That Didn’t Take Long: Praising Multi-Spouse Marriage

multipouseThat didn’t take long. Salon magazine this morning is extolling the virtues of multi-spouse marriages.

Same-sex “marriage” proponents have always scoffed at the idea that redefining marriage would open the door for multi-spouse marriages. “My Two Husbands” by Angi Becker Stevens, not only argues for “poly-amorous” unions but continues to scoff at the foolish “right wing” people who expected people to go there. Her article is novel only in that it also scoffs at the same-sex marriage definers who argued back that it wouldn’t.

Stevens has been married for 16 years to her husband, and has now taken a boyfriend who she says she plans to marry in a “non-legal” way.

“With every stride forward for marriage equality, I can count on turning on the TV to find conservative talking heads lumping families like mine in with pedophilia and bestiality. But liberals, for the most part, don’t treat us much better. They’re quick to insist that same-sex marriage would never, ever lead to such awful things.”

The author uses her 9-year-old daughter to deflect criticism. Her daughter dutifully and understandably repeats the adult arguments for same-sex marriage and applies them to her family.

“When my daughter talks about same-sex marriage or polyamorous relationships, she always looks perplexed and says, ‘I don’t understand why anyone is angry about people being in love and not hurting anyone.’ And I long for a world where everyone is able to see it so simply.

And later …

“Whenever I mention the claims that polyamory is bad for children, she rolls her eyes and says, ‘Oh no, kids having more people to love them! How horrible!’”

In the style of such articles, the author doesn’t make a case against monogamous marriage on principle, or for multi-spouse “marriage” on principle. Instead, she presents the facts of a particular situation as a fait accompli and challenges you to argue why it is not so. She felt repressed before and says “I am more fulfilled now and living in a way that feels authentic for me.”

Apply a simple thought experiment, and her argument starts to wither. Imagine the article being written by a man bringing a “girlfriend” into his life and convincing his wife to tolerate it. Or imagine a Mormon talking about his repressed relationship with God instead of a political activist talking about her repressed human relationships. Salon wouldn’t have published those pieces.

But they did publish this one.

Because “love makes a marriage” now. And to say otherwise means you’re a hater.

For the record: I love these people. I wish them all the best in their personal lives. But I oppose multi-spouse marriage anyway.

22,126 views

Categories:Marriage Media

16 thoughts on “That Didn’t Take Long: Praising Multi-Spouse Marriage

  1. Bill Sr. says:

    Love at first sight has become love at first right. As defined by the Supreme Court.

  2. Captain America says:

    I want my country back.

    No, seriously. Let’s live in a better place. This stuff can and should be changed.

  3. mominvermont says:

    If a 9-year-old says it’s ok, then it is. Duh.

  4. Steve Golay says:

    We’ll see how the Church will react to this one.

    Reaction (feeble that it was0 did not prevent the federalization of “gay” marriage. For threesome (plus) marriages all it will take is ONE court challenge. The court will have no standing but to yield – for it has already enthroned in throne the priority of non-discrimination. Gay marriage passed because restricting marriage to opposite genders was discriminatory. What interest does the state have in keeping the restriction of two. That, to be consistent, will need to be scuttled because of the threat of numeral discrimination. Next comes the felling of the timbers of incest and age. (Please do not talk to me about children being the end and be-all of marriage – the state has shown no interest in using that as part of the legal definition of marriage. ) Our entry into that promised land? I give it 18 months. Prove me wrong.

  5. Steve says:

    This is ridiculous. She made the point for us when her 9year old daughter finds no fault in it. The whole problem is the thought process of, if it makes me happy and I am not hurting anyone. Once people can become less concerned with being self serving

  6. Dan says:

    RE: “love makes a marriage now”.
    Good point here. The state’s interest in marriage (i.e. stable social unit to care for children produced from a union) isn’t concerned with whether or not I love anyone. When I applied for my marriage license, it didn’t ask me if I loved my intended.

    1. Ron says:

      Did the state ask you if you were planning to have children? Did it ask you if you planned to have a stable social unit in your marriage? You’re adding your religion’s definition of marriage and then pretendng that it’s the state’s definition of marriage. It isn’t and never was.

      1. Dan says:

        I posted what the state’s interest in marriage is. I didn’t add any religious definition of it.

        The state incents marriage so they don’t have to act in loco parentis.

        If you don’t believe me, sit in on a civil divorce case. The state doesn’t involve itself nor even mention the emotional state of the parties; they DO take specific action and issue orders respective to the disposition of children born of the union.

        1. Ron says:

          The State views marriage as a contract between two people; nothing more and nothing less.

          1. Dan says:

            False. They view contracts as contracts. They do not treat marriage as they do contracts.

            I don’t get tax status, etc. assigned to me by virtue of any contracts I have signed with anyone.

        2. Sarah says:

          I would add that many states (include Missouri, where I got married) require you to assert that you are not blood relations- which from a state’s perspective only matters in the case of children. In fact, my husband’s grandparents have a commendation from the state of Missouri for the number of children and grandchildren they have. Yes, the state (or at least some individual states) *do* care about marriage because of the children who will be born from it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.