Tweet
Coalition for Marriage, the UK version of National Organization for Marriage, posted a video last week claiming that passage of the UK equal marriage bill will lead to the legalization of polygamous marriages in England and Wales.
On Feb. 5 the House of Commons overwhelmingly approved the equal marriage bill by a vote of 400 to 175.
The video, titled “Further Redefinitions“, is the third in CFM’s Marriage Minutes series. CFM’s Marriage Minutes series appears to be a retread of NOM-Minnesota’s Marriage Minute series.
“Many people warn that once the ‘one man, one woman’ definition of marriage is removed, then society will be more ready to accept further redefinitions of marriage such as polygamy,” presenter Dr. Sharon James claims. “If you move the definition of marriage away from the natural union of man and woman, there’s no logical reason to stop there. That’s what the evidence says.”
In truth, the evidence does not support this “slippery slope” assertion, a perennial favorite among opponents of civil marriage equality.
Not a single country that has legalized civil marriage for same-sex couples has gone on to legalize polygamous marriage. Countries that have legalized civil marriage for same-sex couples are Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden.
On the contrary, there is a great deal of overlap between countries that criminalize homosexuality or same-sex marriage and countries that have legalized polygamous marriage.
Source: Wikipedia
One equal marriage country, South Africa, does recognize polygamous marriages under customary law. However, this recognition is a result of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act of 1998, a law passed eight years before same-sex couples could marry in South Africa.
In the CFM video, Dr. James neglects to mention that, for the purpose of calculating welfare benefits, the UK already recognizes polygamous marriages that were conducted legally in other countries.
As with South Africa, the United Kingdom recognized polygamous marriages before legalizing marriage for same-sex couples.
Ignoring these legal realities, the CFM video instead points to one isolated case each in the Netherlands and Brazil for “proof” that same-sex marriage leads to legalized polygamous marriage.
In the video, Dr. James tells us that in 2005, a man named Victor de Bruijn and two women signed a “three-way cohabitation contract” in the Netherlands. This is true. However, Dr. James fails to note that their living-together contract (“samenlevingscontract“) isn’t a legal marriage or even a registered partnership. Only two unrelated adults not already in a marriage or registered partnership may marry in the Netherlands, according to the Dutch government’s website. While same-sex marriage has been legal for almost 12 years in the Netherlands, polygamous marriage remains illegal.
“Brazil having introduced same-sex marriage has now legalized a threesome union,” Dr. James goes on to say. In August, 2012 a notary public granted a “uniao poliafetiva“, or “polyfidelitous union” to a man and two women. There is disagreement among Brazilian legal scholars as to the legality of the uniao poliafetiva, according to CNN. Regardless of the outcome of that debate, however, the fact is that an uniao poliafetiva is an uniao poliafetiva, not a civil marriage. Polygamous marriage remains illegal in Brazil.
Same-sex couples have been marrying in Massachusetts since May 17, 2004 and in eight other U.S. states and the District of Columbia for varying periods of time since then. Yet polygamous marriage remains illegal in every state in the union.
The evidence simply does not support Dr. James’s claim that passage of equal marriage laws leads to the subsequent legalization of polygamous marriage.
20 Comments
Britain and France will both legalize gay marriage this year, and Dr. Sharon et al will lose. The last of the french assembly votes is this tuesday and then it’s on to the senate for a mid-march vote! Once Britain and France grant equal marriage rights, the Vatican will have pretty much lost it’s bid to control civil marriage in the West. Hopefully the US Supreme Court will complete the hat trick. 2013, a kind and humane year. The Church can deny marriage to whomever they like, but they can’t tell civil authorities to do the same.
I would love to know the reasoning behind making me unable to marry my second wife.
Right, me too? In the bible most of the Patriarchs all had lots of wives, I thought these folks got all their life style from the bible? Hypocrites the bunch.
I want to know who posed that picture? Right outta the ’50′s. How fitting?
Or, a less polished Martha Stewart, not sure.
