The Polygamous paradox
The span of a man is three score and 10, or thereabouts. As most Americans are not especially keen on availing themselves of the lessons contained in 6,000 years of recorded history, we have a tendency to believe that the current status quo is pretty much how the world has been and how it will always be.
And yet, the concept of marriage as an exclusive, state-licensed, unilaterally annullable relationship between one man and one woman is, in fact, a relatively new concept. As I wrote previously in a column entitled "Divorcing the state," government-licensed marriage was implemented as recently as 47 years ago in some American states and no-fault divorce hasn't even been around that long. Thus, the institution many conservatives rightly wish to defend as a necessary pillar of a free Western society is not the same institution today that it was for many centuries prior.
One theme I noted during the heated public discussions of the homospousal issue 18 months ago was how opponents feared that the state legitimizing gay "marriage" would inevitably lead to polygamy as well. In this, they are correct, because if the state possesses the power to redefine the nominal terms of a relationship previously characterized as "one man and one woman," it can - and probably will - redefine the numerical adjective, as well.
Nor were the opponents alone in noting this. Eugene Volokh of the Volokh Conspiracy, a UCLA law professor who describes himself as a tentative supporter of homospousy, wrote the following during the mainstream media-manufactured Rick Santorum controversy:
"Santorum's point is that if the Constitution is interpreted to secure a constitutional right to consensual gay sex, then it would be likely to be interpreted to secure a constitutional right to (presumably consensual on all sides) bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery. This is actually quite a plausible prediction. ..."
Leaving aside the very significant question of the ability and propriety of the state defining what has long been a religious sacrament in the West, I think it is worth considering if the knee-jerk conservative and Christian opposition to polygamy makes any sense. And contrary to what some might assume, I have concluded that it does not.
From the religious perspective, it must first be remembered that legality is not morality. Only three of the Ten Commandments are enshrined into our legal system, and the Bible is rife with examples of men who God considered to be righteous and worthy of favor that were married to more than one woman. And in his letters to Timothy and Titus, the Apostle Paul writes that church overseers and deacons "must be the husband of but one wife." The clear indication is that while monogamy is desirable for the Christian, it is about as important as being "temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money," and is in no way a required element of a Christian's faith.
As for the conservative perspective, I find it difficult to understand how polygamy, an institution seldom associated with historical societal instability, should be considered inherently dangerous to human liberty. No one is arguing that women - or men - should ever be forced into any multi-party relationships. The ability to enter voluntarily into a contractual relationship is virtually the opposite of being legal chattel, and it is hard to argue that easy divorce, unmarried cohabitation and the resultant serial polyamory practiced by Americans today are better for the children produced by such unstable relationships.
Indeed, polygamy certainly offers the obvious solution to the child versus career conundrum so many women have pondered over the last 35 years and in doing so might offer the demographically declining West an opportunity for survival.
But there are at least two genuine problems with legalized polygamy. The first is that it violates the Western romantic tradition of two hearts meeting as one as well as the Sisterhood's equalitarian agenda, which means that women across the political spectrum will almost certainly oppose it, regardless of whether they are pro-traditional marriage or contra. However, because laws governing social behavior are no longer legislated, but are instead imposed by the U.S. Supreme Court, opposition on this basis will likely prove futile.
The second problem is not an objection, but a practical observation. Polygamy tends to render low-status men completely unmarriageable, and their access to women is usually restricted, if not eliminated altogether. It is difficult to say what precise effect this would have in a modern, Western culture, but while it could have some positive effects with regards to crime and other ills, it is also theoretically capable of creating a persistent underclass even more prone to destabilizing behavior than before.
Nevertheless, in the larger scheme of things, it should be clear that Christians and conservatives have, in this particular case, rather less to fear from the Supreme Court's ongoing social experimentation than is probably assumed. After all, the Law of Unintended Consequences applies to liberals, too, and in a fallen world where the rise and fall of numerous societies has been well-chronicled, it strikes me as profoundly silly to assert that the momentary status quo in modern America is mandated by the Almighty God.