I think that the arguments that encourage support for legalizing same-sex marriage might be useful for legalizing polygamy. I am going to talk about a worldview that does not necessarily coincide, at least not literally, with conventional legal theory. This ideas might be useless in American courts of law, YMMV.
I think of marriage in terms of juristic personhood.
We treat corporations and non-profit organizations with some degree of personhood, including EINs that look like Social Security numbers, tax returns distinct from the tax returns of any constituent members, and the ability to sue/be sued in court. Sometimes the coordination of combined will, knowledge, memory, actions, bodies, and responsibility we instinctively associate with a literally individual human person can also appear to limited degree in relationships between people.
If we legally banned someone's mouth from voicing medical decisions for that same person's body, that person's mouth would probably spend much time petitioning for changes in law recognizing the right of one part of a person to care for another. I acknowledge that two people related by blood are not literally parts of the same body, but for some critical situations, such as situations requiring medical decisions, the consequences of family members' legal rights to speak for each other might simulate in miniature form the consequences of the legal right for an individual's voice to speak for the rest of its person. This is one reason it is useful to recognize legal kinship. I'd rather permit family members to make certain decisions for one another than to deny such rights, compelling them to petition for that right when they could be doing otherwise productive things.
I am sympathetic to contemporary views of marriage as a bizarre old-fashioned legal construction, but I can also see some reasons to respect it. Sometimes a sexual union forms a bond between people not already related by blood. They become family in every sense that touches on the cohesion of will and actions, the desire to share responsibility, and in medical situations like those mentioned in the preceding paragraph. It is useful to have marriage to provide legal kinship when these relationships come into being.
These relationships can occur between people of the same sex, so it makes sense to me that we would legalize same-sex marriage.
I could also see these relationships occurring between multiple "spouses," and so I don't have an a priori moral objection to legalized polygamous marriage.
I acknowledge I have concerns that civil polygamous marriage might be technically difficult to implement. Rewriting tax forms would be a headache. Updating insurance law sounds like a nightmare. I guess I would try replacing policies that allowed a person to cover his or her one spouse with policies that allowed a collection of people to pool their payments to cover each other so that on average, 8 spouses in a plural marriage, for example, would pay the same as 8 spouses in 4 two-person marriages.
P.S. I might be interested in continuing to develop a concept of civil marriage along the lines of this blog post, but my interest in this line of reasoning and its silence regarding incestuous relationships should not be interpreted as any dismissal on my part of the possible legal suitability or morality of recognizing incest. I'm not sure I have an objection to sterile incestuous relationships per se even though I personally don't wish to enter such a relationship, as my brother, I am sure, would be relieved to know.
One of the issues I hear raised in opposition to same-sex marriage is that same-sex marriage is the first-step on a slippery slope to legalizing polygamous marriage. I do not sympathize with a variety of anti-gay-marriage positions in this vein. I don't think it makes sense, and I object to the way that this discussions bash people who are polygamous.
Logical positions regarding legal interpretation
Sometimes gay-marriage opponents say, "[We don't have to recognize same-sex marriage as a civil right, because if we had so to do], what would stop us from [being required to] afford the same legal treatment to plural marriage?" If someone thinks
that legal recognition of plural marriage is a consequence of an argument that holds same-sex marriage as a civil right, and
that plural marriage is objectionable
then that person can consistently find the recognition same-sex marriage as a civil right objectionable, but that person cannot conclude from this sense of objection that it is a logical impossibility for same-sex marriage to be a civil right. An interpretation of legal text is not deemed illogical merely because a person finds that its generalization is offensive.
Moral grounds
When someone uses the specter of legalized plural marriage as an objection to same-sex marriage, that person takes it for granted that polygamy is per se objectionable. Yes, there are historical instances when plural marriages existed in societies with wealth disparities leading to unequal treatment of spouses (i.e. see the polygamous Chinese marriages described in Joy Luck Club). However, that experience does not directly shed light on the workings of a polygamous relationship between consenting adults in the absence of coercion.
