk for all kinds of things (drug abuse, teen-pregnancy, failure to graduate, lower incomes in later life, etc.) Wikipedia points to several studies and summarizes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-parent#Effects (As you can see from this, even that point is still under debate. I can research this more deeply if you'd like.)

So back to my original challenge: are there any studies that specifically show having more than two parents (in the polyamory sense and not the religious-polygamy sense) is a problem for kids? And if so, does that mean no one should involve grandparents, neighbors, or close friends in sharing parenting responsibilities to one degree or another?

NotALibertarian| 9.4.10 @ 11:36PM

Your welcome.

I'm conflating the two living situations because they share the same risk characteristic: non-blood-relative adults living in the child's household. That's the risk factor that social workers and psychologists agree on, based on Daly & Wilson's "Cinderella Effect" studies and subsequent research. The "wicked stepmother" is a popular character in archaic tales for a reason: For every non-blood-relative adult living in the home, a child's risk of abuse or neglect goes up. )Grandparents and aunties are a much better bet than neighbors and love interests.)

I'm not saying your son is being mistreated. I'm saying that if you mass-produce your lifestyle choice, you get more stepparents, more miserable children.

That is why the information I have already provided to you is dead-on relevant to whatever polyamory situation you feel is optimum. When we speak of public policy -- that is, removing legal roadblocks to polyamory, we are not dealing with your personal situation. We are not dealing with a community of people in Seattle who consider themselves social pioneers, finding a "better alternative".

We are dealing with the mass public. Forty years ago, women were told, "Go ahead, have sex with whomever! Those people who will think less of you are just oppressing you!" That opened up an option for the masses that resulted in the single parenthood -- and increased misery -- we see today. There were plenty of free love advocates at the time who envisioned everyone using birth control. "Yes, that is how this could work!" they told themselves. But that optimum situation didn't happen. Not even with Planned Parenthood employees throwing free condoms at people.

The point is that all of these exceptions that you feel set your ideal situation apart from the phenomena I have described only matter if the law is set up to require them. "Some get together before becoming parents", you say. Okay. Are you going to legalize polyamory only for people who "get together before"? Of course not. So, whether you want it to or not, your desire for legal recognition of your preferred living situation IS going to result in even more children being thrown into homes with adults who are there simply because one of their parents wants them as a sexual partner.

Jen| 9.5.10 @ 2:42AM

NotALibertarian, rest assured pretty few people are actually interested to live polyamorous when they are free to choose. Not because of legal issues but because they simply prefer exclusivity in a relationship, have strong issues with jealousy and dislike the complexity in terms of communication in self reflection a poly relationships involves. I come from Germany where there is no legal or moral issue for people concerning polyamory - loving and living together - "only" polygamy - being legally married all together. Actually in Germany it is even allowed to be in a polygamic relationship if that is of your religious belief common in your home country and was done before entering Germany.
And yes, the privacy topic is what makes people in Germany shrug off about being poly or not.

Now most people I've met and who knew react like "Oh really, you do? Would be too much for me, I've to struggle already with one girl/boy friend/spouse.". And that is it. I've met a lot people who are all eager to date me or my hubby and most of them step away after a few weeks or month again - which is painful for us - because they just feel overwhelmed by it. So poly is for few people who feel this way and can handle it. It is not a slippery slope thing the same as not suddenly the whole american population wants to become gay or lesbian and marry those when it became allowed. Or do you feel suddenly an urge to break out of being straight (if you haven't felt gay before) and marry in a same-gender way because you can? Same holds true for polys.

The unfortunate part is the ones that get into it lightly by all those stupid and naiv "Oh, I can whore around now! This solves every problem!" ideas. Poly does not solve your problems, it makes them more clearly percievable as the intensity goes up a few notches. Which makes many step away quickly again, most dislike facing their own problems ...

Luna Lindsey| 9.7.10 @ 4:40PM

Thank you for your rational debate, NotA. This is a stark contrast to many other people on the internet. Sorry for the delay in replying, but.. well two significant others and three kids leaves never a dull moment.

It's an interesting thing to postulate, the Cinderella Effect applied to polyamory. Again, I'd really like to see some studies that look specifically at poly families, to know what the truth actually is.

It makes me wonder though... if we judge how we legalize family situations based on how good they are for children, why not make single-parenting illegal? Make divorce illegal again? What about adoption where neither parent is related to the child? And in a case where a mother has been single for years, because her husband died or was an abuser so she left him, do you propose she stay single, or seek out a step-father? Which situation puts the child at more risk, AND, should she base her whole decision on that alone? (My main point with this is that family situations and risks are complicated, and that the law isn't built around risk alone.)

