"Big Love"

"Family of Marsupial Centaurs" by Salvator Dali 1940

 

Watching Larry King Live the other day with all these polygamy families being interviewed made me realize that perhaps I have indeed been leading a sheltered life. It's not something that we are so familiar with in New York....well not until HBO brought it into our cozy Manhattan homes with the series "Big Love". The only link I can see to anything I remotely understand is the appearance of the funky young actress Chloe Sevigny who has as much to do with polygamy in the suburbs as I do with knitting sweaters.

I did remember that the original Mormons happily practiced polygamy a 100 years ago within their own sects, but today seem to deny that they still find it an acceptable practice within certain segments of their faith.

Be that as it may, as with everything that we as bloggers write about, sometimes we land with subjects we know a lot about and sometimes like this one, virtually nothing before we start our due diligence. This is so not my subject, and frankly aside from being at the outset of my research clueless, I was still fascinated by the sheer numbers of how many polygamy sects there are in the U.S. So now of course as with everything else, I come to you with an opinion.

Charles Krauthammer wrote about this recently, which is when the subject first caught my attention, popping out of the closet like a jack in the box. It's interesting that he brings up an old line of argument which puts the polygamists, (in fact he means to say polyamorists, the practice which is actually not supported by polygamists, for the obvious reason that it gives the women the choice of having more than one husband) and gay activists in the same line of fire:

These stirrings for the mainstreaming of polygamy (or, more accurately, polyamory) have their roots in the increasing legitimization of gay marriage. In an essay 10 years ago, I pointed out that it is utterly logical for polygamy rights to follow gay rights. After all, if traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender, and if, as advocates of gay marriage insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices in love, then the first requirement -- the number restriction (two and only two) -- is a similarly arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice.

This line of argument makes gay activists furious. I can understand why they do not want to be in the same room as polygamists. But I'm not the one who put them there. Their argument does. Blogger and author Andrew Sullivan, who had the courage to advocate gay marriage at a time when it was considered pretty crazy, has called this the "polygamy diversion," arguing that homosexuality and polygamy are categorically different because polygamy is a mere "activity" while homosexuality is an intrinsic state that "occupies a deeper level of human consciousness."

But this distinction between higher and lower orders of love is precisely what gay rights activists so vigorously protest when the general culture "privileges" (as they say in the English departments) heterosexual unions over homosexual ones. Was "Jules et Jim" (and Jeanne Moreau), the classic Truffaut film involving two dear friends in love with the same woman, about an "activity" or about the most intrinsic of human emotions?

To simplify the logic, take out the complicating factor of gender mixing. Posit a union of, say, three gay women all deeply devoted to each other. On what grounds would gay activists dismiss their union as mere activity rather than authentic love and self-expression? On what grounds do they insist upon the traditional, arbitrary and exclusionary number of two?

What is historically odd is that as gay marriage is gaining acceptance, the resistance to polygamy is much more powerful. Yet until this generation, gay marriage had been sanctioned by no society that we know of, anywhere at any time in history. On the other hand, polygamy was sanctioned, indeed common, in large parts of the world through large swaths of history, most notably the biblical Middle East and through much of the Islamic world.[...]

As for gay marriage, I've come to a studied ambivalence. I think it is a mistake for society to make this ultimate declaration of indifference between gay and straight life, if only for reasons of pedagogy. On the other hand, I have gay friends and feel the pain of their inability to have the same level of social approbation and confirmation of their relationship with a loved one that I'm not about to go to anyone's barricade to deny them that. It is critical, however, that any such fundamental change in the very definition of marriage be enacted democratically and not (as in the disastrous case of abortion) by judicial fiat.

Call me agnostic. But don't tell me that we can make one radical change in the one-man, one-woman rule and not be open to the claim of others that their reformation be given equal respect.

I am not sure I see it the same way. To throw the bloody shirt of gay marriage into the polygamy debate is a dangerous and slippery slope. Polygamy asserts not a right to love several others but a right to marry them all. Because a marriage license is a state grant, polygamy is a matter of public policy, not just of personal preference. Polygamy is, structurally and socially, the opposite of same-sex marriage, not its equivalent.

Same-sex marriage stabilizes individuals, couples, communities, and society by extending marriage to many who now lack it. Polygamy destabilizes individuals, couples, communities, and society by withdrawing marriage from many who now have it. More than likely it only increases the weekly shrink bill, and certainly does absolutely nothing to encourage the already dwindling faith within a society which has already abandoned the idea of following the teachings of the New Testament. 

