Slippery slope? The Economist says bring it on!

The news cycle has moved on from the Supreme Court's gay-marriage decisions, but debates continue about whether polygamy will come next, or should.

For instance, this surprise at The Economist:

Polygamy now!

...Same-sex-marriage activists have wisely sought to separate themselves from advocates of even more exotic marital arrangements. However, as Mr Lewis suggests, the idea that marriage is an inherently heterosexual institution is less plausible than the idea that it is inherently exclusive to couples. If a man can love a man, a woman can love a woman and a man. And if they all love each other... well, what's the problem? Refraining from criminalising families based on such unusual patterns of sentiment is less than the least we can do.

If the state lacks a legitimate rationale for imposing on Americans a heterosexual definition of marriage, it seems pretty likely that it likewise lacks a legitimate rationale for imposing on Americans a monogamous definition of marriage. Conservatives have worried that same-sex marriage would somehow entail the ruination of the family as the foundation of society, but we have seen only the flowering of family values among same-sex households, the domestication of the gays. Whatever our fears about polyamorous marriage, I suspect we'll find them similarly ill-founded. For one thing, what could be more family-friendly than four moms and six dads?

Read the whole column (June 28, 2013). The Economist is a thick, highly influential weekly newsmagazine based in the UK with a U.S. circulation of 750,000. It's pretty Tory about economics but has little use for most of the obsessions that pass for conservatism in the U.S.

-------------------------------

Or maybe we need an even broader rethinking. Remember the Beyond Marriage statement? The Beyond Same-Sex Marriage organization is now Unmarried Equality, and KIRO Radio in its hometown of Seattle put up this on its news site:

Unmarried couples taking gay marriage rulings a step further

By KIRO Radio Staff

Cindy Butler, the executive director of Unmarried Equality, wants to end the assignment of benefits and privileges based on marital status.

"We want people to stop thinking that a legal marriage is the only legitimate outcome for a committed relationship," she said. "The ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act is starting to redefine what a spouse is."

Butler's group claims that 47 percent of [adult] Americans are unmarried, as of the 2010 census.

"That's 112 million people, so we could be equal at this point. It's definitely growing as a trend and it won't stop," said Butler.

While unmarried partners don't have the same rights as married couples, Butler said the rulings move the national conversation in the right direction. She hopes employers begin granting benefits to unmarried couples....

The (short) whole article (June 26, 2013).

--------------------------------

Among polys themselves, discussions continue about what our reactions and strategies should be. Everyone has their own ideas; agreement on a "party line" would be impossible and a lousy thing in any case. What I do seem to see emerging, though, is a tendency to distrust the privileging of marriage in general — as with Unmarried Equality above — and to argue that, for instance, instead of a small new group being ushered into the family health-insurance privilege, everyone should have access to health care. What poly families really need, many are saying, is public acceptance and understanding, and the state keeping out.

From Robyn Trask's editorial at Loving More, which she directs:

...Overturning DOMA is a step in the right direction and I am thrilled for the many same sex couples that will be positively affected by this decision.

Is it a step toward plural marriage? I am skeptical, as it is a complicated issue and begs the questions should marriage be regulated at all? I know many polyamorists would choose to marry more than one if it were legal, and that, by the laws of some states, many are violating the law since co-habitation is in some states considered common law marriage....

The right to family of choice is really what is at stake, and the same legal protections should extend to people in multi-partnered marriage. Unfortunately too many of us in the polyamory community have been afraid to even bring up the subject; we are still afraid of job discrimination and other issues like child custody. Many people are in the closet and most are not willing to support an effort to demand equality and recognition of polyamory as an orientation and a viable choice in relationships and families. We as a movement are in our infancy with nothing acting as a catalyst to bring us together in a cohesive way.

As my partner and I move forward with our own marriage next week, it is not without trepidation. We do not want to close the door to other loves or committed partners, and we know that the perception for many will be just that....

Read on.

Jessica Karels of Modern Poly put up a personal statement:

...Opponents to same-sex marriage have used a very specific image of polygamy – one that is wrought with images of cult-like mind control and abuse of women and children – in order to scare people about the consequences of what marriage equality could bring. I propose a second version of the “slippery slope” argument, one that conservatives would find equally scary.

Same-sex marriage, by its very nature, denies the traditional gender roles that are a part of the nuclear family model.... By emphasizing that families are build around love and commitment – rather than who wears the pants and who cares for the kids – we call into question public policies that enforce the status quo.

...Likewise, for same-sex partners to become parents, they need outside aid through a surrogate mother, sperm donor, or a mother giving up their child for adoption. It is not unheard of for all three adults (the couple and the one who biologically intervened… that sounds so clinical!) to co-parent the child. This means that at least one adult in the group is taking an active interest in caring for a child that is not made of their own genetic material… *gasp* What if this type of practice – multiple non-related adults co-parenting – became a cultural norm?

