Advertisement

The Gay Moralist: Polygamy and Math

by John Corvino

Followers of this column may be tired of reading about polygamy and its non-connection with same-sex marriage. As I've repeated frequently (probably to the point of nuisance), whether polygamy is good for society is a different question from whether same-sex marriage is. Enough said (or so it would seem).
Still, the religious right never tires of trying to connect the two, and thus gay-rights advocates find themselves responding to the same fallacious arguments over and over again, ad nauseam.
So it's nice when someone adds something fresh to the debate. Enter Jonathan Rauch, one of the writers on this issue I most admire. Rauch's argument is not new, exactly. He offers a version of it in his book "Gay Marriage: Why It is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America" (which I highly recommend). But his recent version, in his March 31st National Journal article "One Man, Many Wives, Big Problems" (http://nationaljournal.com/rauch.htm), frames the issue more cogently than any attempt I've seen.
Rauch begins by distinguishing polyamory, which is the practice of loving multiple partners, and polygamy, which is marriage to multiple partners. Polyamory is already legal (how could you outlaw it?); polygamy, in the U.S. and every other liberal democracy, is not. "Because a marriage license is a state grant," Rauch writes, "polygamy is a matter of public policy, not just of personal preference."
Why is polygamy bad public policy? Do the math, Rauch argues. Virtually every polygamous society has been polygynous, with a man marrying multiple wives. Polyandry, where a woman marries multiple husbands, is quite rare. The usual result of polygyny is that high-status males get multiple wives, and low-status males get none. Rauch writes:
"Other things being equal (and, to a good first approximation, they are), when one man marries two women, some other man marries no woman. When one man marries three women, two other men don't marry. When one man marries four women, three other men don't marry. Monogamy gives everyone a shot at marriage. Polygyny, by contrast, is a zero-sum game that skews the marriage market so that some men marry at the expense of others."
From a public-policy perspective, this is a recipe for disaster. Low-status males without wives are more likely to turn to vice and violence. And this problem is not merely theoretical. Rauch backs up his claims with examples from China and India (which have a surplus of unmarriageable males for a different reason–namely, selective abortion of females) and Mormon communities in Arizona. The picture in these communities is grim: higher crime, with a dangerous underclass of restless males ripe for recruitment by gangs and drug lords.
But why couldn't we be different? After all, if polygamy were ever to be permitted in this country, surely it would include both polygyny and polyandry. Such a society would increase, not decrease, possibilities for marriage.
In theory, yes. As a philosopher, I can certainly imagine a genuinely egalitarian polygamous society, one where women took multiple husbands just as freely as men took multiple wives; one not characterized by the sexism and authoritarianism typical of polygamous societies past and present.
But those who craft public policy don't have the luxury of philosophy. They have to ask, not what is conceivable in theory, but what is likely to happen in fact. And here history pretty strongly suggests an answer. Polygamy usually means polygyny, and polygyny usually means trouble. From a public-policy perspective, allowing polygamy is an invitation to that trouble.
If polygamy were legalized in the U.S. tomorrow, its main constituents would not be free-love feminists from Berkeley (goddess love 'em). Its main constituents would be fundamentalist Mormons, along with a smaller but growing number of extremist Christians and Muslims. Their numbers would likely increase, and so too would the problems detailed by Rauch and others.
Notice that the likely results of same-sex marriage are in no way comparable. As Rauch puts it,
"By this point it should be obvious that polygamy is, structurally and socially, the opposite of same-sex marriage, not its equivalent. Same-sex marriage stabilizes individuals, couples, communities, and society by extending marriage to many who now lack it. Polygamy destabilizes individuals, couples, communities, and society by withdrawing marriage from many who now have it."
It is therefore no surprise that societies favoring polygamy have been among those most hostile toward gay rights, whereas liberal democracies, which have been more accepting of gay rights, have opposed polygamy. I've said it before and I'll say it again (and again, and again): one thing has nothing to do with the other.

Advertisement
Topics: Opinions
Advertisement
Advertisement