|
BEYOND GAY MARRIAGE
The road to polyamory
|
Autor: Stanley Kurtz
|
Fuente: The Weekly Standard
|
AFTER
GAY
MARRIAGE,
what
will
become
of
marriage
itself?
Will
same-sex
matrimony
extend
marriage's
stabilizing
effects
to
homosexuals?
Will
gay
marriage
undermine
family
life?
A
lot
is
riding
on
the
answers
to
these
questions.
But
the
media's
reflexive
labeling
of
doubts
about
gay
marriage
as
homophobia
has
made
it
almost
impossible
to
debate
the
social
effects
of
this
reform.
Now
with
the
Supreme
Court's
ringing
affirmation
of
sexual
liberty
in
Lawrence
v.
Texas,
that
debate
is
unavoidable.
Among
the
likeliest
effects
of
gay
marriage
is
to
take
us
down
a
slippery
slope
to
legalized
polygamy
and
"polyamory"
(group
marriage).
Marriage
will
be
transformed
into
a
variety
of
relationship
contracts,
linking
two,
three,
or
more
individuals
(however
weakly
and
temporarily)
in
every
conceivable
combination
of
male
and
female.
A
scare
scenario?
Hardly.
The
bottom
of
this
slope
is
visible
from
where
we
stand.
Advocacy
of
legalized
polygamy
is
growing.
A
network
of
grass-roots
organizations
seeking
legal
recognition
for
group
marriage
already
exists.
The
cause
of
legalized
group
marriage
is
championed
by
a
powerful
faction
of
family
law
specialists.
Influential
legal
bodies
in
both
the
United
States
and
Canada
have
presented
radical
programs
of
marital
reform.
Some
of
these
quasi-governmental
proposals
go
so
far
as
to
suggest
the
abolition
of
marriage.
The
ideas
behind
this
movement
have
already
achieved
surprising
influence
with
a
prominent
American
politician.
None
of
this
is
well
known.
Both
the
media
and
public
spokesmen
for
the
gay
marriage
movement
treat
the
issue
as
an
unproblematic
advance
for
civil
rights.
True,
a
small
number
of
relatively
conservative
gay
spokesmen
do
consider
the
social
effects
of
gay
matrimony,
insisting
that
they
will
be
beneficent,
that
homosexual
unions
will
become
more
stable.
Yet
another
faction
of
gay
rights
advocates
actually
favors
gay
marriage
as
a
step
toward
the
abolition
of
marriage
itself.
This
group
agrees
that
there
is
a
slippery
slope,
and
wants
to
hasten
the
slide
down.
To
consider
what
comes
after
gay
marriage
is
not
to
say
that
gay
marriage
itself
poses
no
danger
to
the
institution
of
marriage.
Quite
apart
from
the
likelihood
that
it
will
usher
in
legalized
polygamy
and
polyamory,
gay
marriage
will
almost
certainly
weaken
the
belief
that
monogamy
lies
at
the
heart
of
marriage.
But
to
see
why
this
is
so,
we
will
first
need
to
reconnoiter
the
slippery
slope.
Promoting
polygamy
DURING
THE
1996
congressional
debate
on
the
Defense
of
Marriage
Act,
which
affirmed
the
ability
of
the
states
and
the
federal
government
to
withhold
recognition
from
same-sex
marriages,
gay
marriage
advocates
were
put
on
the
defensive
by
the
polygamy
question.
If
gays
had
a
right
to
marry,
why
not
polygamists?
Andrew
Sullivan,
one
of
gay
marriage's
most
intelligent
defenders,
labeled
the
question
fear-mongering--akin
to
the
discredited
belief
that
interracial
marriage
would
lead
to
birth
defects.
"To
the
best
of
my
knowledge,"
said
Sullivan,
"there
is
no
polygamists'
rights
organization
poised
to
exploit
same-sex
marriage
and
return
the
republic
to
polygamous
abandon."
Actually,
there
are
now
many
such
organizations.
And
their
strategy--even
their
existence--owes
much
to
the
movement
for
gay
marriage.
Scoffing
at
the
polygamy
prospect
as
ludicrous
has
been
the
strategy
of
choice
for
gay
marriage
advocates.
In
2000,
following
Vermont's
enactment
of
civil
unions,
Matt
Coles,
director
of
the
American
Civil
Liberties
Union's
Lesbian
and
Gay
Rights
Project,
said,
"I
think
the
idea
that
there
is
some
kind
of
slippery
slope
[to
polygamy
or
group
marriage]
is
silly."
As
proof,
Coles
said
that
America
had
legalized
interracial
marriage,
while
also
forcing
Utah
to
ban
polygamy
before
admission
to
the
union.
That
dichotomy,
said
Coles,
shows
that
Americans
are
capable
of
distinguishing
between
better
and
worse
proposals
for
reforming
marriage.
Are
we?
When
Tom
Green
was
put
on
trial
in
Utah
for
polygamy
in
2001,
it
played
like
a
dress
rehearsal
for
the
coming
movement
to
legalize
polygamy.
True,
Green
was
convicted
for
violating
what
he
called
Utah's
"don't
ask,
don't
tell"
policy
on
polygamy.
Pointedly
refusing
to
"hide
in
the
closet,"
he
touted
polygamy
on
the
Sally
Jessy
Raphael,
Queen
Latifah,
Geraldo
Rivera,
and
Jerry
Springer
shows,
and
on
"Dateline
NBC"
and
"48
Hours."
But
the
Green
trial
was
not
just
a
cable
spectacle.
It
brought
out
a
surprising
number
of
mainstream
defenses
of
polygamy.
And
most
of
the
defenders
went
to
bat
for
polygamy
by
drawing
direct
comparisons
to
gay
marriage.
Writing
in
the
Village
Voice,
gay
leftist
Richard
Goldstein
equated
the
drive
for
state-sanctioned
polygamy
with
the
movement
for
gay
marriage.
The
political
reluctance
of
gays
to
embrace
polygamists
was
understandable,
said
Goldstein,
"but
our
fates
are
entwined
in
fundamental
ways."
Libertarian
Jacob
Sullum
defended
polygamy,
along
with
all
other
consensual
domestic
arrangements,
in
the
Washington
Times.
Syndicated
liberal
columnist
Ellen
Goodman
took
up
the
cause
of
polygamy
with
a
direct
comparison
to
gay
marriage.