They’re trying to do a cockeyed Appeal to Feminists: “See, if you approve of same-sex marriage you approve of polygamy!!!” This approach might work, if not for the fact that most women and men who consciously consider themselves feminists are not idiots.
Thanks for the explanation; would’ve missed the connection
for sure. Things we do not need to worry about…..
It should be noted that in those countries where polygamy is legal (is polyandry legal anywhere?) same sex marriage is not only illegal, but you risk your life to have sex with a same sex partner, period. It would seem that there is, therefore, no logical connection between equal marriage and polygamy.
Translation:
You must always believe what the men tell you. If they tell you same sex marriage will lead to polygamy, you should be afraid.
Because you would not be one of the wives they choose.
Look at me. Who would want me? I may as well become a Catholic nun right now.
Not only that, but just exactly who gib a chit? It all attitude; culture, religion, etc. Mormons & Muslims are (or were) pretty nonchanlant about it, while conversely a nice Hindu lady will hire a hit man and a Phillipiña will slit your throat. Nice American ladies like mine are much cooler, they will just get a lawyer; “Hey a contract is a contract, asshole.”
The real comedy is that these propagandists systematically ignore the real threat to marriage: Divorce. All the rest of this shit is smoke and mirrors. The real question is who’s paying for all this air time? I nominate the Pope.
They would probably have been saying something along the lines of “One wife? How dare they redefine marriage!”
To whom are they trying to appeal with the bestiality references, though?
Horses, male or female, don’t vote.
They did not start ignoring divorce in the U.S. until around the 1970, though. And, as I just this minute learned, Gov. Reagan signed the first no fault divorce bill into law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_divorce
The Catholic Church, for one, still does not ignore divorce. However, it’s thinking on the matter has “evolved.” It now considers secular divorce mostly a secular settlement of property rights and focuses on re-marriage as the sinful act.
Point is, we are capable of handling one issue at a time.
So what does it matter if it does? I don’t see why FDL is joining hands with the Coalition For Marriage that we must be concerned about redefining marriage.
Let’s see, it took how many centuries for same-sex marriage to even be considered before it was adopted? So let’s give polygamy (more than one wife OR husband) at least a couple of centuries before saying whether it’s likely to be accepted or not.
By the way, what is the argument against it? Same-sex marriage has been advocated primarily on the basis of personal rights. So the same arguments can, indeed, be applied to polygamy, if all the adult parties involved are consenting adults.
And as for a societal perspective, there’s much to be commended about polygamy. How long have we had it hammered into our heads that we haven’t been having enough babies? Well, in the predominant case of one man with multiple wives, there’s an answer.
Plus, there’s a great deal more historical precedent for polygamy.
The slippery slope is clearly a myth in this case, as pointed out. But, bigotry like this should be met with “What is wrong with letting an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, marry any and all consenting adults?”
They try to play to Islamophobia. Women ARE treated poorly in many countries, and the problem is gender inequality and “polygyny only,” not polyamorous marriage. There are ALREADY and always have been homes with three or more adults sharing their lives. It hasn’t been a problem, as long as it is where women have the very same freedoms as men and equal standing before the law. I am against polygyny-only. I think women, like men, should be free to marry a woman, two women, two men, a man and a woman, etc. All of the paperwork issues can be resolved. There’s no reason why we should go on with the current model, which says it is perfectly legal for example, for a woman to live with two men, have children by both of them, but NOT be legally married to both of them at the same time, even though all agree.
ummmm…. ploygamy was the norm for centuries… one man / one woman is newer concept..
going out on a limb here and wondering why polygomy would be bad. I mean who cares. doesnt effect my gay marriage if people have sister wives.
Only issue i can see is for governments and insurance companies who have to deal with benefits.
What is exactly wrong with polygamy?
I don’t want my neighbor coveting my horse… it’s my horse.
Does anyone really expect evidence to have any bearing on these little propaganda pieces from religious conservatives? That would be too close to reality-based thinking for them to handle.
No, but undecided people hearing the opposition’s fact-free propaganda need to hear the truth lest our silence is taken to mean agreement.