Newt Gingrich and the Polygamy Question

Running for the Republican nomination in the US Presidential race, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has been forced to address the issue of his multiple marriages-divorces and cheating. He recently was questioned about the polygamous freedom to marry. Honest and consensual polygamy is surely preferable on a personal and societal level than repeatedly cheating and going through acrimonious divorces, right?

Newt responded, "That's a fairly unusual question. Having gone through the annulment procedures of the Catholic church I don't meet the standards you just described."

That might make remarrying okay in the eyes of his church, but it doesn't change the fact that he has cheated and failed at monogamy.

"And I can assure you that I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and I oppose any effort to legalize polygamy."

On what basis does he deny the same-sex freedom to marry or the polygamous freedom to marry? He believes marriage is between "a man and a woman," (though he hasn't lived like it) but granting full marriage equality under the law doesn't have to change his personal beliefs.

Read jezebel.com's take on this encounter.

Yes, We Should Legalize Polygamy

Over at Café of the Cosmic Dance, Paul Sunstone writes that he can’t make up his mind whether he’s for against the legalization of polygamy. In favor of this freedom to marry, he cites the fact that it would be between consenting adults.

However, he goes on to write…

The best summary I've found of the reasons against legalization comes from a Canadian court case.

In 2010, the Supreme Court of British Columbia was asked to reconsider a ban on plural marriage. The core issue was whether polygamy was bad for society. That is, whether anyone besides the partners to a polygamous marriage were harmed by it.

He notes the submissions of Joseph Henrich, which I addressed here, here, here, here, and here. Sunstone notes that Henrich only dealt with polygyny. Quoting from Henrich…

Year-End Recaps of Television

Year-end recaps of television are running in news and entertainment media. Some of them editorialize on the inclusion of incest and faux-incest storylines in recent shows that this blog has noted. Note that if you're not caught up on “Dexter,” "Game of Thrones" (hasn't that been long enough?), "Bored to Death," or "Boardwalk Empire," this will contain spoilers.

Polyamory in an Episode of an ABC Drama

ABC’s fiction drama “Private Practice” will return with a new episode on Thursday, January 5 at 10:02 p.m. Eastern. Clarissa reports that…

Violet and Jake work with two women and a man involved in a polyamorous triad

How will American network television handle the subject of polyamory in prime time? Will the depiction be responsible?

What’s Next For Canadian Polyamorists?

jbash notes the lack of appeal of Chief Justice Bauman’s November 23 decision denying the polygamous freedom to marry, and asks for input.

The good news: without litigation setting an agenda for us, we can set our own, taking a fresh look at what Canada’s poly majority needs. We’re free to think about the long term, and we’d like your help.

If we really are done in court for now, in the coming weeks and months we’ll look at where the CPAA should go next: what our principles should be, where our priorities should lie, what services we should provide, what strategies we should use, who our allies should be, how we’ll be funded, and how we should organize ourselves. We can reinvent the CPAA completely, if that’s what needs to be done.

A reminder of where things stand…

Section 293’s threat has been weakened; it could have been read much more broadly. The lines aren’t as sharply drawn as we’d like, but it applies only to formal, institutionalized multi-partner marriages, clearly not to informal “common law” style relationships.

Still, the CPAA believes that major parts of the finding are legally wrong, and that Section 293 violates the Canadian Charter of Rights. Charter aside, we believe it’s an unwise and harmful law, for our community and for others. Innocent people are at risk, and there are much better ways to address the abuses its supporters are concerned about.

Eliminating Section 293 entirely is still a CPAA goal, but we’ll have to lay a lot of groundwork to do that. And other issues may be as pressing, or more so, for our community.

You may not be polyamorous, and you may not be Canadian, but we need solidarity to reach full marriage equality. Canada has rightly embraced the (limited) same-sex freedom to marry. This will make it more likely that the US an other nations will move towards full marriage equality as well. Right now, there are adults in Canada denied the freedom to marry simply because they are more than two of them. Two of them might want to marry the third, or or three may want to marry. And, there are adults in Canada who want to marry who are denied because they are close biological relatives. They are consenting adults, and they shouldn’t be denied the right to marry.