As a matter of accident, I happen to feel naturally monogamous, but I don't think that means that people who are polygamous are "unnatural." Even if they were "unnatural," that wouldn't mean that they were necessarily "wrong." If "natural" defined "right," and "right" determined law, then refrigeration, polyester, and condoms would be illegal.
I am thoroughly convinced by the testimony I heard at New Jersey's senate judiciary committee hearing on 2009 December 7 that civil unions don't work. Even though civil unions and marriage are supposed to provide the same substantive legal State rights, marriage enjoys better recognition that makes a difference at the hospital.
I hope we legalize gay marriage so that gay couples suffer fewer horrendous experiences at hospitals.
I'd also like to know whether other legal constructions that also do not enjoy the label "marriage" lead to the same horror stories we hear about in New Jersey in the context of civil unions. Even if we do legalize gay marriage, I might choose to fill out a bunch of health care proxy forms to indicate a chain of command for my closest friends to make decisions should I ever lack the ability to make them for myself. It would be really great if hospitals could understand my instructions regarding my friends as easily as they could understand the label "marriage" even though I have no intent on marrying all of my friends.
Draft 2
The State of New Jersey is unable to provide civil union partners the substantive rights it gives married straight couples even though, aside from typographical errors and unintended errors, civil union code is written in theory to provide gay couples with all the substantive, tangible rights of marriage. Putting aside the question of whether the State of New Jersey should attempt to provide the substantive rights of marriage through a civil union, it's not encouraging that even when New Jersey does attempt to do so, it fails.
I thought the testimony in support of marriage equality in Monday's senate judiciary committee hearing was pretty professional and fair. The hearing was even contemporary--I heard stories of children in the awkward position of explaining to their peers that their parents were in a civil union. I heard civil union partners talking about problems proving to hospitals their legal right to know about their partners' medical condition. I heard about medical insurance companies withholding same-sex benefits that otherwise they would grant in States with same-sex marriage. I hope that the gay rights debate in this country in general soon catches up with these issues and moves to a level of discourse that doesn't sound like broken records on both sides recorded by speakers who cannot hear each other.
Many participants in the American gay marriage debate agree that whether one supports or opposes gay marriage personally, the Constitution is absolutely clear and unambiguous about due process, equal protection, and civil rights. I support marriage equality, and I often take it as a good sign when civic debates use words like "Constitution, due process, equal protection, and civil rights," but I'm not writing this blog entry to parrot the usual "gay rights are civil rights" talking point.
I write this note to call the Constitution out for being a sadistic magician: while it might speak clearly and unambiguously to both you and me, what it says in clear and unambiguous terms to me is not necessarily what it says in clear and unambiguous terms to you.
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. . . . For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." I grew up a born-again Christian believing in John 3:16 and Ephesians 2:8--9 and condemning homosexuality. I left the faith in college and became open about being a gay man. Now I lobby for gay marriage.
Having been on both sides, I realize that Scripture, statistics, and logical discourse join the Constitution in volunteering their authority to enforce the beliefs of popular culture and lobbyists on both sides of the marriage debate to a point that many on both sides can only interpret the claims of the other as results of irrationality, dishonesty, or both.
The marriage equality lobby accuses conservative Christians of dismissing separation of church and state and the Constitution. Christians don't necessarily interpret the Constitution and separation of church and state in the same way as I do, but many Christians certainly believe that they must and do uphold the Constitution.
And going in the other direction, conservative Christians accuse gay Americans of lying whenever they claim that being gay is a matter of intrinsic identity rather than choice. In some Christian world views, Romans 1:18--20 can be read as saying that only by lying can any person deny that his or her conscience and mind demand a heterosexual Christian lifestyle. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened."
What productive conversation can result when on the one hand gay rights proponents believe that conservative Christians are incapable of logical consistency while on the other hand conservative Christians automatically categorize as lies each and every claim that gays and lesbians make about their most personal and fundamental emotions?