What if it led to social policies where communities actively pooled their resources to ensure that the next generation was fed, clothed, and schooled – instead of leaving the onus solely on the biological parents?

Her whole essay.

Wes Fenza, a lawyer and part of the Philadelphia quint that was featured on Lisa Ling's "Our America", picks up the hot potato and, at Modern Poly, argues the case for legally recognized multi-marriage:

The Need for Poly Marriage

...A common sentiment in poly communities [is] that poly marriage isn't something to worry about. In fact, even Mistress Matisse, a high-profile polyamory activist, published an article several months ago stating that “poly marriage is never going to happen,” arguing that working out the details would be too complicated and that most poly people don’t even want marriage anyway.

I’ve often run into the argument that poly marriage would be "too complicated" from a legal standpoint. While gay marriage easily fits into the existing marriage framework, marriage among multiple people would require a more complicated legal framework in regard to property, insurance, inheritance, decision-making, and related areas.

However, an understanding of family law renders such arguments unconvincing. The courts routinely deal with complicated family situations. From a legal standpoint, in terms of inheritance, power of attorney, property ownership, and insurance coverage, having multiple spouses is not all that different from having multiple children. In terms of alimony, equitable apportionment, child support, and parental rights, having multiple spouses is very similar to having multiple ex-spouses. Courts are adept at apportioning rights and obligations amongst multiple people, even in the most elaborate family structures....

I'm married, and I'm engaged to a second partner. Next May, we'll be getting married, and my intention is to recreate as many of the legal aspects of marriage as possible.... Without poly marriage, my relationship with my second partner will always be treated by the legal system as less important than my relationship with my first partner.

...I agree with critics that poly marriage is a long way off, but it is a goal worth pursuing, and will eventually be a key step in recognizing the legitimacy of our relationships.

His whole article.

From Angi Becker Stevens at The Radical Poly Agenda: So, What Does This DOMA Repeal Mean for Us? and Further Thoughts on DOMA and Polyamory.

...I’ve occasionally seen responses from other poly folks that are more along the lines of “everyone should calm down, we’re not interested in marriage right now, anyway.” That might be true, but it’s not really the line I’m interested in taking when it comes to defending the idea of poly marriage....

[Permalink]

More fallout from the Supreme Court's DOMA decision

Emblem by Angi Becker Stevens

With the Supreme Court's rulings for gay marriage now three days old, floods of reactions and analyses are filling the media. One hot topic is whether this opens the way to multi-partner marriages.

Among polyfolks, activist Anita Wagner Illig found herself inundated with media requests after U.S. News & World Report interviewed her two days before the court announced its decisions:

...Until recently, [Illig] noted, "the polyamory community has expressed little desire for legal marriage," but now more options seem possible in the future. "We polyamorists are grateful to our [LGBT] brothers and sisters for blazing the marriage equality trail," Illig said.

Illig believes there is indeed a "slippery slope" toward legal recognition for polygamy if the court rules in favor of nationwide same-sex marriage, an argument typically invoked by anti-gay marriage advocates. "A favorable outcome for marriage equality is a favorable outcome for multi-partner marriage, because the opposition cannot argue lack of precedent for legalizing marriage for other forms of non-traditional relationships," she said.

But Illig concedes, "there will be quite a lot of retooling of the legal system necessary to establish marriage equality for marriages of more than two people. A marriage of two people of the same sex requires a lot less in terms of adapting today's systems, such as Social Security, for example, to accommodate it."...

See the whole article: Polyamory Advocate: Gay Marriage 'Blazing the Marriage Equality Trail' (June 24, 2013).

Her quotes were widely picked up by conservative media, for instance the Washington Times, owned by the Sun Myung Moon religious cult: Polygamists hope Supreme Court rulings will pave way to decriminalization; the UK's Daily Mail: Polygamists welcome Supreme Court rulings on gay marriage, predicting relationships with multiple people will be next; and at the Christian Institute. Posts Anita, "The conservative print and online media have me on their radar now for sure. [My] website hits are smokin'." She turned down an invitation from Glenn Beck, but did an interview with USA Today. The paper ended up not using it and instead stuck with an actual polygamist for its article yesterday:

Polygamists find promise in Supreme Court decisions

Molly Vorwerck

Polygamists view the Supreme Court's repeal of DOMA and Prop 8 as a step towards wider social -- and in turn, legal -- acceptance of polygamy. Legal scholars, on the other hand, are not as optimistic.

Wednesday's landmark Supreme Court decisions on gay marriage have ushered in optimism for more than just the gay and lesbian community: Polygamists are also reading hope into the fine print.

...Anne Wilde, a Mormon fundamentalist and founder of the polygamist rights organization Principle Rights Coalition, is hopeful that these decisions represent movement towards the decriminalization of polygamy.

