Why Are Gay Marriage Advocates Not Defending Polyamory?

After the passage of California's anti-gay marriage Proposition 8, something shifted in the gay rights movement. The new normal now seems to be that anyone who is opposed to gay marriage for any reason at all is quickly labeled a bigot and a hater.

I fully support gay marriage but don't agree with the bigot / hate labeling. I think there are plenty of people for whom the idea of marriage equality is simply something too new for them to have fully wrapped their heads around. I don't think it helps the argument to throw labels at people. This isn't just a function of living in a post-Obama world but it's also just a poor argument technique, closer to bullying than to changing hearts or minds.

This is where the most vehement of marriage equality advocates point out that their rights were violated by the passage of Prop 8. Marriage is a right, they say; THEIR right and those who would deny it to them are committing an offense on the level with any serious violation of human rights. Waiting is not an acceptable option, they argue - it's just as cruel as telling a slave they must wait to be free.

On a theoretical basis, I actually agree. I do think that consenting adults do have the right to enter into marriage contracts with the people they love.

So I wonder why I don't hear more gay marriage advocates giving full throated support to recognize the marriage rights of polyamorous people?

If you aren't familiar with polyamory, it's pretty straightforward - it's multiple, simultaneous romantic relationships with the knowledge and consent of all parties. In other words, you have more than one lover and everyone involved knows.

Polyamory recently got an online publicity boost when influential personal development guru Steve Pavlina announced he was going to try poly relationships this year. For those interested in learning more, this Wikipedia.article is a good place to start. Another longtime poly resource is the book The Ethical Slut.

Polyamory shouldn't be confused with Warren Jeffs / crazy Mormon-offshoot style polygamy, where creepy old guys marry twelve year olds. Nor is it 'cheating'. The key difference is, of course, consent.

But what's a poly person to do if they want to enter into a committed relationship with the people they love? Polygamy - marriage to more than one person - is no more an option for conseting adults in the United States than gay marriage is in all states expect Massachusetts and Connecticut. If the rights of gay people are being trampled on, then it's two states worse for poly people.

If you follow the same argument template as many gay marriage advocates, anyone who opposes polygamy is a bigot and a hater. Rick Warren has made it clear that he opposes poly relationship, too. And even comparing consensual poly relationship to Jeffs is equating polyamorists with PEDOPHILES!

If Melissa Etheridge has the right to marry Tammy Lynn Michaels - and I think she does - then Melissa and Tammy also have the same right to make it official with David Crosby, it they choose to do so. In fact, if they wanted to marry Crosby, Stills, Nash, Young, Linsday Lohan, Samantha Ronson, Mark Ronson AND Ani Difranco...it's their choice and their right and it'd make quite a tour, too.

There's no argument you can make against a poly marriage that wouldn't work just as well as an argument against gay marriage.

Aside from reasons of consistency, advocates of gay marriage should also be vocally in favor of polygamy since it allows bisexuals to be actively practicing married bisexuals. Bisexuals are the B in GLBT but they really get short shrift in the marriage discussion.

I'm in favor of real marriage equality. Love the one you're with. Love the two or more you're with, if you can work that out. Marry them if you're into that kind of thing. But until the gay marriage movement embraces polygamy...well, they are just acting like bigots and haters, aren't they?

Lee Stranahan is an award winning photographer and filmmaker and he blogs at LeeStrnahan.com about how creative people can earn some money doing what they love. Since you'll ask, he's been in poly relationships before.

Comments

[RigDaddy]

Ok, I'm both GLBT and Poly. I'm not gay, I'm a man married to a woman for 37 years, but my boy friend is gay.

Why aren't the gay marriage advocates pushing for polyamory marriage rights?

Practicality!

Those of us who are working toward marriage equality for gays and lesbians are realists. The American public has enough trouble with gay rights. If we added a push for polyamory, the chances of getting gays and lesbians full marriage rights in the near future would be zero!

If you ask me if I'm for polyamory marriage rights? YES! Totally! I wish we, my boyfriend, wife and I, had all the rights that my wife and I do. If my boyfriend gets goes to the hospital I have no rights to visit or have a say in his care. We have to build weird S corporations if we want to combine our wealth or have any sort of death benefits.

It's knowing people like my mother that keeps us from advocating poly marriage. The maid of honor at our wedding 37years ago lived with us but my mother disagreed so that she never invited our third to anything. But she's for gay rights.

No the only real reason I see for not advocating polyamorous marriage along with gay marriage rights is that we'd drastically lower the chances for gay marriage any time soon.

[alan7388]

....(continued from previous comment)

Moreover, unlike couple marriages, poly relationships can change from one kind to another kind while continuing to exist. An equilateral triad can become a vee or vice versa, or something in between. The flexibility to adapt — to "let your relationships be what they are" — is a core value in the poly groups I know. How would the state keep up with your particular situation?

I've also heard it argued that opportunities would abound for unscrupulous people to game the system in ways that the law couldn't easily address: for people to pretend that their poly relationship is a different kind than it really is, or that they're in poly relationships when they're not.

In poly meetings I've been in, the discussion quickly comes around instead to business-p­artnership models for poly households, such as subchapter-S corporations or family LLCs or LLPs. These are already well developed to handle a wide variety of contractual agreements between any number of people.

Looking ahead: Good law follows reality rather than precedes it. Fifty or 100 years from now when polyamorous households are commonplace and their issues are well understood, I'm sure an appropriate set of law will have grown up organically to handle the issues that arise. At least that's how it works when civil society is allowed to go about its business, free of religious or ideological compulsion.

Cheers--

Alan

----------­----------­----------­------
Keep up with Polyamory in the News!
http://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/
----------­----------­----------­------

[SunDriedTomato]

Why is it that when someone becomes an activist and begins the struggle to gain their rights, someone else with a different agenda always starts bouncing up and down saying "You should be taking care of my project, too! You should be fighting for my project, too! You should... You should... You should... "

No, honey, YOU should!

This is democracy. If you want something, start fighting for it. Don't fuss at battle-weary people who are struggling to save their gay marriages and start demanding that they ALSO take on your polyamory rights for you.

Gather up your circle of polyamory supporters and begin the struggle yourselves. Educate the general public. Make sure your local library has a copy of "Fisherman of the Inland Sea" by Ursula le Guin. Donate one if they need it. (don't say "you should" buy this book, GIVE them one!) Contact one of the polyamory supportive churches and hold an info event for the congregation. Let the public connect real people to the abstract concepts they struggle to understand. That's where your work begins.

[carter2004]

I'm actually still trying to decide if you're serious. You're certainly committing logical fallacies all over the place. Straw man? Slippery slope? Hello?

One: who said that everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot? I don't think I said that. I don't know any LGBT person who's said that. Oh, wait. You're talking about "the Gays," a popular culture device as worn out, cliched, and fictional as the Borg. And you say you're for gay rights. Wait -- crap. Do I have your permission to be offended by the pigeonhole?

Two: so, if I am to understand your argument, one who argues for gay marriage is a hypocrite unless the simulatenously argue for every other conceivable definition of marriage, no matter how little legal precedent there is for the idea unless they can find a rhetorical justifcation for not doing so? Surely you realize that it's logically impossible to prove a negative. Why on earth would you hold same-sex marraige supporters to a standard like that when you allegedly agree with their cause?

Three: Your premise that same-sex relationships and multiple-partner relationships is rhetorically identical is specious, particularly on the legal level where you supposedly want to have this debate. What possible legal foundation could you have for making such a claim? Public policy? Ethical? Saying something doesn't make it so, but throwing such a thorny issue in the lap of the LGBT community and then holding it against them is a HUGE double standard.

[Lee Stranahan - Huffpost Blogger]

The best argument for gay marriage is based on human rights - 'consenting adults have the right to choose the romantic relationships they wish to have and therefore should be allowed to marry who they want.'

Doesn't apply to marrying an animal - no consent.
Doesn't apply to people under certain age - again, no consent possible.

Apples to same sex marriage. Applies to plural marriage.

Otherwise your argument if you're in favor of same sex marriage but not plural marriage is 'People should be allowed to marry the person they love....but only one person at a time.'

Okay - why? Just cuz? What principle is violated by someone in love with more than one person committing to both of those people?

If it's just cuz....or because it's weird...or new...or different..or a because there's a 'lack of legal precedent'...then those same non-reasons have worked well enough to keep same sex marriage illegal.

Here's the question - do people have the right to marry the person they love? It's not thorny. It's the whole issue.

[carter2004]

You're missing my point and putting words in my mouth. My issue is not with your (rhetorical? personal? ethical?) defense of marrying more than one person, it's with your stubborn insistence that gay marriage advocates now bear the burden of showing that any imaginable kind of marriage should not be discriminated against. This rhetorically stacks the deck because what you're asking of same-sex marriage advocates is just not logically possible. So, it concerns me that, despite what you say, you are trying your best to set same-sex marriage advocates up for failure. That's the first problem.

The second problem is that, if your argument were the correct one where civil rights were concerned, Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia would still be in oral argument today. If our legal system required discrimina­ted-agains­t minorities to justify civil rights for every possible hypothetical group, then no minorities could ever obtain any rights because that requirement is, frankly, ridiculous.

Go ahead and make polygamy arguments all day. I'm certainly not getting in your way. But don't ask me to take up your cause when I already have my hands full.

[mmcfee]

I promised I'd post a reply and I've been thinking on this all day.

"So I wonder why I don't hear more gay marriage advocates giving full throated support to recognize the marriage rights of polyamorous people?"

I keep coming back to the same answer, "because no one's asked me to". I could counter with "why don't I hear any polygamy advocates full throatedly supporting their cause?" No one's made a case to me. Do I support poly marriage (would you call it marriage?)? I don't know, sell me. I mean, we've been kind of busy with our thing, so we're certainly not out there looking to see who else wants some sort of marriage or marriage-like thing so we can start lobbying for them (the fight is far from done, after all). And while you find it a natural progression for your cause to follow the gay fight for monogamous marriage, gays certainly don't see their fight as a natural progression into taking up your cause; especially if we're largely unaware of it.

There are probably other causes I'm not defending for which I have no quarrel, but it's not my job to go look for them. I might support that fight, but it's not up to me to start it. It's up to you, actually.

So, my reply to the polyamorists who want some sort of marriage-like thing (again, I don't even know what you're seeking) is, "get to work, I'm listening".

Maggie

[CrittersRTasty]

I dont think I've ever read an article on HP before that I agreed with more. A well-thought-out and reasoned bit of writing...Bravo.

[tomorrownow]

Great article and question. I think there are two reasons why we don't hear gay marriage advocates speaking up for polyamory. The first of these is that some of these people simply are not for polyamory. They might think it is stretching the limits of what is moral (while relationships between any TWO consenting adults is well within the limits). It would be a mistake to assume that all proponents for gay marriage want it for the same reason or that their open-mindedness on this issue extends into other relationship issues.

Another reason is that some of these advocates actually are for polyamory but, perhaps wisely, believe that speaking up for gay marriage AND polyamory makes the goal of attaining acceptance of either all the harder to reach. Opponents to gay marriage get significant support for their efforts because they are able to ask those "what's next if we legalize gay marriage" questions. Imagine the support they could draw if they have strong evidence that gay marriage advocates do have polyamory or polygamy on their docket. Legalizing gay marriage for everyone is proving difficult enough. I don't think opponents need stronger ammunition at the moment.

[Yves Papa]

2 things in my mind about this:
1. To me, these days, marriage can only happen in church (catholic, jewish, LVDS, unitarian or whichever you are member of). Since any one "married" can go to Family Court and file for divorce for whatever reason, what the Government does, with its creepy "family law", is bunk.

2. Regardless of what psychologists, psychiatrists, therapists and others tsichologists say with their big words, an adoptive parent is NOT the same as a parent who gave you half of your genes.