There are some really fundamental problems with the arguments and myths that supporters from both sides of the issue conveniently permit to circulate in popular culture. If I aired out the dirty laundry of gay culture, many conservative parents would probably attempt to enroll gay children in destructive so-called "reparative" therapies. Wait, wait, wait, before you do that, if I aired out the dirty laundry of straight culture, many conservative parents would probably enroll their straight children in reparative therapies to prevent them from having any sexual orientation.
And if I aired out the dirty laundry of the so-called Judeo-Christian position against homosexuality, many Christians would leave their faith. These painful consequences are not the purpose of this note.
The purpose of this note is to admit and ask you to admit that we often hear what we expect to hear, instead of what is realistic. As much as we'd like to think of ourselves as logical computers, much of our intellectual discourse is merely gift-wrapping for our deepest emotional convictions, which sometimes lack the consistency and sense necessary to possess an articulation in language.
I propose that a fundamental concern in the marriage equality fight is not that some people want what's "right" while some people want what's "wrong." Does anyone actually believe that he or she wants what's wrong? I propose that a fundamental concern in the marriage equality fight is that people from both sides of the issue simply have different personal emotional experiences. Wait. Stop. This blog entry is not a cheerleading piece for politically correct warm and fuzzy respect for all personal emotional perspectives. The origins of differences in personal experiences are important.
I know with deepest conviction that when my friends and I treat gay couples as though they were married, literally referring to them as spouses in marriage, they live up to that name and act just like straight couples. They work hard to pay the bills, squabble about stupid things, and fight to give their children the best future possible. They benefit their communities as do straight couples. I know this because I sincerely recognize gay couples as deserving of marriage and say it face-to-face. This is an emotional experience I hold at the most fundamental level in my heart: it drives my so-called "dispassionate and logical" thoughts to justify same-sex marriage, and it drives me to fight for its legalization.
Are you unable to find this emotional experience in your heart when you ask whether you can support marriage equality? When you treat gay couples as bona fide married couples, personally using the words "husbands" and "wives" and calling gay couples "married" with belief and honest tone, don't they live up to the word "marriage" just like straight married couples? Have you personally done this experiment? Have you tried to find out how gay couples respond when you call them "married" believing sincerely that it is true?
I am concerned that some people don't have this emotional experience, not through any distinguishing fault on the part of gay couples to live up to the label "marriage," but through the fault of some gay marriage opponents who don't let themselves perform the personal experiment of seeing what happens when they tell a gay couple with honesty and warmest embrace, "You are a married couple, and I recognize you."
There are serious problems with the conceptual organization that our Constitution prescribes for our system of government. At face value the Constitution respects due process and equal protection, but at the same time, the Constitution is (a) written in English and (b) interpreted by elected officials.
In many cases, you don't enjoy the same civil protections as "real" citizens until you convince the electorate to support public servants who recognize (a) that you, a person or class of people, share those features of civic personhood that define those people who already enjoy the full civil rights of American citizenship, and (b) that "treating you the same" literally means "treating you the same" in the most direct way in written language and actual operation.
The only people who were granted full citizenship at this country's birth were white men. The default assumption has often been that you do not have rights until you convince at least a significant minority of existing citizens that you deserve citizenship as much as they. The Constitution's prescription for due process and democratic election has an interesting consequence: we have due process in the sense that classes of people often have to perform due diligence demonstrating their humanity before government recognizes their rights. It's different in spirit from "innocent until proven guilty"; it's sub-human creature until proven, to a hostile and skeptical crowd, human.
Citizenship is a club that often assumes a priori that prospective applicants outside its membership deserve to be excluded.
I'm a student at Princeton University asking for your vote to support marriage equality because marriage equality is an important part of my Asian immigration story.
My parents came from Taiwan in the 1970s to look for a better future in the United States. Growing up, my mother was afraid to talk about politics in Taiwan because she was afraid that the government would "disappear" her. But in America, she could be hopeful that I could be whoever I honestly was.