Steve
Chapman,
a
member
of
the
Chicago
Tribune
editorial
board,
defended
polygamy
in
the
Tribune
and
in
Slate.
The
New
York
Times
published
a
Week
in
Review
article
juxtaposing
photos
of
Tom
Green's
family
with
sociobiological
arguments
about
the
naturalness
of
polygamy
and
promiscuity.
The
ACLU's
Matt
Coles
may
have
derided
the
idea
of
a
slippery
slope
from
gay
marriage
to
polygamy,
but
the
ACLU
itself
stepped
in
to
help
Tom
Green
during
his
trial
and
declared
its
support
for
the
repeal
of
all
"laws
prohibiting
or
penalizing
the
practice
of
plural
marriage."
There
is
of
course
a
difference
between
repealing
such
laws
and
formal
state
recognition
of
polygamous
marriages.
Neither
the
ACLU
nor,
say,
Ellen
Goodman
has
directly
advocated
formal
state
recognition.
Yet
they
give
us
no
reason
to
suppose
that,
when
the
time
is
ripe,
they
will
not
do
so.
Stephen
Clark,
the
legal
director
of
the
Utah
ACLU,
has
said,
"Talking
to
Utah's
polygamists
is
like
talking
to
gays
and
lesbians
who
really
want
the
right
to
live
their
lives."
All
this
was
in
2001,
well
before
the
prospect
that
legal
gay
marriage
might
create
the
cultural
conditions
for
state-sanctioned
polygamy.
Can
anyone
doubt
that
greater
public
support
will
be
forthcoming
once
gay
marriage
has
become
a
reality?
Surely
the
ACLU
will
lead
the
charge.
Why
is
state-sanctioned
polygamy
a
problem?
The
deep
reason
is
that
it
erodes
the
ethos
of
monogamous
marriage.
Despite
the
divorce
revolution,
Americans
still
take
it
for
granted
that
marriage
means
monogamy.
The
ideal
of
fidelity
may
be
breached
in
practice,
yet
adultery
is
clearly
understood
as
a
transgression
against
marriage.
Legal
polygamy
would
jeopardize
that
understanding,
and
that
is
why
polygamy
has
historically
been
treated
in
the
West
as
an
offense
against
society
itself.
In
most
non-Western
cultures,
marriage
is
not
a
union
of
freely
choosing
individuals,
but
an
alliance
of
family
groups.
The
emotional
relationship
between
husband
and
wife
is
attenuated
and
subordinated
to
the
economic
and
political
interests
of
extended
kin.
But
in
our
world
of
freely
choosing
individuals,
extended
families
fall
away,
and
love
and
companionship
are
the
only
surviving
principles
on
which
families
can
be
built.
From
Thomas
Aquinas
through
Richard
Posner,
almost
every
serious
observer
has
granted
the
incompatibility
between
polygamy
and
Western
companionate
marriage.
Where
polygamy
works,
it
does
so
because
the
husband
and
his
wives
are
emotionally
distant.
Even
then,
jealousy
is
a
constant
danger,
averted
only
by
strict
rules
of
seniority
or
parity
in
the
husband's
economic
support
of
his
wives.
Polygamy
is
more
about
those
resources
than
about
sex.
Yet
in
many
polygamous
societies,
even
though
only
10
or
15
percent
of
men
may
actually
have
multiple
wives,
there
is
a
widely
held
belief
that
men
need
multiple
women.
The
result
is
that
polygamists
are
often
promiscuous--just
not
with
their
own
wives.
Anthropologist
Philip
Kilbride
reports
a
Nigerian
survey
in
which,
among
urban
male
polygamists,
44
percent
said
their
most
recent
sexual
partners
were
women
other
than
their
wives.
For
monogamous,
married
Nigerian
men
in
urban
areas,
that
figure
rose
to
67
percent.
Even
though
polygamous
marriage
is
less
about
sex
than
security,
societies
that
permit
polygamy
tend
to
reject
the
idea
of
marital
fidelity--for
everyone,
polygamists
included.
Mormon
polygamy
has
always
been
a
complicated
and
evolving
combination
of
Western
mores
and
classic
polygamous
patterns.
Like
Western
companionate
marriage,
Mormon
polygamy
condemns
extramarital
sex.
Yet
historically,
like
its
non-Western
counterparts,
it
de-emphasized
romantic
love.
Even
so,
jealousy
was
always
a
problem.
One
study
puts
the
rate
of
19th-century
polygamous
divorce
at
triple
the
rate
for
monogamous
families.
Unlike
their
forebears,
contemporary
Mormon
polygamists
try
to
combine
polygamy
with
companionate
marriage--and
have
a
very
tough
time
of
it.
We
have
no
definitive
figures,
but
divorce
is
frequent.
Irwin
Altman
and
Joseph
Ginat,
who've
written
the
most
detailed
account
of
today's
breakaway
Mormon
polygamist
sects,
highlight
the
special
stresses
put
on
families
trying
to
combine
modern
notions
of
romantic
love
with
polygamy.
Strict
religious
rules
of
parity
among
wives
make
the
effort
to
create
a
hybrid
traditionalist/modern
version
of
Mormon
polygamy
at
least
plausible,
if
very
stressful.
But
polygamy
let
loose
in
modern
secular
America
would
destroy
our
understanding
of
marital
fidelity,
while
putting
nothing
viable
in
its
place.
And
postmodern
polygamy
is
a
lot
closer
than
you
think.
Polyamory
AMERICA'S
NEW,
souped-up
version
of
polygamy
is
called
"polyamory."
Polyamorists
trace
their
descent
from
the
anti-monogamy
movements
of
the
sixties
and
seventies--everything
from
hippie
communes,
to
the
support
groups
that
grew
up
around
Robert
Rimmer's
1966
novel
"The
Harrad
Experiment,"
to
the
cult
of
Bhagwan
Shree
Rajneesh.
Polyamorists
proselytize
for
"responsible
non-monogamy"--open,
loving,
and
stable
sexual
relationships
among
more
than
two
people.
The
modern
polyamory
movement
took
off
in
the
mid-nineties--partly
because
of
the
growth
of
the
Internet
(with
its
confidentiality),
but
also
in
parallel
to,
and
inspired
by,
the
rising
gay
marriage
movement.
Unlike
classic
polygamy,
which
features
one
man
and
several
women,
polyamory
comprises
a
bewildering
variety
of
sexual
combinations.
