Gay bigotry towards polygyny

Bigotry is still very much alive. Those who've fought for the right of gay marriage are threatened by the growing interest in polygyny. They worry about the horrific social effects.

Let's be clear here: gay marriage is wrong. It's bad for society and Biblically wrong. But Jonathan Rauch, a staunch defender of gay marriage says, "polygamy is a profoundly hazardous policy." {Article may not be available by the time you view this. Source: National Journal, March 31, 2006}

I think it's fair to consider Rauch's arguments while they're hoisted on their own petard.

What are his arguments? Well, he says you must concentrate on the meaning of two words -- "marriage" and "polygyny."

About marriage, he writes, "Because a marriage license is a state grant, polygamy is a matter of public policy, not just of personal preference."

But every fundamentalist, political activist has made exactly this same point about marriage. It's their core argument.

This is why civil government (the State) should never be involved in the issue of marriage. The State exists to punish evil-doers, period. Marriage is, in a Biblical model, under the domain of the church. For those disinclined to come to a church for their nuptials and who still yet believe marriage is important, there are many ways to enter into contracts. (I'll have more to say about this at some point in the future.)

Clearly gays have been discriminated against in several areas (who visits you in the hospital, plans your funeral, executes your estate, shares your assets, etc, is up to you). But the very totalitarian hand that Rauch caresses in opposition to polygyny, is the very same hand that has smacked gays.

Regarding polygyny, Rauch basically argues that as a "policy" (remember, we're all cogs in the State's wheel, not individuals made in the image of God) it would be dangerous, and probably increase crime. Rauch would feel much better if polyandry -- group love with varying numbers of partners with roughly equal representation of both genders -- were the way of the world. But he seems worried that some men would lose out and they would be driven to life of frustration, and ultimately crime, as a result.

Mormon polygamy gives him some grounds for this argument. [This site does not defend Mormon polygamy, which initiates force against women and does not treat them as if they are made in the image of God.]

However, I'm still surprised Rauch makes such an argument. He writes, "Other things being equal, when one man marries two women, some other man marries no woman. When one man marries three women, two other men don't marry." But others things are never equal, as any good economist can tell you. That's nonsense.

But, for the sake of argument, as well as to demonstrate how intolerant and bigoted it is, let's take Rauch seriously. "Other things being equal, when one man marries another man, some other woman marries no man." Would Rauch take such an argument seriously as opposition to gay marriage? ...or would he be offended?

Rauch then talks about so-called "bare branches" and in so doing, goes way out on a limb (pun intended). Bare branches are men who lose the marriage lottery in polygynous societies. His intellectual cover comes from the slip-shod social science of Valerie M. Hudson and Andrea M. den Boer. They write, "Scarcity of women leads to a situation in which men with advantages -- money, skills, education -- will marry, but men without such advantages -- poor, unskilled, illiterate -- will not. A permanent subclass of bare branches [unmarriageable men] from the lowest socioeconomic classes is created."

If that were true, then that's Darwin-in-action, and it would be hard to understand why Rauch, who doesn't make a single moral, spiritual, or religious argument, would object. But the real reason China, for example, has a problem, is abortion. In China, females were disproportionately aborted in a poverty-stricken culture that limited families to one-child. Most gays support abortion -- believe it is a right. How interesting that Rauch, who blows-off the significance of abortion, thinks that polygamy is the real problem.

Contrary to Rauch's assertion, polygyny would be much better for society -- much better for individuals who should be the primary consideration here. My wife has a friend who is, from everything I can tell, a good wife and mother. But her husband decided to engage in "serial polygamy" -- he (I'll call him Dean) cheated on her and committed adultery. A statistic I just heard on TV is that nearly 2/3 of men and roughly 1/3 of women, do cheat on their spouses at least once in their married life.

Since Dean cheated, their marriage has been full of mistrust (which is to be expected) and strife. He had, long before the "affair," started ignoring his wife (lost interest, I guess). She feels trapped now. They have children they're raising. What if she could marry a better man who already had a wife?

Rauch's concern over the coming debate on polygyny is hyperbolic. Let's assume this woman was available -- she has, after all, Biblical grounds for divorce. Much as I might be interested in exploring the possibility of marrying this woman, I would never broach the subject with her. The social taboo is still too strong.

And the question needs to be asked: Does Dean really deserve this wife or should his actions relegate him to the status of "bare branch?" Ahh, but Rauch knows full-well that Dean will do just fine once his wife leaves. So you see, the entire bigoted argument is all wet.