2011 Was a Big Year For Polyamory, Polygamy

TIME Magazine, in reviewing 2011, had “Polygamy Tries to Go Mainstream” as #9 in their “Top 10 Marriage Stories.”

Belinda Luscombe wrote…

How far can the definition of marriage be stretched? That seemed like one of the Big Questions of 2011, as polygamy moved into the mainstream. Viewers were treated to a second season of Sister Wives, a reality show that centers around the family of Kody Brown, a Kato Kaelin lookalike with four wives and 17 children.

Polygamy is in no way stretching the definition of marriage. Polygamous marriages have been around all along.

Not only is the family living a wide-open polygamous lifestyle in Nevada, but its members are attempting to establish in federal court that they have a constitutional right to do so.

More power to them!

Meanwhile, the judicial system in Vancouver heard arguments for and against legalizing polygamy in a case designed to clarify the province's law. On one side, lawyers asked, If women choose to share a spouse, why should anybody else care? The other side's response: Because there's no polygamous community on earth that lets women choose whom or when to marry.

False!

Polyamory and the polygamous freedom to marry did make some advances this year; polyamory in the Canadian court decision and both in public opinion. But there's still a ways to go.

What we need is full marriage equality as part of a society that has gender equality under the law, domestic violence protections, protections for children, the freedom to not marry, and the freedom to (equal access to) divorce. A woman should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults, including a with someone who is already married, even if that someone is a woman, even if that woman is her sister. If you don’t like it, then don’t do it. But let others have the relationships of their choosing.

How Many Stockings Were Stuffed in Your Home?

I've been meaning to call your attention to this blog entry by Macha, “Saving Marriage: Let's Be Realistic.” It has been several weeks since it was published. It was prompted by a Dan Savage video calling monogamy ridiculous. Macha is monogamous, but is an ally for ethically nonmonogamous.

I agree that monogamy is not superior to non-monogamy, whether we're talking about polyamory, swinging, serial monogamy, or just casual sex. There are many forms of loving, fulfilling, satisfying sexual and non-sexual relationships that people can engage in and be happy.

Great message. Although I enjoy polyamory, I fully support anyone who is monogamous and wants a monogamous relationship. I do think people can be happy and have lasting, monogamous relationships. I like to say that I support the the right of an adult to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults, and that includes monogamy.

Full marriage equality will strengthen marriage. Trying to keep marriage in a small little box that a decreasing percentage of the population is willing to pick up will kill it.

Polyandry in the Himalayas

It's a topic that would be really interesting to bring up at your family holiday get-togethers. On her travel blog, Joy Robinson brings us “Scenes from a (Polyandrous) Marriage.”

The scenes here are from a wedding ceremony in the valley of Kinnaur, which lies along the old Hindustan-Tibet road in the Indian state of Himachal Pradesh.

She goes on to explain…

The particular thrill of this encounter was the fact that the wedding was polyandrous. Polyandry is not unusual in Himalayan cultures and often, at least in my experience, involves the union of a woman with two or more brothers.

Go see for yourself. Hey guys who have brothers... how much of your life are you willing to share with yours?

What Century Is It Again?

Here's a case from Ohio in which an adult was prosecuted for having consensual sex with another adult, and the courts think that's just fine.

Lowe was charged with one count of sexual battery for engaging in sexual conduct by means of sexual intercourse with his 22-year-old stepdaughter, in violation of Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.03(A)(5), which makes it a crime to "engage in sexual conduct with another, not the spouse of the offender, when . . . [t]he offender is the other person's natural or adoptive parent, or a stepparent, or guardian, custodian, or person in loco parentis of the other person." Lowe moved to dismiss the charge in the trial court, arguing that the facts alleged in the indictment did not constitute an offense under Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.03(A)(5) because there was a "clear legislative intent to have the law apply to children, not adults"

That would make sense.

Lowe also argued that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him because the government had no legitimate interest in regulating sexual activity between consenting adults.

He was sentenced to 120 days of incarceration and three years of community control and was classified as a sex offender. A sex offender. Do you really think he's a threat to you?

