|
|
|
|
|
 |
Australia is supposedly committed to the ‘fair go,’ a fundamentally egalitarian principle. Yet we continue to deny people marital recognition solely because of their sexual orientation. At the ALP National Conference in August, Anthony Albanese proclaimed that the pursuit of equality for all is ‘unstoppable.’ He’s right. It is only a matter of time before same-sex marriage is legal, and, by the same token, we afford marital recognition to polygamous relationships. Opponents of gay marriage invariably invoke the ‘slippery slope.’ If we allow marriage between same-sex couples, they warn, the floodgates will be opened to all sorts of deviant combinations, including polygamy. Supporters reject the alleged domino effect, insisting that monogamy will hold. But not all slippery slope arguments can be discarded. I for one am willing to accept that legalising gay marriage may increase the chances of a subsequent decision in favour of polygamy. Few gay marriage advocates are willing to take the reverse route here. I think this is misguided. Instead of denying the slippery slope, we should gladly ski down it, and alter the law to accommodate same-sex and polygamous unions. In 2003, former Prime Minister John Howard famously declared that same-sex marriage threatens the survival of our species; gay rights groups respond that marriage is defined by love and care. Why then should we oppose the state sanctioning of genuinely loving polygamous relationships? Some libertarians argue that marriage should be ‘deregulated.’ On this view, marriage laws should be abolished, and unions administered through a system of private contracts. Most conservatives firmly reject this, promoting marriage as inherently precious. But it is not the role of the state to publicly advocate contested notions of the good life. When we encourage Aboriginals and immigrants to learn English, for example, it is because the majority of society happens to speak English; an adequate command of the mainstream vernacular is necessary for any prospect of success. We do not say that English should be taught because it is a superior language. Likewise, ‘neutral’ justifications are required for maintaining marriage. In the 2006 census, 49.6% of Australians said they were married, slightly down from 50.7% in 2001, and an additional 118,756 marriages were registered in 2008 – the highest number in 20 years. Clearly, most people want their relationships acknowledged through marriage. Amidst such high levels of demand, we should surely not abandon it. Australian law defines marriage as: ‘the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.’ But if we agree that the state should not endorse contested notions of the good, then clearly this definition is inadequate. Endorsing marriage as only between man and woman, and for life, is an extremely contested ideal. The case for same-sex marriage and polygamy are thus unavoidably tied together – both must demand that the law be neutral amid competing conceptions of the ideal relationship. The libertarian solution is impracticable, given the vast desire for marital recognition in our society. So long as the state has anything to do with recognising relationships, then, marriage should be equally open to everyone: heterosexuals, homosexuals, transvestites, hermaphrodites, polyamorists, polygynists, polyandrists, etc. Hence, we should replace the current definition of marriage with the following: ‘Marriage means the consensual union of two or more adult human individuals.’ Proponents of ‘traditional’ marriage will, of course, vehemently object to this proposal. But it will not suffice to merely claim that heterosexual monogamous relationships are intrinsically ideal and polygamous ones are not. Consequently, opponents of polygamy try appealing to the slippery slope, and voice concerns about child welfare and various negative social repercussions caused by the erosion of traditional marriage. These are charges that the same-sex marriage advocate must also reject from the outset, further underlining the joint nature of both cases. One argument unique to polygamy posits that it mistreats women. On this view, women are coerced into entering marriages and not treated as equals. But this overlooks other kinds of relationships, including polyandrists who marry multiple husbands and polyamorous unions which emphasise mutual consent and honesty. It does not follow that we should prohibit these and genuinely loving polygamous unions from marrying because of some dysfunctional ones. Moreover, we cannot authentically assess the social effects of polygamy due to negative preconceptions; a society in which polygamy was accepted as lawful practice would yield starkly different results. Perhaps the weakest objection to polygamy is that it would complicate existing laws and generate administrative difficulties; this is simply not a strong enough reason to deny people the equality to marry as they wish. Thus, an honest and logical polygamy legalisation debate seems inevitable. It is only a matter of time before polygamists, like their same-sex comrades, campaign for legal recognition. When we arrive at that juncture, the favourite arguments used against same-sex marriage become insufficient. Anti gay-marriage campaigners frequently bring up religious rights – our churches, they insist, should be free to determine what kinds of relationships they will and will not recognise. What then happens to polygamy, which is for some Muslims and fundamentalist Mormon denominations, among others, a key part of religious practice? The solution comes down to consistency: permit some religious institutions to sanction polygamous or same-sex relationships, and others to refuse. The religious freedom here remains intact. Similarly, Howard’s reproductive concerns are solved with polygamy – statistics from Mormon-dominated Utah suggest that it produces loads of children (women there averaged over eight in the early 20th century). Anyone genuinely committed to procreation would embrace polygamy with open arms. Gay marriage supporters have to accept that their case is unavoidably tied to polygamy, for both must demand that the law remain neutral regarding how people express their love and care. To be sure, the Rudd Government’s reforms for same-sex de facto couples are laudable. But so long as the current definition of marriage stands, those incompatible with ‘traditional’ marriage – a contested ideal – will continue to endure legal inequity. We should therefore change the law to allow polygamy, as well as gay marriage. Things to Do Digg it Save This Page
Opening Up Closing the Gap |
|
|
||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||
| © Copyright 2010 Australian Fabians. All Rights Reserved. |
All together now: 'Polygamous Marriage? We do!' 