As for your view of history, I have some problems again with your assumptions, i.e. that back when people stayed married, everyone was happier for it. Domestic abuse was heavily under-reported because for one thing, people didn't know child abuse was bad until the 60's and 70's (awareness is still has room to grow). Abused women or mothers of abused children (and even abused men) were trapped in their situations and had to make do.

You also make the mistake of thinking being poly is all about about having sex. We actually love each other, and do the same kinds of activities any committed monogamous couple would, like eating, shopping, hobbies, spending time with the kids, traveling, and so on. This is true of most poly people who have children or are interested in having children. Aside from being generally non-jealous, being capable of loving more than one person at once, and being a little geeky, we're normal in every other way.

JL| 9.11.10 @ 12:22PM

Which is their choice, and none of your business, by the way.

Starchild| 9.20.10 @ 4:11AM

So you're saying that adoption should be discouraged, because parents who adopt are more likely to abuse or neglect their children?

Bels| 9.5.10 @ 5:02AM

Hummm, stepchildren living with only one natural parent and one step-parent is SO far from the same as a poly family when both natural parents are in the household where there are also additional parents is so far from the same thing it is hilarious that you have the gall to include that in your 'evidence' . The problems that illustrates are a by-product of monogamy, not poly (of any kind) but thank you for the giggle.

NotALibertarian| 9.6.10 @ 12:30AM

You keep shifting the cookies around the plate, as though it is going to change something. Shift all you want, you're still left with the same number of cookies:
A CHILD'S CHANCES OF BEING ABUSED OR NEGLECTED GO UP FOR EVERY ADULT WHO IS NOT THEIR BLOOD RELATIVE THAT LIVES IN THEIR HOUSE.

I strongly suspect that just about everything makes you giggle, Bels.

JL| 9.8.10 @ 12:12PM

By that theory, "notalibertarian", the vast numbers of failed marriages that result in unhappy children and adults should be accepted as proof that monogamy has failed, and we need to seek a better paradigm. There is a wealth of science that argues that monogamy is failing, and that failure is leading to the downfall of society, too.. but I don't suppose you accept that, do you.

Luna Lindsey| 9.3.10 @ 6:58PM

I would also add that far more damage is done in FLDS polygamy situations because of the illegality of polygamy. Abused wives and children cannot come forth without risking jailtime for their entire families (not just the single offender). Because the communities learn to live clandestinely, it is easy to slip into underground, victim-crimes such as fraud and sexual abuse.

I don't like FLDS-style polygamy any more than most of you, but they should be free to practice their pursuit of happiness, just as anyone else. And by standing under the light of society, their actual crimes (with real victims) stand more of a chance of being properly discovered and punished.

Joe| 9.10.10 @ 12:13AM

Loving all the slippery slope arguments, real entertaining. Saying that decriminalizing polyamory will lead to bestiality and pedophilia being legalized is like saying that smoking will lead to harder drugs which will then eventually lead to the once smoker standing on a corner turning tricks for their crack addiction.

Allowing multiple consenting adults to build relationships the way they choose without punishment is not some gateway drug. This isn't some excuse for sexual perversion, polyamory deals with sex the same way monogamy does, as a natural part of any romantic relationship. We just don't artificially limit ourselves to one such relationship at a time.

Joe| 9.14.10 @ 11:45PM

I personally am not worried about countries legalizing plural marriages, there are a lot of situations that would need to be thought out that would be difficult to do fairly. What I would like would be to decriminalize unofficial plural marriages. The idea that I could have the two (or however many) loves of my life, have some kind of wedding/commitment ceremony and live with them all as spouses without being arrested for bigamy/polygamy. Don't allow me to have more than one legal wife, I don't care but don't lock me away for making life-long commitments to those I love and live with them the way I choose. That doesn't take your rights to live in a monogamous marriage away, why not give us that.

Anita Wagner| 9.20.10 @ 6:44PM

Some of the commenters here are blowing hot air. It's time to retire that tired old red herring about polyamory (or homosexuality, or anything else they wish to discredit) being a threat to society, especially the warnings that it will lead to support for marrying animals and children.

Hogwash. Polyamorists are just as outraged by and opposed to such behavior as anyone else. We base our relationships on honesty, openness, respect, and consent amongst CONSENTING ADULTS. Children and animals cannot give consent by law, and for good reason, as they need protection from becoming the victims of those with power over them.