The court thinks consensual sex is destructive to relationships.

Unlike sexual relationships between unrelated same-sex adults, the stepparent-stepchild relationship is the kind of relationship in which a person might be injured or coerced or where consent might not easily be refused, regardless of age, because of the inherent influence of the stepparent over the stepchild.

That's Discredited Argument #20.

Ohio's paramount concern is protecting the family from the destructive influence of intra-family, extra-marital sexual contact.

How is it a destructive influence? They talk as though sex is bad. Perhaps they are doing it wrong?

I'm not the only person who found this to be a bad decision by the court.

Thank goodness the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals didn't buy Paul Lowe's excuse in his habeas petition for why he should be released from prison, where he's been cooling his heels, hanging out with the Wrong Crowd and eating s---ty food for more than six f---ing years! For having sex with someone he knew simply because he was once married to her mother!

This is why we need a Marriage Equality Amendment that will make it clear that we can't have crazy provincial laws that interfere with the rights of consenting adults to have sex or to marry.

Polyandry Works for Her

Violet at the blog Violet and Emily provides the definition of polyandry (one woman, multiple men), then explains her polyandrous nature…

I’ve been polyandrous for as long as I can remember. Even before I knew there was a word for it, I knew that I wanted to have more than one boyfriend. The idea of being stuck with one person, to the exclusion of all others FOREVER, kind of freaked me out, even as a kid.

I tried monogamy. It didn’t work.

She goes on to explain her journey to discovering polyandry was the right relationship for her.

Violet and the men in her life should be free to have their relationships without discrimination or bullying. If they want to marry, they should not be denied.

No Appeal of Anti-Equality Court Ruling in Canada

Someday, both Canadians and Americans will look back in shame at having fought against full marriage equality. Those who are on the right side of history await everyone else. Here's what I last wrote about this case.

A lawyer who argued to decriminalize polygamy will not be appealing the court’s decision to uphold Canada’s 120-year-old anti-polygamy law, it was announced Wednesday.

“A legal publication suggested recently that (lawyer George Macintosh) had decided to appeal. That report was erroneous,” a statement released by his office said.

This is disappointing.

Hate is Disgusting

Theweek.com has a roundup, much like I’ve done on this blog, of the recent reaction to the incest and faux-incest storylines on recent television show episodes. What caught my attention was some of the comments by readers.

john, 2011-12-20 19:21:48 was scary in his hateful bigotry…

incest is a mental / genetic defect.

His evidence of this is…? Considering the many consanguinamorous people who are intelligent, functioning, attractive people, I'd say the evidence is not in john's favor.

it is sick and it produces genetically scary inbreds that will further weaken the gene pool.

Ah, Discredited Argument #18.

in our culture incest was cause for an instant death penalty...no questions or no arguments from the family. if the family didn't like it they joined the doomed.

What culture would that be, I wonder? Wow. Wanting to kill people for being in love. That is what is sick. And since he called it a mental/genetic defect, it appears john supports killing the disabled.

Bob Johnson, 2011-12-20 19:41:33…

Incest sounds like the final act of desperation - instead of creating something new and original and intriguing embrace the old and vulgar.

Desperation? To be a little more realistic about the fact that these relationships do exist? Why should these relationships be kept off television?

Bruce, 2011-12-21 01:11:14…

2 things: 1) They're ADOPTED siblings, not BIOLOGICAL siblings. Twisted, yes, but not actually incest. 2) It's a show about a guy who goes around and MURDERS people, but I guess that's OK with you?

It’s not twisted. But other than that, great comment, Bruce.

Mehitabel, 2011-12-21 05:50:30…

My ex married his step-sister. So, yes, there is an 'ewwwww' factor but there's nothing wrong with it technically or genetically. And as blended families and families with anaymous sperm donors and surrogates and all this genetic mish-mash become more and more common, it's about time we started to explore this. It's actually a pretty topical issue. 'Who's your daddy?' is actually a fairly serious question these days in some communities.

Gay and lesbian characters used to be kept off of television, too. Hell, heterosexual married couples used to have separate beds on TV shows. The more sex-positive and inclusive TV gets, the better.