Gay marriage is more likely to be recognized eventually, whereas polygamy is likely to stay out in the cold as a part of the 'flexible partnership system' we are simply not ready to accept.

Comments

[Patrick O'Hannigan]

There's an argument to be made that "Big Love" is actually misnamed, because polygamy and polyamory are telltale signs of "small love," i.e., inability to commit exclusively to one other person.

[PapaBear]

Polygamy (or more appropriately polygyny) has been around for a long time, and not just in Islamic counties. For one example, look at the Biblical patriarchs.

It has most been seen in societies which have a wealthy owner-class, a poor propertyless class, and little middle-class in between. In it's essence, it allows women a choice: does she want to share a rich man, or have a poor man all to herself. Up until fairly recently, it was fairly accepted that a wealthy man could have what were effectively secondary wives (otherwise known as mistresses) provided that he continued to support his primary wife, plus any offspring of the mistresses.

The current form of polygamy is serial-polygamy, where a man can have multiple wives, but not more than one at the same time, as long as he can manage to support all his prior offspring

I can see the Islamic viewpoint, that it is more beneficial to society for a wealthy man to use his wealth to support many wives and children, than to spend it on expensive toys

[Michael van der Galien]

AVI,

(sorry about that, indeed it was missjean's example)

"As to gay marriage hurting others unreasonably... what if their parents or children are humiliated? Does that rise to a level of societal intervention?"

Nope. Do they 'hurt' other people? Yes. But do they hurt them 'unreasonably'? Nope.
Oh and don't you think that those children and parents are humiliated at the moment they find out their father / mother is gay and later that he / she has a relationship with someone of the same sex? That they marry that other person later on, does not make things that much more worse since the damage has already been done. Since the actual damage is being done much more earlier on maybe we should make it illegal for people to divorce and to change to a gay-lifestyle if they have children? Since that is when the actual 'humiliation' is being done.

Stefan: Your starting point is already that marriage is of the government's business (stabil, future nation, children, structure). There we strongly disagree. Is it the government's business to do what you say, or is it the government's job to not infringe on people's right of 'life, liberty and the persuit of happiness'?

Weekenderman:
"But Michael, the liberals are always asking that the line that was drawn long ago be moved. We started out with the ideal of one man/one woman, and now you're asking for any two people to be included.

Next the libs will say that since the line has been moved to "two people," what's to stop us from moving it to "three people," or "two ladies and a dog," or "one man and one child"?"

Hum. You seem to be unable to stop this kind of reasoning. I already explained why I do not agree with this kind of reasoning.
The answer of course is 'no'. Who is talking about people being able to marry a dog, or a child?? Nobody wants that. There will never be a majority for that ridiculous idea, ever. Strange as this may sound, although same sex marriage is allower here, that (marrying dogs or trees or children) will not even be a possibility in The Netherlands. Not ever.

"Would you be willing to go on record as saying that you would never support anything more than "two people," so that a year or two from now I can question why you THEN might be supporting more than that?"

Didn't I already say I believe it is none of the government's business who people marry with? Whether they want to marry 1 person or 5 persons, it is, in principle, none of the government's business. As long as it is between consenting adults, the government has no right to intervene.

I want to make one thing very clear, again,

I understand the way some of you reason, because personally I reason the exact same way.
However, I do not need very much thinking for my personal opinion, because my personal opinion is based on my faith. The Bible is extremely clear about marriage.
Thus, personally I strongly believe marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.

Sometimes I get the feeling with most people the foundation for their reasoning, for their convictions, is, like mine, based on the Bible as well, but they are used to not use that as an 'argument', thus they try to come up with other arguments. I believe one should just say that: I am a Christian and based on my faith I believe marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. That is my personal reasoning / opinion as well. We would then disagree about whether or not to legislate our Christian values on other, but at least we would start off at the same point and with more understanding of one another.

Some explanation: In the Netherlands we need to marry 'for' the government, for a government official and we can marry in front of a church. The one 'for the government (official)' is the 'official marriage'. The marriage in front of the church is a 'personal choice' so to speak. Something personal - you marry before God.
That it is required to marry in front of a government official is utter and complete nonsense IMHO. In my opinion the Church should have the authority to perform the 'official marriage' as well.
For people who are not religious, or from another faith, they can marry in front of a government official. But people from the Christian faith can marry in Church and let that be the official one. Most of us find that marriage in Church the important one anyway. That is how I would like it to be.