"I think it's a step in the right direction," she says. "As consenting adults, we have a right to form our families as we see fit as long as there are no other crimes involved."

Despite their contrasting opinions on other issues, advocates both for and against polygamy view these two rulings as instrumental in opening the floodgates for plural marriages.

Tim Wildmon, president of the Christian-values centered American Family Association, says that striking down the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman delegitimizes the moral argument against polygamy.

"It opens up Pandora's Box in how you define marriage in this country," he says."Why not have three men and two women marry if they love each other? Why limit it to two people?"

But the trajectory towards legalizing polygamy is not so simple, legal scholars say.

David Cohen, a professor at Drexel University who specializes in family law, says that the lack of mainstream acceptance for polygamy does not bode well for its legalization.

"There is no political movement in this country that is anywhere near making the same gains for polygamy that have been made for gay marriage," he says.

Judith Areen, law professor at Georgetown University, says that the outcomes of these two cases are more telling of state's rights than the potential for polygamy....

Unlike others in his field, Mark Goldfeder, a law professor at Emory University, thinks that the two rulings had significant impact on the future of polygamy in the United States. Goldfeder, who specializes in the intersection of law and religion, says that the courts will need to find other justifications to keep anti-polygamy statutes in place.

"It's one hundred percent likely that these polygamist cases will come, but they will no longer turn on whether a relationship is immoral," Goldfeder says. "The court will look at whether these relationships cause third party harm."

Whole article (June 28, 2013).

The most immediate polygamy/polyamory case in the pipeline that could be affected is the "Sister Wives" challenge to Utah's anti-cohabitation law, which makes polygamy, or even living in a multiple relationship with no claim of marriage, a crime. The case is likely headed to the federal 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and then possibly the Supreme Court. The Brown family's lead attorney is the renowned constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley of Georgetown Law School. Regarding the effect of a positive gay-marriage ruling, National Public Radio talked to him last March:

TURLEY: Really, what [the Sister Wives] case reflects is where the gay and lesbian community was almost exactly 10 years ago, before the ruling in Lawrence v. Texas. That was the ruling where the Supreme Court said you could not criminalize homosexuality. The polygamists are a decade behind that. And when we talk about polygamists, you have to remember that cohabitation statutes really apply to a vast array of plural families that are often ignored.... [Yes, he's been informed about us.]

...You cannot defend a new civil liberty by denying it to others. I think that there is a grander, more magnificent trend that you can see in the law, and that is this right to be left alone. People have a right to establish their families as long as they don't harm others.

Read or listen to the whole interview (March 28, 2013).

The Salt Lake Tribune's polygamy-beat reporters have published several articles, most recently Utah polygamists celebrate, but will rulings help them? (June 26), and Internet brims with polygamy comments after DOMA ruling (June 27).

--------------------------

Conservatives everywhere are expressing mixes of outrage and I-told-you-so's. In the Moonie Washington Times, editor emeritus Wesley Pruden tells us, "Justice Kennedy's... nose for the law detects the hint of orange blossoms when the rest of us only smell the sewer." In head-shaking marvelment over Deborah Anapol's book Polyamory in the 21st Century, he says Anapol "calls herself one of the founders of the polyamory movement, which is sort of like a bowel movement without the inconvenience." Does this guy have a scat fetish?

I can't tell whether this writer at The Daily Caller is an actual get-the-government-out-of-marriage guy or a traditionalist bewailing the end of everything.

On the other hand, this columnist in USA Today last March presents the perfect type specimen of the now-all-good-people-must-recognize-polygamy snark.

And much more.

(Courtesy Cyanide and Happiness)

[Permalink]

Supreme Court poly fallout

Los Angeles Times

The U.S. Supreme Court has just overturned the Defense of Marriage Act; the federal government must now recognize same-sex marriages as equal to any other marriages. The court also let stand a lower-court ruling that California's Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, which means California will become the 13th gay-marriage state.

These new victories for marriage equality will push forward the discussion of whether legal recognition of group marriage will, or should, come onto the table.

Debate about this is under way in the Polyamory Leadership Network and elsewhere. PLN member Dave Doleshal, activist and conference organizer, argues that maybe now it's time. This will surely be a topic at the Poly Political Summit that he has been organizing for July 21–22 in California. Loving More put out a press release day before yesterday saying (in regard to its recent survey of the poly community), "the research shows that many polyamorists would choose to marry multiple partners if it were legal... As to whether we will take up the cause of multi-partnered marriage, it is not clear at this time. The polyamory movement is still working toward basic acceptance and fighting discrimination. Housing, job security and child custody are at the forefront as these are the challenges most people have experienced."