[LeftRight]

Regarding your second point..... You OBVIOUSLY have never been in a situation like that, or you would understand that's plain BUNK! When my parents got divorced and my dad (who had custody of me) got re-married, I had issues with my stepmother. As time went on those DISAPPEARED!!! By the time that I left the house, I had TWO MOTHERS, and only one of them had given me her genes! Granted, if I'm in a car crash I'm going to want my birth mother to give me a blood transfusion since my step mother is a different blood type, but in EVERY OTHER WAY she is my mother!!

[autochrome]

Equal Protection Under the Law.

That's why Prop 8 is unconstitutional. If these two people, as consenting adults are allowed to marry and have special rights accorded, then any two adults should have the same right. End of story. No fertility test, no maximum age limit, no race criteria.

Now, polyamory is perfectly legal, just interpersonally challenging (read The Ethical Slut). Polygamy, on the other hand is illegal for ALL citizens. There is no comparison with proposition 8 unless a special law goes on the books making it legal for some and not for others.

This kills all the lame arguments against gay marriage that say: well if you allow that then don't you have to allow everything? No. That's not how the law works. Some things are prohibited and it's legal as long as it is prohibited to everyone. When special classes of people (e.g. heterosexuals) are given the federal power to transform foreign nationals into permanent residents, but homosexuals can't. That's not equal. And that's not legal.

[LeftRight]

Thank you for that insightful piece. I've been trying to figure out how to say the same thing, and I could never get it to solidify in my mind.....

[southwindow]

Polyamorous isn't a protected class, sexual orientation is, as ruled by the Supreme court of California. There is no innate orientation or predisposition to having multiple committed partners, in humans. That said, I am open to it, but it isn't my fight.

[omo]

I am sure it is only a matter of time before such an orientation is defined and described. After all, there is lots of historical precedent as far as men having multiple spouses . . . it should be a simple thing to get psychologists to pronounce an erudite biological explanation for that phenomenon . . .

The main thing which people don't get is that biological children deserve to know who their parents are. While this would be possible now in polyamorous groups through dna testing, it is not really fair to the the children to have to be tested to know who their fathers are. So much of what adults insist on doing sexually is really self centered if there are children involved. For mature people past their fertile years and more able to deal with multiple relationships, polyamory might be a good strategy . . .
for hot young adults in the prime of their fertile years it sounds like a recipe for disaster . . .

[Huffingposter]

How about the most simple explanation of all: Prop 8 was about marriage equality under existing law, not changing the law. Marriage equality is asking that the current laws on marriage do not discriminate based on sexual orientation. It is not attempting to "re-define" marriage as has been alleged. Including polygamy would be re-defining marriage under the law. It seems you are really asking if the government should be in the business of regulating culture, religion and personal choices, unless based on age of consent, mental capacity or some reasonable issue. Otherwise, your premise is just the happy version of "Why not man and dog."

[muas74]

How exactly do you determine marital consent in a dog? I'm sure there are laws against animal cruelty also.

When a case is brought before the Supreme Court, one of the things they look at is determining who is harmed by keeping the law. I wish we would start looking at laws with a view of who is hurt by this law not being in place.

It's hard to determine actual damage caused by not being able get married. I would like to see any list of who is being protected by having laws limiting marriage in place.

What terrible thing is being done to you if the two guys next door get married? What problems will they have in their life if they aren't married? Poly is the same. Why does it matter to you what consenting adults do?

Consenting adults should be able to do what they want as long as it doesn't limit the rights of others.

[CrittersRTasty]

Just to play Devil's advocate: everything you said above can also be said of polygamy.