In the end, I believe it falls back on this: Do we believe our government should legislate our Christian values, or do we believe the government should (simply) not infringe on our right to live according to our Christian faith / values.
The first one requires an active government, the second one a passive.
It may be clear that I believe the government should be passive.

[ThePinkPanther]

You should check out "Under the Banner of Heaven" by Jon Krakauer for summer reading. It's a fast read, and you may find yourself unable to put it down. It shines a lot of light on the history of Mormonism and polygamy, which really surprised me, coming from NYC and all.

And I'm enjoying Big Love, watching it right now.

[Jeremayakovka]

We've got at least 4 items on the table: gay marriage, polygamy, polyamory, and heterosexual monogamous marriage (HMM).

1. Gay marriage: I'm for some legal recognition and protection of committed same-sex relationships at the state level, but oppose both "gay marriage" and a 1-man-1-woman federal amendment. (This is one thing John Kerry and I agreed on in '04.) Know one thing: I don't derive paternalistic pride from posing as being "liberal" or "tolerant" towards a minority. For many gays and lesbians have no intention of surrendering their sexual outlaw status for sexual in-law status (so to speak).

2. Polygamy: Get real. Is there a polygamy movement to be reckoned with? This is so far from my daily life I have a hard time even picturing how to confront it. Sorry. Someone will have to teach me what I'm missing out on, intellectually (or missing out on, socially).

3. Polyamory: At the risk of seeming a prude, this seems an indulgent practice falsely elevated to a virtue by "sexual liberation" ideologues - and by manipulators and cultists. i think "Romantic Notions" ( http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/family/winnfred_wright/10.html) when I think of "polyamory".

4. HMM: Never tried it. No comment.

(btw, Sundays lately are not days off for me -- they're anything but a day in the park with George -- so this is the best I could come up on limited T&E (time and energy) today.

also - Superb Dali painting to accompany this post!)

[Stefan]

Legal marriage has nothing to do with personal preferences. Society is impartial to what with whom (unless it is illegal) but it does encourage one type of relationship and that is the marriage of one man and one woman. Why? Because two parent, (male/female) marriage is the most stable and the only natural union that begets children, which, in turn, ensures the future of the nation. Legal marriage is not to be used as a spring board for social acceptance of behaviors that are based on sexual self-interest or sex alone. It is society’s way of encouraging and rewarding those that strive to bring children into the world. It cannot be expanded beyond that basic function. If a man and many women (or visa versa) choose to live together and do whatever it is their business but it is not the method of creating and sustaining the next generation that we see as wise and prudent. Gays can be and have been free to do whatever they like but they will not be rewarded for it by government sanction because they are unable to have children. They can adopt children but that is not what legal marriage is designed to promote. It is, once again, only to protect and encourage the natural structure of the human family as it is the vital key to the self-renewal of a people. It is very simple, logical, fair, and has nothing to do with bigotry. I think bigamists and homosexuals are a bit “off” myself, but I could really care less as long as they don’t insist on screwing around with the most important unit or our society. This was not a fight that we started we are being forced to react.

[Assistant Village Idiot]

MvdG, it wasn't my example, but I don't think that affects your point.

Yes, slippery slope arguments are always a roll of the dice. Sometimes we note in retrospect that we should have drawn a line earlier, sometimes we waste years of energy pushing back on a rock that has settled into a stable spot. They are worth keeping in the back of one's mind as a tie-breaker, but they aren't particularly solid arguments.

As to influence, versus "hurt each other unreasonably," I agree that it is at the latter point we intervene, not the former. But my post was to show that there is no bright logical line between them. That means, in turn, that there is going to be difficulty creating laws about it, as precedents will drive changes.

We seem to have pretty much decided as a practical matter that whoever screws each other is no one's business, so long as no other damage is involved. We are now going over the more difficult issues of what should be taught in public schools, what individuals are allowed to publicly express, and what the law will give official recognition to. On these issues we very much have our shared values in conflict. Some of us value freedom over not hurting other people's feelings, some consider avoiding a "hostile work/school environment" to trump the other's freedom. I don't think it's clean.

As to gay marriage hurting others unreasonably... what if their parents or children are humiliated? Does that rise to a level of societal intervention? We tend to think not in our current construction of "harm." But in other places in the law we consider public humiliation to be the occasion of a tort action. These are contrary precedents.