There
are
triads
of
one
woman
and
two
men;
heterosexual
group
marriages;
groups
in
which
some
or
all
members
are
bisexual;
lesbian
groups,
and
so
forth.
(For
details,
see
Deborah
Anapol's
"Polyamory:
The
New
Love
Without
Limits,"
one
of
the
movement's
authoritative
guides,
or
Google
the
word
polyamory.)
Supposedly,
polyamory
is
not
a
synonym
for
promiscuity.
In
practice,
though,
there
is
a
continuum
between
polyamory
and
"swinging."
Swinging
couples
dally
with
multiple
sexual
partners
while
intentionally
avoiding
emotional
entanglements.
Polyamorists,
in
contrast,
try
to
establish
stable
emotional
ties
among
a
sexually
connected
group.
Although
the
subcultures
of
swinging
and
polyamory
are
recognizably
different,
many
individuals
move
freely
between
them.
And
since
polyamorous
group
marriages
can
be
sexually
closed
or
open,
it's
often
tough
to
draw
a
line
between
polyamory
and
swinging.
Here,
then,
is
the
modern
American
version
of
Nigeria's
extramarital
polygamous
promiscuity.
Once
the
principles
of
monogamous
companionate
marriage
are
breached,
even
for
supposedly
stable
and
committed
sexual
groups,
the
slide
toward
full-fledged
promiscuity
is
difficult
to
halt.
Polyamorists
are
enthusiastic
proponents
of
same-sex
marriage.
Obviously,
any
attempt
to
restrict
marriage
to
a
single
man
and
woman
would
prevent
the
legalization
of
polyamory.
After
passage
of
the
Defense
of
Marriage
Act
in
1996,
an
article
appeared
in
Loving
More,
the
flagship
magazine
of
the
polyamory
movement,
calling
for
the
creation
of
a
polyamorist
rights
movement
modeled
on
the
movement
for
gay
rights.
The
piece
was
published
under
the
pen
name
Joy
Singer,
identified
as
the
graduate
of
a
"top
ten
law
school"
and
a
political
organizer
and
public
official
in
California
for
the
previous
two
decades.
Taking
a
leaf
from
the
gay
marriage
movement,
Singer
suggested
starting
small.
A
campaign
for
hospital
visitation
rights
for
polyamorous
spouses
would
be
the
way
to
begin.
Full
marriage
and
adoption
rights
would
come
later.
Again
using
the
gay
marriage
movement
as
a
model,
Singer
called
for
careful
selection
of
acceptable
public
spokesmen
(i.e.,
people
from
longstanding
poly
families
with
children).
Singer
even
published
a
speech
by
Iowa
state
legislator
Ed
Fallon
on
behalf
of
gay
marriage,
arguing
that
the
goal
would
be
to
get
a
congressman
to
give
exactly
the
same
speech
as
Fallon,
but
substituting
the
word
"poly"
for
"gay"
throughout.
Try
telling
polyamorists
that
the
link
between
gay
marriage
and
group
marriage
is
a
mirage.
The
flexible,
egalitarian,
and
altogether
postmodern
polyamorists
are
more
likely
to
influence
the
larger
society
than
Mormon
polygamists.
The
polyamorists
go
after
monogamy
in
a
way
that
resonates
with
America's
secular,
post-sixties
culture.
Yet
the
fundamental
drawback
is
the
same
for
Mormons
and
polyamorists
alike.
Polyamory
websites
are
filled
with
chatter
about
jealousy,
the
problem
that
will
not
go
away.
Inevitably,
group
marriages
based
on
modern
principles
of
companionate
love,
without
religious
rules
and
restraints,
are
unstable.
Like
the
short-lived
hippie
communes,
group
marriages
will
be
broken
on
the
contradiction
between
companionate
love
and
group
solidarity.
And
children
will
pay
the
price.
The
harms
of
state-sanctioned
polyamorous
marriage
would
extend
well
beyond
the
polyamorists
themselves.
Once
monogamy
is
defined
out
of
marriage,
it
will
be
next
to
impossible
to
educate
a
new
generation
in
what
it
takes
to
keep
companionate
marriage
intact.
State-sanctioned
polyamory
would
spell
the
effective
end
of
marriage.
And
that
is
precisely
what
polyamory's
new--and
surprisingly
influential--defenders
are
aiming
for.
The
family
law
radicals
STATE-SANCTIONED
polyamory
is
now
the
cutting-edge
issue
among
scholars
of
family
law.
The
preeminent
school
of
thought
in
academic
family
law
has
its
origins
in
the
arguments
of
radical
gay
activists
who
once
opposed
same-sex
marriage.
In
the
early
nineties,
radicals
like
longtime
National
Gay
and
Lesbian
Task
Force
policy
director
Paula
Ettelbrick
spoke
out
against
making
legal
marriage
a
priority
for
the
gay
rights
movement.
Marriage,
Ettelbrick
reminded
her
fellow
activists,
"has
long
been
the
focus
of
radical
feminist
revulsion."
Encouraging
gays
to
marry,
said
Ettelbrick,
would
only
force
gay
"assimilation"
to
American
norms,
when
the
real
object
of
the
gay
rights
movement
ought
to
be
getting
Americans
to
accept
gay
difference.
"Being
queer,"
said
Ettelbrick,
"means
pushing
the
parameters
of
sex
and
family,
and
in
the
process
transforming
the
very
fabric
of
society."
Promoting
polyamory
is
the
ideal
way
to
"radically
reorder
society's
view
of
the
family,"
and
Ettelbrick,
who
has
since
formally
signed
on
as
a
supporter
of
gay
marriage
(and
is
frequently
quoted
by
the
press),
is
now
part
of
a
movement
that
hopes
to
use
gay
marriage
as
an
opening
to
press
for
state-sanctioned
polyamory.
Ettelbrick
teaches
law
at
the
University
of
Michigan,
New
York
University,
Barnard,
and
Columbia.
She
has
a
lot
of
company.
Nancy
Polikoff
is
a
professor
at
American
University's
law
school.
In
1993,
Polikoff
published
a
powerful
and
radical
critique
of
gay
marriage.
Polikoff
stressed
that
during
the
height
of
the
lesbian
feminist
movement
of
the
seventies,
even
many
heterosexual
feminists
refused
to
marry
because
they
believed
marriage
to
be
an
inherently
patriarchal
and
oppressive
institution.
A
movement
for
gay
marriage,
warned
Polikoff,
would
surely
promote
marriage
as
a
social
good,
trotting
out
monogamous
couples
as
spokesmen
in
a
way
that
would
marginalize
non-monogamous
gays
and
would
fail
to
challenge
the
legitimacy
of
marriage
itself.
Like
Ettelbrick,
Polikoff
now
supports
the
right
of
gays
to
marry.
And
like
Ettelbrick,
Polikoff
is
part
of
a
movement
whose
larger
goal
is
to
use
legal
gay
marriage
to
push
for
state-sanctioned
polyamory--the
ultimate
subversion
of
marriage
itself.
Polikoff
and
Ettelbrick
represent
what
is
arguably
now
the
dominant
perspective
within
the
discipline
of
family
law.
Cornell
University
law
professor
Martha
Fineman
is
another
key
figure
in
the
field
of
family
law.
In
her
1995
book
"The
Neutered
Mother,
the
Sexual
Family,
and
Other
Twentieth
Century
Tragedies,"
she
argued
for
the
abolition
of
marriage
as
a
legal
category.
Fineman's
book
begins
with
her
recollection
of
an
experience
from
the
late
seventies
in
politically
radical
Madison,
Wisconsin.
To
her
frustration,
she
could
not
convince
even
the
most
progressive
members
of
Madison's
Equal
Opportunities
Commission
to
recognize
"plural
sexual
groupings"
as
marriages.
That
failure
helped
energize
Fineman's
lifelong
drive
to
abolish
marriage.
But
it's
University
of
Utah
law
professor
Martha
Ertman
who
stands
on
the
cutting
edge
of
family
law.
Building
on
Fineman's
proposals
for
the
abolition
of
legal
marriage,
Ertman
has
offered
a
legal
template
for
a
sweeping
relationship
contract
system
modeled
on
corporate
law.
(See
the
Harvard
Civil
Rights
and
Civil
Liberties
Law
Review,
Winter
2001.)
Ertman
wants
state-sanctioned
polyamory,
legally
organized
on
the
model
of
limited
liability
companies.
In
arguing
for
the
replacement
of
marriage
with
a
contract
system
that
accommodates
polyamory,
Ertman
notes
that
legal
and
social
hostility
to
polygamy
and
polyamory
are
decreasing.
She
goes
on
astutely
to
imply
that
the
increased
openness
of
homosexual
partnerships
is
slowly
collapsing
the
taboo
against
polygamy
and
polyamory.
And
Ertman
is
frank
about
the
purpose
of
her
proposed
reform--to
render
the
distinction
between
traditional
marriage
and
polyamory
"morally
neutral."
A
sociologist
rather
than
a
professor
of
law,
Judith
Stacey,
the
Barbra
Streisand
Professor
in
Contemporary
Gender
Studies
at
USC,
is
another
key
member
of
this
group.
Stacey
has
long
championed
alternative
family
forms.
Her
current
research
is
on
gay
families
consisting
of
more
than
two
adults,
whose
several
members
consider
themselves
either
married
or
contractually
bound.
In
1996,
in
the
Michigan
Law
Review,
David
Chambers,
a
professor
of
law
at
the
University
of
Michigan
and
another
prominent
member
of
this
group,
explained
why
radical
opponents
of
marriage
ought
to
support
gay
marriage.
Rather
than
reinforcing
a
two-person
definition
of
marriage,
argued
Chambers,
gay
marriage
would
make
society
more
accepting
of
further
legal
changes.
"By
ceasing
to
conceive
of
marriage
as
a
partnership
composed
of
one
person
of
each
sex,
the
state
may
become
more
receptive
to
units
of
three
or
more."
Gradual
transition
from
gay
marriage
to
state-sanctioned
polyamory,
and
the
eventual
abolition
of
marriage
itself
as
a
legal
category,
is
now
the
most
influential
paradigm
within
academic
family
law.
As
Chambers
put
it,
"All
desirable
changes
in
family
law
need
not
be
made
at
once."
Finally,
Martha
Minow
of
Harvard
Law
School
deserves
mention.
Minow
has
not
advocated
state-sanctioned
polygamy
or
polyamory,
but
the
principles
she
champions
pave
the
way
for
both.
Minow
argues
that
families
need
to
be
radically
redefined,
putting
blood
ties
and
traditional
legal
arrangements
aside
and
attending
instead
to
the
functional
realities
of
new
family
configurations.
Ettelbrick,
Polikoff,
Fineman,
Ertman,
Stacey,
Chambers,
and
Minow
are
among
the
most
prominent
family
law
theorists
in
the
country.
They
have
plenty
of
followers
and
hold
much
of
the
power
and
initiative
within
their
field.
There
may
be
other
approaches
to
academic
family
law,
but
none
exceed
the
radicals
in
influence.
In
the
last
couple
of
years,
there
have
been
a
number
of
conferences
on
family
law
dominated
by
the
views
of
this
school.
The
conferences
have
names
like
"Marriage
Law:
Obsolete
or
Cutting
Edge?"
and
"Assimilation
&
Resistance:
Emerging
Issues
in
Law
&
Sexuality."
The
titles
turn
on
the
paradox
of
using
marriage,
seemingly
a
conservative
path
toward
assimilation,
as
a
tool
of
radical
cultural
"resistance."
One
of
the
most
important
recent
family
law
meetings
was
the
March
2003
Hofstra
conference
on
"Marriage,
Democracy,
and
Families."
The
radicals
were
out
in
full
force.
On
a
panel
entitled
"Intimate
Affiliation
and
Democracy:
Beyond
Marriage?"
Fineman,
Ertman,
and
Stacey
held
forth
on
polyamory,
the
legal
abolition
of
marriage,
and
related
issues.
Although
there
were
more
moderate
scholars
present,
there
was
barely
a
challenge
to
the
radicals'
suggestion
that
it
was
time
to
move
"beyond
marriage."
The
few
traditionalists
in
family
law
are
relatively
isolated.
Many,
maybe
most,
of
the
prominent
figures
in
family
law
count
themselves
as
advocates
for
lesbian
and
gay
rights.
Yet
family
law
today
is
as
influenced
by
the
hostility
to
marriage
of
seventies
feminism
as
it
is
by
advocacy
for
gay
rights.
It
is
this
confluence
of
radical
feminism
and
gay
rights
that
now
shapes
the
field.
Beyond
conjugality
YOU
MIGHT
THINK
the
radicals
who
dominate
the
discipline
of
family
law
are
just
a
bunch
of
eccentric
and
irrelevant
academics.
You
would
be
wrong.
For
one
thing,
there
is
already
a
thriving
non-profit
organization,
the
Alternatives
to
Marriage
Project,
that
advances
the
radicals'
goals.
When
controversies
over
the
family
hit
the
news,
experts
provided
by
the
Alternatives
to
Marriage
Project
are
often
quoted
in
mainstream
media
outlets.
While
the
Alternatives
to
Marriage
Project
endorses
gay
marriage,
its
longer-term
goal
is
to
replace
marriage
with
a
system
that
recognizes
"the
full
range"
of
family
types.
That
includes
polyamorous
families.
The
Alternatives
to
Marriage
Project's
statement
of
purpose--its
"Affirmation
of
Family
Diversity"--is
signed
not
only
by
Ettelbrick,
Polikoff,
and
Stacey
but
by
several
polyamorists
as
well.
On
a
list
of
signatories
that
includes
academic
luminaries
like
Yale
historian
Nancy
Cott,
you
can
find
Barry
Northrup
of
Loving
More
magazine.
The
Alternatives
to
Marriage
Project,
along
with
Martha
Ertman's
pioneering
legal
proposals,
has
given
polyamory
a
foothold
on
respectability.
The
first
real
public
triumph
of
the
family
law
radicals
has
come
in
Canada.
In
1997,
the
Canadian
Parliament
established
the
Law
Commission
of
Canada
to
serve
Parliament
and
the
Justice
Ministry
as
a
kind
of
advisory
board
on
legal
reform.
In
December
2001,
the
commission
submitted
a
report
to
Parliament
called
"Beyond
Conjugality,"
which
stops
just
short
of
recommending
the
abolition
of
marriage
in
Canada.
"Beyond
Conjugality"
contains
three
basic
recommendations.
First,
judges
are
directed
to
concentrate
on
whether
the
individuals
before
them
are
"functionally
interdependent,"
regardless
of
their
actual
marital
status.
On
that
theory,
a
household
consisting
of
an
adult
child
still
living
with
his
mother
might
be
treated
as
the
functional
equivalent
of
a
married
couple.
In
so
disregarding
marital
status,
"Beyond
Conjugality"
is
clearly
drawing
on
the
work
of
Minow,
whose
writings
are
listed
in
the
bibliography.
"Beyond
Conjugality"'s
second
key
recommendation
is
that
a
legal
structure
be
established
allowing
people
to
register
their
personal
relationships
with
the
government.
Not
only
could
heterosexual
couples
register
as
official
partners,
so
could
gay
couples,
adult
children
living
with
parents,
and
siblings
or
friends
sharing
a
house.
Although
the
authors
of
"Beyond
Conjugality"
are
politic
enough
to
relegate
the
point
to
footnotes,
they
state
that
they
see
no
reason,
in
principle,
to
limit
registered
partnerships
to
two
people.
The
final
recommendation
of
"Beyond
Conjugality"--legalization
of
same-sex
marriage--drew
the
most
publicity
when
the
report
was
released.
Yet
for
the
Law
Commission
of
Canada,
same-sex
marriage
is
clearly
just
one
part
of
the
larger
project
of
doing
away
with
marriage
itself.
"Beyond
Conjugality"
stops
short
of
recommending
the
abolition
of
legal
marriage.
The
authors
glumly
note
that,
for
the
moment,
the
public
is
unlikely
to
accept
such
a
step.
The
text
of
"Beyond
Conjugality,"
its
bibliography,
and
the
Law
Commission
of
Canada's
other
publications
unmistakably
reveal
the
influence
of
the
radical
theorists
who
now
dominate
the
discipline
of
family
law.
While
Canada's
parliament
has
postponed
action
on
"Beyond
Conjugality,"
the
report
has
already
begun
to
shape
the
culture.
The
decision
by
the
Canadian
government
in
June
2003
not
to
contest
court
rulings
legalizing
gay
marriage
is
only
the
beginning
of
the
changes
that
Canada's
judges
and
legal
bureaucrats
have
in
mind.
The
simultaneity
of
the
many
reforms
is
striking.
Gay
marriage
is
being
pressed,
but
in
tandem
with
a
registration
system
that
will
sanction
polyamorous
unions,
and
eventually
replace
marriage
itself.
Empirically,
the
radicals'
hopes
are
being
validated.
Gay
marriage
is
not
strengthening
marriage
but
has
instead
become
part
of
a
larger
unraveling
of
traditional
marriage
laws.
Ah,
but
that's
Canada,
you
say.
Yet
America
has
its
rough
equivalent
of
the
Law
Commission
of
Canada--the
American
Law
Institute
(ALI),
an
organization
of
legal
scholars
whose
recommendations
commonly
shape
important
legal
reforms.
In
2000,
ALI
promulgated
a
report
called
"Principles
of
the
Law
of
Family
Dissolution"
recommending
that
judges
effectively
disregard
the
distinction
between
married
couples
and
longtime
cohabitors.
While
the
ALI
principles
do
not
go
so
far
as
to
set
up
a
system
of
partnership
registration
to
replace
marriage,
the
report's
framework
for
recognizing
a
wide
variety
of
cohabiting
partnerships
puts
it
on
the
same
path
as
"Beyond
Conjugality."
Collapsing
the
distinction
between
cohabitation
and
marriage
is
a
proposal
especially
damaging
to
children,
who
are
decidedly
better
off
when
born
to
married
parents.
(This
aspect
of
the
ALI
report
has
been
persuasively
criticized
by
Kay
Hymowitz,
in
the
March
2003
issue
of
Commentary.)
But
a
more
disturbing
aspect
of
the
ALI
report
is
its
evasion
of
the
polygamy
and
polyamory
issues.
Prior
to
publication
of
the
ALI
Principles,
the
report's
authors
were
pressed
(at
the
2000
annual
meeting
of
the
American
Law
Institute)
about
the
question
of
polygamy.
The
authors
put
off
the
controversy
by
defining
legal
cohabitors
as
couples.
Yet
the
ALI
report
offers
no
principled
way
of
excluding
polyamorous
or
polygamous
cohabitors
from
recognition.
The
report's
reforms
are
said
to
be
based
on
the
need
to
recognize
"statistically
growing"
patterns
of
relationship.
By
this
standard,
the
growth
of
polyamorous
cohabitation
will
soon
require
the
legal
recognition
of
polyamory.
Although
America's
ALI
Principles
do
not
follow
Canada's
"Beyond
Conjugality"
in
proposing
either
state-sanctioned
polyamory
or
the
outright
end
of
marriage,
the
University
of
Utah's
Martha
Ertman
has
suggested
(in
the
Spring/Summer
2001
Duke
Journal
of
Gender
Law
and
Policy)
that
the
American
Law
Institute
is
intentionally
holding
back
on
more
radical
proposals
for
pragmatic
political
reasons.
Certainly,
the
ALI
Principles'
authors
take
Canadian
law
as
the
model
for
the
report's
most
radical
provisions.
Further
confirmation,
if
any
were
needed,
of
the
mainstream
influence
of
the
family
law
radicals
came
with
Al
and
Tipper
Gore's
2002
book
"Joined
at
the
Heart,"
in
which
they
define
a
family
as
those
who
are
"joined
at
the
heart"
(rather
than
by
blood
or
by
law).
The
notion
that
a
family
is
any
group
"joined
at
the
heart"
comes
straight
from
Harvard's
Martha
Minow,
who
worked
with
the
Gores.
In
fact,
the
Minow
article
from
which
the
Gores
take
their
definition
of
family
is
also
the
article
in
which
Minow
tentatively
floats
the
idea
of
substituting
domestic
partnership
registries
for
traditional
marriage.
("Redefining
Families:
Who's
In
and
Who's
Out?"
University
of
Colorado
Law
Review,
Volume
62,
Number
2,
1991.)
So
one
of
the
guiding
spirits
of
Canada's
"Beyond
Conjugality"
report
almost
had
a
friend
in
the
White
House.
Triple
parenting
POLYGAMY,
POLYAMORY,
and
the
abolition
of
marriage
are
bad
ideas.
But
what
has
that
got
to
do
with
gay
marriage?
The
reason
these
ideas
are
connected
is
that
gay
marriage
is
increasingly
being
treated
as
a
civil
rights
issue.
Once
we
say
that
gay
couples
have
a
right
to
have
their
commitments
recognized
by
the
state,
it
becomes
next
to
impossible
to
deny
that
same
right
to
polygamists,
polyamorists,
or
even
cohabiting
relatives
and
friends.
And
once
everyone's
relationship
is
recognized,
marriage
is
gone,
and
only
a
system
of
flexible
relationship
contracts
is
left.
The
only
way
to
stop
gay
marriage
from
launching
a
slide
down
this
slope
is
if
there
is
a
compelling
state
interest
in
blocking
polygamy
or
polyamory
that
does
not
also
apply
to
gay
marriage.
Many
would
agree
that
the
state
has
a
compelling
interest
in
preventing
polygamy
and
polyamory
from
undermining
the
ethos
of
monogamy
at
the
core
of
marriage.
The
trouble
is,
gay
marriage
itself
threatens
the
ethos
of
monogamy.
The
"conservative"
case
for
gay
marriage
holds
that
state-sanctioned
marriage
will
reduce
gay
male
promiscuity.
But
what
if
the
effect
works
in
reverse?
What
if,
instead
of
marriage
reducing
gay
promiscuity,
sexually
open
gay
couples
help
redefine
marriage
as
a
non-monogamous
institution?
There
is
evidence
that
this
is
exactly
what
will
happen.
Consider
sociologist
Gretchen
Stiers's
1998
study
"From
this
Day
Forward"
(Stiers
favors
gay
marriage,
and
calls
herself
a
lesbian
"queer
theorist").
"From
this
Day
Forward"
reports
that
while
exceedingly
few
of
even
the
most
committed
gay
and
lesbian
couples
surveyed
believe
that
marriage
will
strengthen
and
stabilize
their
personal
relationships,
nearly
half
of
the
surveyed
couples
who
actually
disdain
traditional
marriage
(and
even
gay
commitment
ceremonies)
will
nonetheless
get
married.
Why?
For
the
financial
and
legal
benefits
of
marriage.
And
Stiers's
study
suggests
that
many
radical
gays
and
lesbians
who
yearn
to
see
marriage
abolished
(and
multiple
sexual
unions
legitimized)
intend
to
marry,
not
only
as
a
way
of
securing
benefits
but
as
part
of
a
self-conscious
attempt
to
subvert
the
institution
of
marriage.
Stiers's
study
suggests
that
the
"subversive"
intentions
of
the
radical
legal
theorists
are
shared
by
a
significant
portion
of
the
gay
community
itself.
Stiers's
study
was
focused
on
the
most
committed
gay
couples.
Yet
even
in
a
sample
with
a
disproportionate
number
of
male
couples
who
had
gone
through
a
commitment
ceremony
(and
Stiers
had
to
go
out
of
her
research
protocol
just
to
find
enough
male
couples
to
balance
the
committed
lesbian
couples)
nearly
20
percent
of
the
men
questioned
did
not
practice
monogamy.
In
a
representative
sample
of
gay
male
couples,
that
number
would
be
vastly
higher.
More
significantly,
a
mere
10
percent
of
even
this
skewed
sample
of
gay
men
mentioned
monogamy
as
an
important
aspect
of
commitment
(meaning
that
even
many
of
those
men
who
had
undergone
"union
ceremonies"
failed
to
identify
fidelity
with
commitment).
And
these,
the
very
most
committed
gay
male
couples,
are
the
ones
who
will
be
trailblazing
marital
norms
for
their
peers,
and
exemplifying
gay
marriage
for
the
nation.
So
concerns
about
the
effects
of
gay
marriage
on
the
social
ideal
of
marital
monogamy
seem
justified.
A
recent
survey
of
gay
couples
in
civil
unions
by
University
of
Vermont
psychologists
Esther
Rothblum
and
Sondra
Solomon
confirms
what
Stiers's
study
suggests--that
married
gay
male
couples
will
be
far
less
likely
than
married
heterosexual
couples
to
identify
marriage
with
monogamy.
Rothblum
and
Solomon
contacted
all
2,300
couples
who
entered
civil
unions
in
Vermont
between
June
1,
2000,
and
June
30,
2001.
More
than
300
civil
union
couples
residing
in
and
out
of
the
state
responded.