[muas74]

If you are going to rewrite the laws, please take us into account. All it takes is the lack of a number of partners in the civil union laws.
First off, bisexual does NOT equal poly. I wish they would change the name from bisexual to pansexual as many people fixate on the prefix of “bi” and assume it means two partners, one male and one female. It’s a continuum. Some people are purely attracted to male or female but a lot of people are split. Myself, I’m more of a 90-10 split. I find most women attractive yet very few men.
Why haven’t poly groups jumped up and down to demand equality? Think about 25 years ago for people that are gay or bisexual? Remember the term “coming out of the closet”? Why do we almost never hear it anymore? In our society it is acceptable to be gay/lesbian/bi as long as it’s only with one person at a time.
Being poly will still get you fired from a job and no one will defend you. In the military they can bring you up on charges for poly yet they won’t “ask or tell” a thing about being gay or lesbian. (they will charge you if you flaunt it. Obama says he will fix that.) If you really want someone to lose everything in a divorce, just point at them and say “poly”. It’s like magic, they get nothing.

[FlamingLibrul]

I haven't given the issue of Polyamory much thought, because I believe in live-and-let-live. However, my immediate reaction is to doubt whether it's a good idea to link this issue to Gay Marriage. I hate to buy into what the bigots think of LGBT's, but the unfortunate reality is that all anti-Gay crusaders equate homosexuality with promiscuity. Polyamory involves multiple partners, and is closely related to Polygamy.

Gay Marriage proponents have been fighting for the integrity of exclusive, monagamous homosexual relationships being as deserving as heterosexual unions of legal recognition. Polyamory just doesn't fit into this equation.

[KayTi]

This was taken/paraphrased from "Good As You", so here it is and please PAY ATTENTION:

Alright, but here's the thing:

(a) Bisexuals are not innately polyamorous. Bisexuality just means an attraction to both genders, not a CONCURRENT RELATIONSHIP with both sexes!

(b) Whether you agree with the custom or not, the fact is that marriage has always been considered a commitment between two people. By opening the system up to gay, lesbian, and bisexual people you are making the current system recognise the full landscape of accepted sexual orientations. To open the system up to polygamous unions is to change the core structure. You may think that is fine and even needed. But it is an undeniably different alteration.

(c) Not all gay people consider their marriage opposition to be bigots and haters. Many gay activists, are capable of distinguishing between the two.

(d) Some LGBT people do support polyamorous unions, and would surely join that side if a marriage campaign was organized. But that is a matter that will have to be decided on its own merits. It has no more to do with homosexuality or bisexuality than they do heterosexuality!

So seek to put a division between supporters of same-sex marriage equality and those who are open to other forms of recognition. When it comes to poly unions and Polly/Polly unions, we are, in fact, talking about two different conversations.

[autochrome]

Very well presented points. But we have to see the fallacy in (b) even when it's in the midst of a reasonable argument. The folks who say that marriage has "always" meant the union of ONE man and ONE woman (since the beginning of human history) seem to have never read the Bible, or paid much attention to human history.

I can understand why some Christian fundamentalists would oppose gay marriage. What I don't understand is why they are not in the streets defending polygamy and blowing up Red Lobster franchises in defense of their religion.

[brentdax]

There's a simple way to do this.

Make all the components of marriage assignable by contract. To get married, the parties involved would draft and sign a contract assigning these rights to each other. Poly groups' marriage contracts would assign these rights in whatever way they wanted their marriage to work; if they wanted to modify these arrangements later, they could prepare and sign a new contract overriding the old one. Similarly, if partners wanted to enter or leave the marriage, they would invalidate the old contract and sign a new one specifying the new arrangements. (This would be a bit of a pain, but people probably ought to think twice before marrying or divorcing anyway.)

This would be like requiring a prenuptial agreement for every marriage. In fact, traditional Muslim and Jewish marriages worked in a similar way: the marriage was a contract, and the contract could lay out all sorts of terms.

Like poly marriages, conventional two-partner marriages could be "customized" via the same mechanism. Among other things, this could allow for limited forms of marriage like handfasting. This could even be spun as a benefit for conservatives: they could add harsh penalties to their marriage contracts to discourage divorce or adultery without affecting any of the rest of us. (Not that many actually *would*, but they'd have to put up or shut up.)

No doubt interest groups would produce generic contracts, many free or cheap. Legislatures could get in on the act too.