[Reneybeany]

The "Gay Rights" movement was never a "Gay Rights" movement -- it was a sexual rights movement. Demanding and receiving rights for homosexuals is far different from providing sexual rights for everyone. The latter has resulted in a catastrophic collapse of certain mores and protections that society has long provided its children and aging women.

[weekenderman]

But Michael, the liberals are always asking that the line that was drawn long ago be moved. We started out with the ideal of one man/one woman, and now you're asking for any two people to be included.

Next the libs will say that since the line has been moved to "two people," what's to stop us from moving it to "three people," or "two ladies and a dog," or "one man and one child"?

That's the slippery slide, and it what we're seeing acted out before our very eyes.

Would you be willing to go on record as saying that you would never support anything more than "two people," so that a year or two from now I can question why you THEN might be supporting more than that?

Of course, that's a hypothetical question, because we're both talking in theory here, but that's the danger of moving "the line" in the first place.

[Michael van der Galien]

"And please, don't try to tell us that because gay people are not allowed to marry they cannot leave their inheritance to whomever they wish. Anyone, no matter their sexual orientation, can leave their property to whomever they wish."

In my last comment I was not talking about gay people, but about a man who married 18 women and has 64 children, as in the example of AVI.

"But it DOES automatically mean the government has something at stake, Michael. After all, the U.S. has tax breaks for married couples, because it wants to support families. Giving a tax break to a man married to his dog or to the tree in his front lawn does nothing to support families."

There is no use for me to get into this, because I already answered this kind of reasoning:
"the reasoning is ridiculous. It is a reasoning of socialists: if we do not limit it here, it will not be possible to limit it anywhere, thus we limit it here."

You seem to, again, uphold the reasoning that if the line is not being drawn at '1 man and 1 woman', éverything is allowed; for instance marrying dogs or trees. That is a caricature of the actual situation.
If you can draw the line at '1 man and 1 woman', you can also draw the line at '2 people'. Which means, as you might see, no polygamy, nor marrying 'dogs' since dogs are not 'people'.

[weekenderman]

But it DOES automatically mean the government has something at stake, Michael. After all, the U.S. has tax breaks for married couples, because it wants to support families. Giving a tax break to a man married to his dog or to the tree in his front lawn does nothing to support families.

And please, don't try to tell us that because gay people are not allowed to marry they cannot leave their inheritance to whomever they wish. Anyone, no matter their sexual orientation, can leave their property to whomever they wish.

[Michael van der Galien]

Well, it should be obvious that if a man wants to marry 18 wives and has 64 children, he should not expect of the government to pay for 62 of those children and 17 of those wives. The fact that one is free to marry whoever one wants does not automatically mean the government should make sure the person is able to live like that. The government should not hinder it, but should also not 'able it'.

Inheritage: It is none of the government's business, imo, who inherits what. That is a choice of the, in this case, father of the children. He should make a will.

Back to AVI for one moment: A lot of people share 1 common problem: They tend to let other people 'over-influence' them constantly. Once in a while, just for a change, people should stop looking at other people, should stop being bothered by what other people do, should stop being focused on other people's lives. Ain't that a novel idea?

[MissJean]

In order to see the ramifications of polygamy in the US, look at the source of income for polygamist families in Utah. That is, look at how many of the wives and children are on food stamps, reduced or free school meals, and other forms of welfare. There is also the problem of social dominance among wives that was referred to earlier: which wife and children will inherit any property? I do not know how it works with Muslim polygamists, but my Mormon friends tell me that a man can only marry one wife "in the temple" - that is, as a marriage through eternity. However, in the US, distinctions cannot be made in our legal system between "primary" and "secondary" children. So if you have 18 wives and 64 children, the question of Social Security payments and pensions becomes more than a "behind closed doors" issue.

[Michael van der Galien]

AVI: I understand your reasoning. The question, however, is not whether or not we 'influence' eachother. The question is whether or not we hurt eachother unreasonably.

If a gay couple gets married, how does that unreasonably hurt other people?

Utterly ridiculous.

Weekenderman:
'The fact is, once we give up the one man/one woman traditional definition of marriage, it leads to "anything goes."'
Firstly; politically I would not have a problem with that.
Secondly; the reasoning is ridiculous. It is a reasoning of socialists: if we do not limit it here, it will not be possible to limit it anywhere, thus we limit it here.