Rothblum
and
Solomon
then
compared
the
gay
couples
in
civil
unions
with
heterosexual
couples
and
gay
couples
outside
of
civil
unions.
Among
married
heterosexual
men,
79
percent
felt
that
marriage
demanded
monogamy,
50
percent
of
men
in
gay
civil
unions
insisted
on
monogamy,
while
only
34
percent
of
gay
men
outside
of
civil
unions
affirmed
monogamy.
While
gay
men
in
civil
unions
were
more
likely
to
affirm
monogamy
than
gays
outside
of
civil
unions,
gay
men
in
civil
unions
were
far
less
supportive
of
monogamy
than
heterosexual
married
men.
That
discrepancy
may
well
be
significantly
greater
under
gay
marriage
than
under
civil
unions.
That's
because
of
the
effect
identified
by
Stiers--the
likelihood
that
many
gays
who
do
not
value
the
traditional
monogamous
ethos
of
marriage
will
marry
anyway
for
the
financial
benefits
that
marriage
can
bring.
(A
full
86
percent
of
the
civil
unions
couples
who
responded
to
the
Rothblum-Solomon
survey
live
outside
Vermont,
and
therefore
receive
no
financial
benefits
from
their
new
legal
status.)
The
Rothblum-Solomon
study
may
also
undercount
heterosexual
married
male
acceptance
of
monogamy,
since
one
member
of
all
the
married
heterosexual
couples
in
the
survey
was
the
sibling
of
a
gay
man
in
a
civil
union,
and
thus
more
likely
to
be
socially
liberal
than
most
heterosexuals.
Even
moderate
gay
advocates
of
same-sex
marriage
grant
that,
at
present,
gay
male
relationships
are
far
less
monogamous
than
heterosexual
relationships.
And
there
is
a
persuasive
literature
on
this
subject:
Gabriel
Rotello's
"Sexual
Ecology,"
for
example,
offers
a
documented
and
powerful
account
of
the
behavioral
and
ideological
barriers
to
monogamy
among
gay
men.
The
moderate
advocates
say
marriage
will
change
this
reality.
But
they
ignore,
or
downplay,
the
possibility
that
gay
marriage
will
change
marriage
more
than
it
changes
the
men
who
marry.
Married
gay
couples
will
begin
to
redefine
the
meaning
of
marriage
for
the
culture
as
a
whole,
in
part
by
removing
monogamy
as
an
essential
component
of
marriage.
No
doubt,
the
process
will
be
pushed
along
by
cutting-edge
movies
and
TV
shows
that
tout
the
new
"open"
marriages
being
pioneered
by
gay
spouses.
In
fact,
author
and
gay
marriage
advocate
Richard
Mohr
has
long
expressed
the
hope
and
expectation
that
legal
gay
marriage
will
succeed
in
defining
monogamy
out
of
marriage.
Lesbians,
for
their
part,
do
value
monogamy.
Over
82
percent
of
the
women
in
the
Rothblum-Solomon
study,
for
example,
insisted
on
monogamy,
regardless
of
sexual
orientation
or
marital
status.
Yet
lesbian
marriage
will
undermine
the
connection
between
marriage
and
monogamy
in
a
different
way.
Lesbians
who
bear
children
with
sperm
donors
sometimes
set
up
de
facto
three-parent
families.
Typically,
these
families
include
a
sexually
bound
lesbian
couple,
and
a
male
biological
father
who
is
close
to
the
couple
but
not
sexually
involved.
Once
lesbian
couples
can
marry,
there
will
be
a
powerful
legal
case
for
extending
parental
recognition
to
triumvirates.
It
will
be
difficult
to
question
the
parental
credentials
of
a
sperm
donor,
or
of
a
married,
lesbian
non-birth
mother
spouse
who
helps
to
raise
a
child
from
birth.
And
just
as
the
argument
for
gay
marriage
has
been
built
upon
the
right
to
gay
adoption,
legally
recognized
triple
parenting
will
eventually
usher
in
state-sanctioned
triple
(and
therefore
group)
marriage.
This
year,
there
was
a
triple
parenting
case
in
Canada
involving
a
lesbian
couple
and
a
sperm
donor.
The
judge
made
it
clear
that
he
wanted
to
assign
parental
status
to
all
three
adults
but
held
back
because
he
said
he
lacked
jurisdiction.
On
this
issue,
the
United
States
is
already
in
"advance"
of
Canada.
Martha
Ertman
is
now
pointing
to
a
2000
Minnesota
case
(La
Chapelle
v.
Mitten)
in
which
a
court
did
grant
parental
rights
to
lesbian
partners
and
a
sperm
donor.
Ertman
argues
that
this
case
creates
a
legal
precedent
for
state-sanctioned
polyamory.
Gay
marriages
of
convenience
IRONICALLY,
the
form
of
gay
matrimony
that
may
pose
the
greatest
threat
to
the
institution
of
marriage
involves
heterosexuals.
A
Brigham
Young
University
professor,
Alan
J.
Hawkins,
suggests
an
all-too-likely
scenario
in
which
two
heterosexuals
of
the
same
sex
might
marry
as
a
way
of
obtaining
financial
benefits.
Consider
the
plight
of
an
underemployed
and
uninsured
single
mother
in
her
early
30s
who
sees
little
real
prospect
of
marriage
(to
a
man)
in
her
future.
Suppose
she
has
a
good
friend,
also
female
and
heterosexual,
who
is
single
and
childless
but
employed
with
good
spousal
benefits.
Sooner
or
later,
friends
like
this
are
going
to
start
contracting
same-sex
marriages
of
convenience.
The
single
mom
will
get
medical
and
governmental
benefits,
will
share
her
friend's
paycheck,
and
will
gain
an
additional
caretaker
for
the
kids
besides.
Her
friend
will
gain
companionship
and
a
family
life.
The
marriage
would
obviously
be
sexually
open.
And
if
lightning
struck
and
the
right
man
came
along
for
one
of
the
women,
they
could
always
divorce
and
marry
heterosexually.
In
a
narrow
sense,
the
women
and
children
in
this
arrangement
would
be
better
off.
Yet
the
larger
effects
of
such
unions
on
the
institution
of
marriage
would
be
devastating.
At
a
stroke,
marriage
would
be
severed
not
only
from
the
complementarity
of
the
sexes
but
also
from
its
connection
to
romance
and
sexual
exclusivity--and
even
from
the
hope
of
permanence.
