A reader writes:
Santorum's polygamy argument just seems so easy to refute with heterosexuality. If a man is allowed to marry one woman, isn't it just a slippery slope to his being allowed to marry three?
Another writes:
Why does society restrict certain behaviors? Because they are harmful to individuals and others. The harm caused by polygamy is profound and well-documented.
By its nature, it relegates women to subordinate status, not to mention the emotional suffering caused by sharing a husband and the inevitable jockeying for affection and status among "sister wives." It harms children who are raised in such a tension-fraught and perpetually hostile environment and who see their status rise and fall with that of their mothers. In a culture of old and middle-aged men marrying young girls, sexual abuse is common, almost inevitable. The economic strain of trying to provide for so many mouths often condemns children to poverty. Polygamy also damages young men and creates conflict within communities by reducing their supply of marriage partners. And finally, polygamy harms society because it often leads to welfare fraud and social ills that taxpayers must pay to address. All of these pathologies are on display in Utah polygamous communities and the Middle East.
Another:
Polygamy is a red herring in the same-sex marriage debate. Let's be clear. The public policy problem with polygamy is not that multiple people choose to live together as partners. They can do that now, and the state doesn't, and shouldn't, stop them. The problem occurs when people claim state benefits for more than one partner. Then you have a problem of inequality in benefits – for instance, a person being able to receive Social Security based on the work of more than one partner.
When people like Santorum raise polygamy as a counter-argument, the best response is to agree with him that a person should only be able to claim marital benefits for one spouse, on grounds of equal rights, but insist that how many people a person lives with – and their gender - is none of the state's business. Throw it back on him by asking him exactly what he is proposing with regard to penalizing people living in multiple-partner homes. Is he suggesting breaking in and arresting them? Would he make it a criminal offense? Would he sentence them to prison?
This puts him back on the defensive, shifting the burden on who is asking to change things. Instead of letting Santorum get away with claiming he is merely defending the status quo, point out that he is really asking for new state penalties, new state interference in private lives, based on how many people live in your home.
Santorum and other anti-equality bigots use polygamy for only one reason: it is less politically popular than same-sex marriage. Tying something people think they want to something people think they don't want is an ancient rhetorical tactic. That doesn't make it logical or true. They get away with this because people are confused about the issue – just as they are confused about the difference between state recognizing marriage (which should be equal for all), and a religion recognizing marriage (which is entirely that religion's business). Of course, politicians like Santorum keep listeners intentionally confused about this, because it benefits their policy goals.
One more:
The public policy behind not allowing polygamy is not really about marriage: it's about divorce. I practice some family law, and a divorce between two adults can be extremely complex in decisions related to property division and child custody. The factors to be considered and weighed by the court are endless. The cases are mentally and financially exhausting. And that's between two (originally) consenting adults.
Now, throw into the mix a third or fourth spouse and it becomes sheer bedlam. All at the same time? Two want to stay married while a third wants a divorce? Visitation? Visitation with a non-biological parent? Grandparents' rights? I shudder considering the neverending saga.
Practically, if multiple adults want to live in the same house and jump bedroom to bedroom, swing from the ceiling, and parade a leather-suited gimp through the house, so be it. Just don't ask the government to legally recognize the joiner because that means the government takes the responsibility for the (often inevitable) split.
Cartoon from Buzzfeed's brilliant mash-up of Rick Santorum quotes and New Yorker cartoons.
The Dish 