Emblem by Angi Becker Stevens

Jessica Karels of Modern Poly also argued for addressing these more immediate concerns, perhaps starting with a proper community-needs assessment. Modern Poly itself editorializes, "The case may be made to expand the pool of families eligible for this privileged legal status, or to eliminate it from the purview of the state altogether.... We need to have many conversations at once."

Ricci Levy of the Woodhull Sexual Freedom Alliance suggested addressing poly rights in the larger framework of family rights, as in Woodhull's Family Matters Project. My own opinion is that legal recognition of multi-marriage is not worth pursuing because 1) it's a political non-starter, 2) the actual demand for state-recognized group marriage is very low, and 3) the new legal structures and precedents needed to accommodate group-marriage realities would be far more complex than, for instance, the structural simplicity of gay marriage.

U.S. News & World Report, two days before the rulings, spotlighted the opinions of my friend and fellow PLN activist Anita Wagner Illig:

Polyamory Advocate: Gay Marriage 'Blazing the Marriage Equality Trail'

Supreme Court decisions on marriage unlikely to directly impact status of polygamy, other multiperson relationships

By Steven Nelson

The U.S. Supreme Court could rule any day on challenges to two laws blocking legal recognition for same-sex marriages – the federal Defense of Marriage Act and California's voter-approved Proposition 8 – but advocates for polyamorous couples say "marriage equality" for that minority group is unlikely in the immediate future.

Anita Wagner Illig, a longtime polyamory community spokesperson who operates the group Practical Polyamory, is unsure of the direct impact of a ruling that would legalizes same-sex marriage nationwide.

Until recently, she noted, "the polyamory community has expressed little desire for legal marriage," but now more options seem possible in the future. "We polyamorists are grateful to our [LGBT] brothers and sisters for blazing the marriage equality trail," Illig said.

Illig believes there is indeed a "slippery slope" toward legal recognition for polygamy if the court rules in favor of nationwide same-sex marriage, an argument typically invoked by anti-gay marriage advocates. "A favorable outcome for marriage equality is a favorable outcome for multi-partner marriage, because the opposition cannot argue lack of precedent for legalizing marriage for other forms of non-traditional relationships," she said.

But Illig concedes, "there will be quite a lot of retooling of the legal system necessary to establish marriage equality for marriages of more than two people. A marriage of two people of the same sex requires a lot less in terms of adapting today's systems, such as Social Security, for example, to accommodate it."

"It is hard to predict" the possible legal side-effects of the Supreme Court rulings "since [the cases are] about official recognition rather than criminalization," George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley told U.S. News.

Turley is representing the polygamist Brown family, which has four wives and one husband, in their challenge to Utah's cohabitation law.... "Our challenge is about the criminalization of plural relationships, not the recognition of such relationships."

...Unlike the Brown family, which belongs to a fundamentalist Mormon denomination, the basis of Illig's relationship is nonreligious. She has a husband who also has a girlfriend.

"I would absolutely want to seek multi-partner marriage," she said. "It would eliminate a common challenge polyamorists face when two [people] are legally married and others in their group relationships aren't part of that marriage."

Read the whole article (June 24, 2013). Conservatives seized on it, for instance at NewsBusters.

------------------------

At Sex and the State, a libertarian site, Cathy Reisenwitz asked (two days ago) the legally and politically pertinent question, Is Polyamory An Orientation?

Polyamory has been in the news lately, with one Slate writer assuring readers it’s fine for the children and should be legally recognized. Then on Thursday my good friend, and Reason writer Matthew Feeney pointed me to a CNN op-ed with the combative headline: "Face it: Monogamy is unnatural."...

...After much consideration, I believe “non-monogamous” is an orientation, based mostly on three of its similarities with gender-preference orientations. Like gender-preference orientations, non-monogamy 1. has biological bases, 2. exists on a sliding scale and 3. faces some of the same barriers to widespread acceptance. All this leads me to the conclusion that the more comfortable we can get with people living out their own variations on strict monogamy the happier, healthier and more honest we’ll all be....

See also this earlier roundup on the orientation topic, and Ann Tweedy's University of Cincinnati Law Review article, "Polyamory as a Sexual Orientation": abstract; full paper.

Expect more.

------------------------

P.S.: Conservatives call the route from gay marriage to poly marriage the "slippery slope." Don't accept that framing. As I've said before:

If you accept the framing of civil rights and social acceptance as a slippery slope down, you've lost the debate before you open your mouth. Slipping on a slope is a painful accident that leads downward. Instead, reframe it as a stairway up. Each step is a deliberate, effortful, carefully chosen advance toward a more humane, just, enlightened world.

With that framing, you can consider which steps are actually upward, and which ones to take.

Or as Tree of Polycamp Northwest once put it, awkwardly, "Giving blacks the vote, women the vote, contraception — it's all a slippery slope to a place of better social justice and acceptance."

[Permalink]