Two Sundays ago I was doing my usual Sunday morning ritual- go down to the Crescent Street Deli to buy some coffee (sugar and a little half and half), a two egg and cheese sandwich on a roll (salt and pepper, no ketchup), bring it all back upstairs, and watch the latest edition of Bill Moyers. On the show he had two lawyers, David Boies and Ted Olson. They'd previously been adversaries, most famously in Bush v. Gore, but were now teaming up to litigate the lawsuit against California's passing of Proposition 8. Both men are supremely talented and it's a real pleasure to see that real resources are going to be put into litigating the case. What's also very refreshing is seeing a conservative like Ted Olson make the conservative case for gay marriage. Olson, who has been revered in the conservative community for his win in Bush v. Gore, has been somewhat ostracized in man conservative circles because of his stance on this issue and I have nothing but respect for people who are willing to stand up and do the right thing at personal cost for themselves (although admittedly the personal cost is not that great for him.
There was one thing, though, that struck me as I was watching the program, something that, up until now, I hadn't given much consideration. During one segment, David Boies started talking about some of the advertisements that the Yes on Prop 8 groups ran. Fearmongering ads that played on stereotypes of gay people seducing young children, or how gay marriage would destroy the institution of marriage for heterosexuals. One of the videos showed a pastor talking about how gay marriage would lead to polygamy and other types of deviant behavior. After the videos stopped playing, both Boies and Olson were especially adamant in destroying any notion that gay marriage would lead to polygamy. And they're right of course; allowing gay people to marry will not lead to polygamy. Marriage as something between more than two people is something that will be even harder for our society to sanction, let alone come to grips with.
But the more I think about it, the more I have to come to terms with the fact that there's nothing inherently wrong with polygamy. This isn't like the horrendous bestiality comparisons (most notably by Rick Santorum) or the pedophilic ones that are implied by all of those school commercials. Both of those are despicable for many reasons- but the comparisons don't even make any sense because they do not involve parties that are able to consent. Is there actually a problem with, let's say, three consenting adults that love each other being able to profess that love in way that they see fit? It seems to me that, if you make the argument that bans on marriage between two consenting adults are unconstitutional, an argument that I buy, then it follows that banning a person from marrying because it involves more than one person is just as unconstitutional. Why should marriage be between only two people; if all of the adults are consenting there shouldn't be a problem. But of course it is, probably because it just seems primitive and animalistic to some people- polygamy just conjures up images of Ottoman harems and brainwashed Mormons and primitive Tanzanian tribes. And as long as they do there will never be a substantive debate on the issue.
Postscript:
From a practical standpoint, I guess it would be legally more complicated for things like next of kin or deciding whether to take someone off life support if we had a society where people could marry more than one person. But, I mean, we have second liens on mortgages and lines of succession for President, I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard to have an order of importance for your various wives/husbands if you chose to marry more than one.
No comments:
Post a Comment