Polyamory in the Aftermath of Gay Marriage

"It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage." - Chief Justice John Roberts on the Historic Gay Marriage Ruling

Polygamy describes marriages with multiple members, regardless of gender. They can be female-centered, male-centered, or egalitarian (two men, two women). The arrangements can go in any direction in terms of who loves who, and the many kinds of arrangements fall within the broader category of Consensual Non-Monogamy.

In the aftermath of the recent Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, many talking heads are asking if polygamy is the next frontier for marriage rights. Indeed, it is. 

But many do not agree. In a recent Time Magazine article, Cathy Young, ironically a supporter of marriage equality, argues that marriage is traditionally "designed for a dyad," that marriage rights in plural arrangements would be a bureaucratic nightmare, and even echoes the bigoted advice sung by gay marriage opponents: "Legalizing multiple spouses would immediately affect every couple."

This is me laughing out loud.

But the comedy goes deeper. A gay man named Jonathan Rauch argues in Politico that "Polygamy is the past -- not the future" because "By allowing high-status men to hoard wives at the expense of low-status men, polygamy withdraws the opportunity to marry from people who now have it." Interesting point. Let's see where he goes with it: 

• A 2012 study on polygyny (one man, multiple women) that concludes "monogamy reduces male competition and social problems."
• Other research that social problems come with unequal sex ratios with too many men
• Finally gets to the point: "If reducing rather than expanding marriage opportunity and destabilizing rather than stabilizing society aren’t 'relevant differences' between polygamy and same-sex marriage, I don’t know what would be." OK, so stabilizing society is the real goal, not just expanding marriage opportunity for its own sake.

Never mind that these studies look simply at male-centered arrangements in pre-feminist societies where women have almost no economic or political power. Nevermind that these studies entirely ignore the millions of egalitarian feminist family structures alive today. Never mind that and consider that these arguments miss the whole point of gay marriage in particular, and of marriage in general. 

Marriage opportunity and marriage equality can only be understood in the context of free will. That means freedom to marry, freedom to divorce, freedom to cheat, freedom to love. A contemporary understanding of love precludes its beautiful complicated chaos, the way it waxes and wanes, begins and ends, the extent of its wonder and the depths of its pain. Isn't the whole point of all this to let love live?

"Stabilizing society" is its own slippery slope. Can you legislate stability in the realm of love? Would this author, who advocates legislating polygamy, also advocate legislating divorce or cheating? Imagine a world where you can't love the way you want, for the sake of societal stability. This opens up deeper questions than society, ultimately reaching ideas about liberty, free will, and the purpose and meaning of life. 

Rauch seems to overlook that while gayness was illegal, there were still millions of gay people doing gay stuff. While poly is illegal now, there are still millions doing poly stuff. This is a profound point, that especially regarding the topic of love, people are going to do whatever the hell they want, no matter what the law says. Any attempt to stop them is an immoral act against a basic human right, the freedom to love.   

Rauch argues that many low-status men would be left without mates if poly were legalized. Clearly, he's assuming that (1) poly people are not currently practicing since it's illegal and (2) non-poly people would somehow become poly once freedom reigned. I've gotta say, this reminds me of something. OH YEAH GAYS. Did all those illegal times stop all the gay stuff ? Is everyone gonna be super gay now that gay marriage is a thing? Of course not, silly. 

Rauch is also assuming that there are low-status men today with mates that would otherwise leave them and that high-status men would swoop up women. Guess what, Rauch: that's the way it already is. High-status anyone will attract more mates, and the lowest status anyone don't get them. There is no way legislating your way out of this one. It's just a simple sociobiological fact.

Sure, there naturally tend to be more men collecting harems than women, but women are a part of status, too. Do you think harems of men wouldn't share Tina Fey? Or Jennifer Lawrence? Or even Oprah? Of course they would. Some high-status women attract a lot of men and some of those women love more than one man. Who she loves is up to her, and it's no one's business but hers who she marries. 

Poly may be a lifestyle choice, but it's one that is intimately tied to sexual orientation, personal preference, and worldview. Most poly people actually enjoy sharing their lovers, an emotion called compersion. And most are loving, desirous, open-minded souls just doing what feels right. Millions are gay and millions are polyamorous and guess what? Everything is fine. There is no society crumbling. Most of the changing social structures are an evolution, not a degradation.

Families aren't as stable today as they once were. That's true. But it was straight monogamous people that messed that up, not anyone else. Not gays, not polys. And guess what: as the entire apparatus of traditional family structures evolve, so will stability continue to crumble until we as a society have found a structure that works ... or a new society. 

Evolution teaches us that humans in the wild are naturally polyamorous. The way our instincts surface in the very different environment of modern society is a topic of infinite complexity, but evolution teaches the most important lessons of all. That love is real. That life is meant to be lived. That freedom matters.