I was born in Red Bank in 1982, and my parents raised me as an Evangelical Christian. I told them I was gay in 2006, and now they support marriage equality.
I don't think my parents ever thought that I their son, born in New Jersey, would be pleading for my rights. But about thirty years after they got their citizenship, I'm in their shoes, making a case for my full rights. I know I'm doing the right thing because my parents showed me that sharing our honest selves is how we get our civil rights in America.
I was born in Jersey and raised in Calfornia. I came back as a graduate student in physics at Princeton University. I support marriage equality.
My parents raised me as an Evangelical Christian, and I was a true born-again believer before I converted to atheism in college. I still remember how to draw the "cross and the chasm" to illustrate the salvation that the Jesus of the Evangelical tradition offered through John 3:16. I can recite, "salvation not by works, but by the grace of God alone," until I turn blue.
I am also a gay man. I came out to my parents in 2006, and now they support marriage equality alongside me.
Having come from both sides, I honestly believe that New Jerseyans, both those supporting and those opposing marriage equality, believe with honest conscience that they support civil rights, the Constitution, and religion. We are all sincere in our patriotism.
This is not a letter explicitly about civil rights, the Constitution, and religion. This is a letter about the deepest convictions and emotional knowledge that so often, for us as human beings, inform our more analytical arguments about civil rights, the Constitution, and religion.
I know with deepest conviction that when my friends and I treat gay couples as though they were married, literally referring to them as spouses in marriage, they live up to that name and act just like straight couples. They work hard to pay the bills, squabble about stupid things, and fight to give their children the best future possible. This is an emotional experience I hold at the most fundamental level in my heart that tells me that legalizing same-sex marriage is the right thing to do.
Now I want to ask you and anyone yet to commit to supporting marriage equality whether the same experience is part of your heart. When you treat gay couples as bona fide married couples, personally using the words "husbands" and "wives" and calling gay couples "married" with belief and honest tone, do they not live up to the word "marriage" just like straight married couples? Have you personally done this experiment to find out how gay couples respond when you call them "married"\ believing sincerely that it is true?
I am concerned that some people don't have this emotional experience, not because gay couples fail to live up to the label "marriage" as well as straight couples, and again in my personal experience gay couples I call "married" act like straight couples I show the same respect, but because some people who oppose gay marriage don't let themselves perform the personal experiment of seeing what would happen if they said, "hello," to a gay couple and with deepest honesty and warmest embrace, said, "You are a married couple, and I recognize you."
Edited from a letter handwritten to representatives while lobbying for marriage equality in Trenton on 2009 December 7.
Dear Representative,
I'm a student at Princeton University and a resident of your district. I want to tell you about being a gay man looking hopefully toward marriage equality.
My parents immigrated in the 1970s from Taiwan. My mother had to wait a year after my father arrived to join him here. Becoming American citizens took a lot of patience, but it was worth it.
My mother told me about the differences between the Taiwan where she grew up and the America where she and my father raised me. My grandfather told my mother to be politically silent or else be "disappeared" by the government. In America, she could be hopeful that her sons could be whoever they honestly were.
In 1982, I was born in Red Bank. My parents raised me as an Evangelical Christian. I came out to my parents in 2006, and my parents now support marriage equality.
Through their patient work while waiting to earn American citizenship and through their acceptance of me as their gay son because they knew me personally, my parents taught me that acceptance and recognition reward patiently introducing one's honest self. That's why I'm hopeful as a I write this letter about my family story, my American story, and ask for your vote to pass marriage equality in New Jersey.
Civil unions are not a substitute at the hospital for being able to say, "We're married." I am a gay New Jersey resident hoping to be allowed to have a husband one day, so I honestly need your vote.
my personal homepage
This is my civic and spirituality blog. Please visit my facebook profile to learn about my other lives as an artist, physics graduate student, dorm president, and chorus member.