[Assistant Village Idiot]

The sad contradiction is that our actions do affect each other. If there is one gay couple in a neighborhood, then the actions and norms of the others affect that couple, and are affected by them. If there is one straight couple in a gay neighborhood, they mutually affect each other. We try to adopt a legal fiction of no effect, to allow individuals maximum freedom. We pretend in law that we do not affect each other until some threshhold of measurable harm is demonstrated.

People will disagree whether their actions are providing a good effect or a bad effect on others, even after they have happened. Predicting effect or non-effect in advance is even more subjective. Can you leave junk cars in your yard? Can you clearcut lumber in an area that only pilots will ever see it? What if either is bad for the trout, and some people like to protect as many trout as possible? The advantage or damage to others is difficult to quantify.

What does it mean to "freely choose" to become a third wife if your community pressures you to and you wish to remain connected to it? Is it different from "freely choosing" to marry the girl you got pregnant so that your community on't shun you?

If a church can refuse to marry a same-sex couple, can they also refuse a job to a gay therapist at their soup kitchen without running afoul of the law?

This is an area where we have common values of freedom, protection, and comity all slamming into each other. And then we have to decide who pays for the final compromise.

It resists easy solution, to my eyes. I have not the wisdom.

[weekenderman]

I remember blogging last summer on World Mag Blog about the homosexuals demanding the right to marry, and how the slippery slide would eventually lead to demands for polygamy -- and eventually for incestual marriage.

Wow, "eventually" has sure happened quickly!

The fact is, once we give up the one man/one woman traditional definition of marriage, it leads to "anything goes." If a person can marry someone of the same gender, who's to say they can't marry their son, or their dog, or a tree in their front yard?

[North by Northwest]

Putting the legal issue to one side, I first would want to get my hands on sound research:

What is the ratio amongst the polygamist 'families' in relation to one male and n-females and one female and n-males?

What is the driving force for polygamy for (a) the men and (b) the women?

It seems to me, that if one talks about 'choice', one needs to be clear about the underlying dynamics that lead to such 'choices' before taking this kind of debate further.

Society has a duty to 'protect' its own from exploitation. Case in point, the Baghwan sect. There are many deviant practices driven by sexual impulses, S&M, fetishism, group sex and swinging, just to name a few. They have existed in countless variations since the dawn of men and their followers have more or less always proclaimed that their preferences are based on the principle, or unwritten law that it is an opportunity to learn how to relax and appreciate sexual pleasure.

Society in general and government in particular can not and should not 'legislate' such individual 'choices'. But neither must society nor government be coerced by such minorities into affording any 'official' status to such preferences or practices, no matter how vociferous their lobbying.

[Joshua Minton]

Whether one is discussing gay marriage or polygamy, we're ultimately talking about issues that drill deep down to the holy of holies of individual liberty and you are calling the Ninth Amendment of the US Constitution into order. The original colonies of English settlers all had very different relgious beliefs but coexisted because there was an understanding of boundaries--and that's what it still comes down to.

First we must begin with a clear definition of liberty and here it is: As individuals, we are free to pursue our own vision of happiness, provided that this pursuit does not infringe upon the life or liberty of any other citizen.

As I write this, I am one week past my review of Brokeback Mountain and into the third episode of the Showtime series The L-Word about lesbians in LA and these cultural expressions, along with shows like Will & Grace have done much to bring homosexuality into the mainstream, although it has been there all along. (Did you know that the 15th President of the United States was most likely a homosexual?)

There are factors to consider here--the public and the private. Publicly, the Ninth Amendment preserves the rights of determining who gets marriage certificates and the like to the people and the states, respectively.

Privately, these issues come down the nature of your soul. If you believe that any action human beings can take against one another can change the nature of God's love, then while you may have read your New Testament and memorized the parables and teachings of Jesus, you have not yet heard with your inner ear and your Third Eye, what the Son of Man was saying to the Children of God.

If the peacemakers are the blessed among us, then what does that say about those who would stand in the way of the happiness of consenting adults, wagging a finger and chucking yard stones into brittle glass?

For those who understand what lies beyod the metaphoric symbol G-O-D, it is readily apparent that we as individuals, communities, cities, states, countries, civilizations, and species cannot divert, divest, dilute, or dissolve the love of God once it has been turned on like a light in a dark room. And no book, voice, or symbol of state will ever capture or reproduce the majesty of divinity in the simplistic terms of time and space.