In
Hawkins's
words,
the
proliferation
of
such
arrangements
"would
turn
marriage
into
the
moral
equivalent
of
a
Social
Security
benefit."
The
effect
would
be
to
further
diminish
the
sense
that
a
woman
ought
to
be
married
to
the
father
of
her
children.
In
the
aggregate,
what
we
now
call
out-of-wedlock
births
would
increase.
And
the
connection
between
marriage
and
sexual
fidelity
would
be
nonexistent.
Hawkins
thinks
gay
marriages
of
convenience
would
be
contracted
in
significant
numbers--certainly
enough
to
draw
the
attention
of
a
media
eager
to
tout
such
unions
as
the
hip,
postmodern
marriages
of
the
moment.
Hawkins
also
believes
that
these
unions
of
convenience
could
begin
to
undermine
marriage's
institutional
foundations
fairly
quickly.
He
may
be
right.
The
gay
marriage
movement
took
more
than
a
decade
to
catch
fire.
A
movement
for
state-sanctioned
polygamy-polyamory
could
take
as
long.
And
the
effects
of
sexually
open
gay
marriages
on
the
ethos
of
monogamy
will
similarly
occur
over
time.
But
any
degree
of
publicity
for
same-sex
marriages
of
convenience
could
have
dramatic
effects.
Without
further
legal
ado,
same-sex
marriages
of
convenience
will
realize
the
radicals'
fondest
hopes.
Marriage
will
have
been
severed
from
monogamy,
from
sexuality,
and
even
from
the
dream
of
permanence.
Which
would
bring
us
virtually
to
the
bottom
of
the
slippery
slope.
WE
ARE
FAR
CLOSER
to
that
day
than
anyone
realizes.
Does
the
Supreme
Court's
defense
of
sexual
liberty
last
month
in
the
Lawrence
v.
Texas
sodomy
case
mean
that,
short
of
a
constitutional
amendment,
gay
marriage
is
inevitable?
Perhaps
not.
Justice
Scalia
was
surely
correct
to
warn
in
his
dissent
that
Lawrence
greatly
weakens
the
legal
barriers
to
gay
marriage.
Sodomy
laws,
although
rarely
enforced,
did
provide
a
public
policy
basis
on
which
a
state
could
refuse
to
recognize
a
gay
marriage
performed
in
another
state.
Now
the
grounds
for
that
"public
policy
exception"
have
been
eroded.
And
as
Scalia
warned,
Lawrence's
sweeping
guarantees
of
personal
autonomy
in
matters
of
sex
could
easily
be
extended
to
the
question
of
who
a
person
might
choose
to
marry.
So
it
is
true
that,
given
Lawrence,
the
legal
barriers
to
gay
marriage
are
now
hanging
by
a
thread.
Nonetheless,
in
an
important
respect,
Scalia
underestimated
the
resources
for
a
successful
legal
argument
against
gay
marriage.
True,
Lawrence
eliminates
moral
disapprobation
as
an
acceptable,
rational
basis
for
public
policy
distinctions
between
homosexuality
and
heterosexuality.
But
that
doesn't
mean
there
is
no
rational
basis
for
blocking
either
same-sex
marriage
or
polygamy.
There
is
a
rational
basis
for
blocking
both
gay
marriage
and
polygamy,
and
it
does
not
depend
upon
a
vague
or
religiously
based
disapproval
of
homosexuality
or
polygamy.
Children
need
the
stable
family
environment
provided
by
marriage.
In
our
individualist
Western
society,
marriage
must
be
companionate--and
therefore
monogamous.
Monogamy
will
be
undermined
by
gay
marriage
itself,
and
by
gay
marriage's
ushering
in
of
polygamy
and
polyamory.
This
argument
ought
to
be
sufficient
to
pass
the
test
of
rational
scrutiny
set
by
the
Supreme
Court
in
Lawrence
v.
Texas.
Certainly,
the
slippery
slope
argument
was
at
the
center
of
the
legislative
debate
on
the
federal
Defense
of
Marriage
Act,
and
so
should
protect
that
act
from
being
voided
on
the
same
grounds
as
Texas's
sodomy
law.
But
of
course,
given
the
majority's
sweeping
declarations
in
Lawrence,
and
the
hostility
of
the
legal
elite
to
traditional
marriage,
it
may
well
be
foolish
to
rely
on
the
Supreme
Court
to
uphold
either
state
or
federal
Defense
of
Marriage
Acts.
This
is
the
case,
in
a
nutshell,
for
something
like
the
proposed
Federal
Marriage
Amendment
to
the
Constitution,
which
would
define
marriage
as
the
union
of
a
man
and
a
woman.
At
a
stroke,
such
an
amendment
would
block
gay
marriage,
polygamy,
polyamory,
and
the
replacement
of
marriage
by
a
contract
system.
Whatever
the
courts
might
make
of
the
slippery
slope
argument,
the
broader
public
will
take
it
seriously.
Since
Lawrence,
we
have
already
heard
from
Jon
Carroll
in
the
San
Francisco
Chronicle
calling
for
legalized
polygamy.
Judith
Levine
in
the
Village
Voice
has
made
a
plea
for
group
marriage.
And
Michael
Kinsley--no
queer
theorist
but
a
completely
mainstream
journalist--has
publicly
called
for
the
legal
abolition
of
marriage.
So
the
most
radical
proposal
of
all
has
now
moved
out
of
the
law
schools
and
legal
commissions,
and
onto
the
front
burner
of
public
discussion.
Fair-minded
people
differ
on
the
matter
of
homosexuality.
I
happen
to
think
that
sodomy
laws
should
have
been
repealed
(although
legislatively).
I
also
believe
that
our
increased
social
tolerance
for
homosexuality
is
generally
a
good
thing.
But
the
core
issue
here
is
not
homosexuality;
it
is
marriage.
Marriage
is
a
critical
social
institution.
Stable
families
depend
on
it.
Society
depends
on
stable
families.
Up
to
now,
with
all
the
changes
in
marriage,
the
one
thing
we've
been
sure
of
is
that
marriage
means
monogamy.
Gay
marriage
will
break
that
connection.
It
will
do
this
by
itself,
and
by
leading
to
polygamy
and
polyamory.
What
lies
beyond
gay
marriage
is
no
marriage
at
all.
Stanley
Kurtz
is
a
research
fellow
at
the
Hoover
Institution.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
