The Question one needs to keep an “OPEN MIND” about is should POLYGAMY be allowed if the provider of the family unit can support – financially, emotionally & sexually multiple partners. This should not only include wives or husbands but extended to include the infamous side-chick. They also serve a purpose.
This is a topic that I have encountered from friends, family and in general. Apparently there is a huge upswing in this area or it just could be that it always existed but the advent of social media like FaceBook, MySpace, Twitter and Reality TV has just brought it to light. Did it always exist? Maybe it was that invisible 10% of the population that is now coming out of the closet like the Gay Revolution. In recent history 3 States governors (NJ, NY, CA) have fallen from grace because of this.
I first encountered this when I learned one of my relatives and their husband both lived separate lives apart during parts of the week with other partners then lived together. Each of their separate partners new and accepted this arraignment. My second encounter was when I was involved with a stripper and we were invited to join a swingers club. She was adamantly against it, which made me even more curious. Here was an entire sub-society of friends and co-workers that apparently were living together as a close knit Harem type of family (it was by invite only and only after a few of them met you). The third encounter came yesterday afternoon whilst sitting with my cousin on her porch and putting back a few Heinekens (It’s all about the beer Baby!). She informed me that she was helping an Indian woman, first wife, gain control over her husband assets here in the states as he left NYC, returned to India, Married a new wife without the first wife’s permission.
Now, I am not bullish on polygamy in any sense but I do believe it has a bright future, now that homosexual marriage is being accepted. My first thought: if “homosexual marriage” is acceptable, on what basis could one possibly say that marriage to multiple partners is not? Marriage is a civil right, and if marriage is to be defined by an individual person, then what is to stop this branch of marriage from moving forward with all the zest of the Gay Rights movement? The Gay Rights movement is after all just a movement, so it will reach a point and stop. What is the next group to pick up a cause and travel down that same road? After all, if marriage is a civil right, and it is to be defined by each person, who is to say that polygamy is wrong?
Polygamist need to file a lawsuit seeking recognition of their special union. They are in a hopelessly disadvantaged state. Their specific multi-way relationship offers no legal status as a married person, affords no tax benefits, and leaves them in an inferior state.
Polygamy fulfills two main pillars of marriage: companionship and openness to the creation of new life, or procreation of children. “Homosexual marriage” achieves only half of those two. Government has a clear interest in the creation and rearing of healthy children since these are the future tax-paying adults upon whom society will be built. Moreover, children from stable, two-parent homes (a group soon to be placed on the endangered species list) generate lower social costs given that they are the group most likely to complete school, avoid substance abuse, stay out of the criminal justice system, and even ultimately create additional two-parent homes.
In addition, polygamy affords children the opportunity to be influenced by their own mother and father, another gift that “homosexual marriage” inherently cannot offer given its intrinsic barrenness. It seems most moral that children have a right not only to know who their parents are but to know each of them as fully as possible, a right not possible in “homosexual marriage,” but fully real in polygamy.
Polygamy also has much more traditional, historical support than any notion of “homosexual marriage.” A number of cultures across the millennia have embraced, even encouraged, multi-person marriage. Many non-Western cultures today still do.
Major faiths all have some rootage in the idea of multi-person marriage. David and Solomon each had a bevy of wives. Mohammed was a prodigious marry-er as was Joseph Smith. “Homosexual marriage” is entirely absent in faith communities.
Multi-person marriages can be fully consummated. Under natural law, such consummation inherently cannot occur in “homosexual marriage.” The notion of the complementarity of the sexes, another foundational concept for marriages and families, is entirely absent in “homosexual marriage,” but is entirely present in polygamy.
By now, it is clear that we have a problem. We have forgotten what marriage is, if we ever knew in the first place. It is not a mere matter of individual rights nor of individual interests. This is but one place where attorneys Ted Olsen and David Boies missed the mark in their arguments before The Very Reverend Vaughn Walker in the federal court. They also never even mentioned the nature and rights of children at all. In their minds, marriage and family have now become entirely about the rights of the adults.
Contributing arguments taken from Polygamy: The New Growth Stock