Another Example of Grasping at Straws

…to try to justify denying poly people the right to marriage.

Diane Wuesthoff of Southwest Portland was not happy that a columnist, writing about “Sister Wives,” pointed out that polygamy is "simply another family choice outside the norm." Well, I could take issue with that, too. Is it really outside the norm? If it is, it is only because someone lives with their partners at the same time, instead of divorcing one while taking on another. Certainly, lifelong heterosexual monogamy in which someone practices abstinence until legally marrying one person of the opposite sex, never engaging in any sexual activity with anyone else and remaining married until death… is not the norm, either.

Wuesthoff also complains that the columnist…

compares advocates for polygamy to supporters of gay marriage.

Certainly the freedom to marry someone of the same sex isn’t the same thing as the freedom to marry more than one person, but both freedoms are important ingredients to full marriage equality, and both are about allowing consenting adults to share love, sex, and marriage as they see fit for themselves.

However, like many people who base their beliefs about marriage on religious or moral convictions accompanied by a limited understanding of what a state interest in marriage comprises, she completely neglects discussion of the legal issues about which the state has a clear and compelling interest: property sharing and transfer, inheritance issues and contract law.

All of those can work under polygamy.

Civil marriage essentially being a specialized contract between two parties only, there are special statutes that apply to that particular contractual relationship, to its dissolution and to the continued care of the human product of that relationship, children.

Why only two parties?

Not all marriages produce children. Not all children are produced in a legal marriage. Legalizing polygamy (and consanguineous marriage) would allow more children who are going to be born either way to be born into a legal marriage.

If we were to allow unlimited numbers of people to enter a single legal marriage -- and that would necessarily include, by the way, women with multiple husbands -- we would have a great deal more than tax laws and employer practices to overhaul.

Oh, I see. Some people should not have the freedom to marry because it would mean lawmakers and employers might have to… react. That’s a compassionate way of thinking, isn’t it? “We can’t end segregation, it will mean taking down all of those signs!”

What happens when a multiple marriage ends in divorce?

That would depend on the law and any pre- or post-nuptial agreement, now wouldn’t it? I wonder if the letter writer is the kind of person who says that a road should not be built because it will mean that they city will have to go out and buy traffic signs and then have the patrol the road, too? Such a hassle!

Would all the partners have to divorce, dissolving the marriage contract entirely, or would the ones who wanted to stay together simply vote the undesired partner off the island?

Purely from a legal perspective and not necessarily anyone’s personal beliefs or social function, what I would like to see is a marriage being between all involved. Under such a model, going from two people to three people would legally be a new marriage for all and requiring the consent of all, even if two of the people don’t personally consider themselves married to each other, only to the third person. Likewise, if one person wanted to leave, they could, and the remaining two would legally begin a new marriage at that moment. What is important is consent. If one person (A) no longer wants to be legally married to one of the other spouses (C), either A convinces C to leave, or convinces B (and D, if there is a D), and A and B (and perhaps D) leave C. Or, B (and/or D) can say no, and A is free to either stay and bite the bullet, or leave alone or with B or D. Adults can make these choices without having someone else tell them they can’t have any choice in the first place.

Who would get custody of the children, and how would custody battles be approached?

The same exact way they are now. Custody would be determined based on the needs of the child and the lives of the parents. This would be aided by who is named on the child’s birth certificate.

Those who wish to set up more complex domestic relationships have access to existing contract and trust law, as well as other well-established areas of law.

This is the same thing said to same-sex couples as an excuse not to grant them the freedom to marry. If someone wants to marry, they shouldn’t be denied.

Hovde should respect and exercise her own intellectual abilities more than she has in this column.

Pot, meet kettle. Surely the letter writer is intelligent enough to see that the issues raise can deal with?