The main problem in the world today is an utter lack of mysticism in religious thinking and a plethora of ethical nonsense being bartered as civic duty.

Now honestly, don't you think we have enough work to do in our own minds and hearts to be worrying about what consenting adults do to each other outside the boundary of our lives and property?

[The Ugly American]

Very interesting arguments here and at Althouse and Volokh conspiracy.

It comes down to a very simple understanding to me. The people of any given society/country have a right to determine what its marriage policies are. Who is and is not allowed to marry. That being said I am pretty convinced that one man one woman is the best policy for our society. It is good economic policy and good social policy.

Married people are wealthier and lead more stable and productive lives than single people, and are far less likely to commit crime (particularly men). Children of married couples that stay together are healthier, and happier as a group than those of single parent homes.

A one man one woman marriage policy provides the greatest number or potential marriages for society and so the greatest potential for a healthy, happy, and productive society.

I think the numbers are far too small and the phenomena is far too recent to measure against the well being of children raised by homosexual couples. So I can only apply common sense to the question (I am open to being convinced otherwise). It is my belief that women can far better answer the questions young girls have about woman hood and the same for boys and men. At the same time Men can give offer a unique insight into the male view on life and women to his daughters and vice versa for women and their sons.

It just makes sense to me. There is a balance with one man one woman marriage.

Before someone calls me a bigot I will say I have no problem with people who are born, or choose to be homosexual. I support civil unions. I support homosexuals couples being allowed to adopt children with the exception of preference being given to heterosexual couples. (Again with the best interest of the children in mind)

You may now call me a bigot anyway as I am sure some will. I purposely avoided any religious basis for my position as arguing on religious grounds really leaves little room for discussion.

[Michael van der Galien]

BTW: same sex marriage is allowed in The Netherlands.

[Michael van der Galien]

In the Netherlands the children of the one who (lets call him / her 'A') was married to someone of the other sex, but then married someone of the same sex, would inherit everything from their parent (A). The children of that other same-sex person (lets call him / her 'B') would not inherit anything from A.

That is the leading principle.

Okay - in my personal opinion marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.
In my political opinion it is none of the governments business with who people marry. If people make the choice to marry someone of the same sex, it is none of the government's business to do something against it.
When people decide they find it 'okay' to marry with more people at the same time, it is none of the government's business to do something against it.

As long as they are not hurting someone else tremendously, let citizens do what they want to do. How they think they will be happy is their choice, not that of the government.

One of the main things that bugs me is that people try to legislate their values constantly. Let values be personal.

When of course, two of the same sex want to marry in a church, but that church refuses that, that is the right of the church. Thus, the government should not be able to press it on the Church.

[sigmund, carl and alfred]

The 'debate' over polygamy is not really a debate at all. Rather, the issue is being discussed because there are elements within western society that wish to legitimize what is already a common Islamic practise in this country- polygamy.

Prior to Muslim immigration and vociferousness, polygamy was a relegated to a no more than a handful of whack jobs in western desert states.

Polygamy, if legalized, will open up a Pandora's box. Inheritance of property issues (is there a number one wife and lesser wives? In Islam there is), division of pension issues, and so on.

There are other considerations as well. If we legitimize polygamy (and some would argue even gay marriage), at what point do we draw the line?

Suppose a daughter cares for her elderly father and expends a lot of money doing so, while her brother does nothing. Should she be able to marry her father and become his primary beneficiary? That question applied to gay marriages as well. Suppose someone with children, later in life 'comes out of the closet' and marries the same sex partner- what are the inheritance and pension ramifications? With lifespans ever increasing, a twenty year old hetero marriage may be eclipsed by a 25 year homosexual marriage. Suppose the other partner, as beneficiary, had children as well- and passed everything on to his or her kids.

Suppose a man has 4 wives and kids with each. He divorces one and is awarded child support- an amount he cannot afford. Should the ex wife have the right to demand that full amount, knowing that if he paid her in full, he would deprive his other kids (and wives)? What that means is that we, taxpayers, would end up bearing the cost. Islamic polygamy will result in the state supporting adherents of certain religions- and not seperation of Church and State.

What the proponents of polygamy won't tell you is how much damage that institution has caused on abandoned women and children. Inasmuch as polygamy remains a part of the culture found in repressive regimes, where women have few if any rights, that isn't well known.

Polygamy is a disaster in the making, with even wider ramifications.

Can support of one day 'Pleasure Marriages' be far behind?