One argument frequently given by opponents of same-sex marriage is that if such marriages are legalized, then what is stopping the government from legalizing polygamy as well. "There isn’t a single argument in favor of same-sex marriage that isn’t also an argument in favor of polygamy –- people have a right to marry who they love, these relationships already exist," said Maggie Gallagher, a columnist in favor of the federal marriage amendment.

Many supporters of same sex marriage call this concern a red herring. They are quick to disassociate themselves with any sort of marriage which contains more than two people. In response to a question by conservative journalist George Will, Barney Frank said, "Some distinctions are hard to draw. But the difference between two people and three people is almost always clear. It is responsible for a society to say, ‘Look, you can do what you want personally. If three people want to have sex together, that’s not against the law. But when it comes to being married and institutionalizing these legal relationships with regards to the ownership of property and children, then we believe a three-way operation is likely to cause difficulty, friction with the children.’"

Author Jonathan Rauch is quite explicit in his repudiation of nonmonogamous relationships, throwing in his own red herring by illogically lumping all forms of nonmonogamy together with incest. "Anyone who can love two women can also love one of them. People who insist on marrying their mother or several lovers want an additional (and weird) marital option," Rauch said in an article, "Marrying Somebody" posted on the Indpendent Gay Forum. "Homosexuals currently have no marital option at all. A demand for polygamous or incestuous marriage is thus frivolous in a way that the demand for gay marriage is not." Rauch went on to assert in the same article, "But there are ample grounds to oppose polygamous and incestuous marriage, grounds that have nothing to do with whether gay people will be allowed to partake of society's most stabilizing, civilizing institution. I don't ask to break the rules that we all depend on. I just want to be allowed to follow them."

When referring to "polygamy", what commentators, both liberal and conservative, almost always mean is the extreme brand of patriarchal, religion-based polygyny practiced by renegade Mormons. "Polygamy", according to the dictionary, is either men or women having multiple spouses, with "polygyny" meaning one man, multiple wives and "polyandry" meaning one woman, multiple husbands. Rarely, if ever, are the more modern, egalitarian forms of committed multipartner unions considered, such as polyamory.

I have more patience with conservative commentators who make these assertions, because at least they are being consistent. I have absolutely no use for so-called liberals who resort to the same sort of slippery slope arguments, because they should know better. Indeed, these very same red herrings were used to oppose mixed race marriages a generation ago. Gay rights activists should also remember the same types of disassociations made by some some feminists in the 1970s and 80s, who saw the issue of gay rights as holding back the cause of women's rights. In the 19th century, some abolitionists distanced themselves from the women's suffrage issue because they believed that it hindered the push for the rights of black men. Such types of sellouts are nothing new.

I believe that as long as legal marriage exists, along with all the legal benefits and perks that go with it, that it should be available to both same-sex and multi-partner unions, as well as traditional monogamous, heterosexual couples. However, I still think my idea of abolishing marriage altogether and kicking the government out of everyone's bedrooms, and delinking benefits from relationship status is the saner way to go.

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit