Defending the Undefendable II: Freedom in All Realms

15.

POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGE

What is the libertarian perspective on polygamous marriage? Whether it’s polygyny (a man with more than one wife) or polyandry (a woman with more than one husband), or group marriage (where several wives and husbands marry one another), the libertarian response is the same as it is on anything and everything else. If the institution constitutes a per se violation of the non-aggression principle, it should be prohibited; if it does not, then it should be legal.

So, does a man marrying numerous wives necessarily involve aggression against them? It is difficult to see how and why this should be so. Of course, in some societies women are forced into marriage against their will. This is certainly contrary to libertarian law, and should be ended forthwith. But marriage coercion can occur no matter how many wives are involved. It cannot be denied that in some societies, under-aged girls are abducted and married off without their proper consent. But again, this takes place under both polygamy and monogamy. The problem at least for the libertarian concerns the coercion, not the number of wives.

Is polygamy socially dangerous, in that the children from marriages with multiple spouses engage in more truancy, delinquency, drug use, etc., than the progeny emanating from other institutional arrangements? There is no evidence for any such claim. Even if there were, even if there were a clear pattern in this regard, this would still not justify a legitimate reason to ban the practice. Black children suffer from this sort of malady to a greater degree than others. According to the pernicious “logic” that would outlaw polygamous marriages, this should be applied, too, to marriages within the African-American community, a truly preposterous result.

No, marriage, in the libertarian society, would be handled like any other business partnership. Anyone may marry one or as many (adult) spouses as he wishes, provided, only, that there is mutual consent.

Men die sooner than women; not only is their life expectancy shorter, but they succumb to a greater degree than women at all times, due to crime (either as perpetrators or victims), accidents or illness. Thus, at any decade of life there are typically fewer husbands available than wives. This is a particular plight for black women. A disproportionate number of the black men they would otherwise be likely to marry are incarcerated or dead. Thus, polygamy has some advantages over monogamy, at least insofar as maximizing the number of people who can be married and reducing the number of people who will necessarily be consigned to live unconnected with this institution. The Chinese policy of one child per couple has eventuated in a relative “oversupply” of males compared to females. The implication of this brutal policy would incline us toward multiple marriages.

Needless to say, but we will say it anyway, this mutual consent criterion would apply to gay marriage. It seems logically inconsistent to allow same-sex marriages, but to prohibit them between groups of heterosexuals. People are people, of whatever variety of sexual preferences or numbers involved. It is a source of amusement to find that those who favor legalizing homosexual marriages oppose polygamy, and vice versa. That is, commentators who support heterosexual polygamy often reject marriage for gays. Why can’t we all just get along, and allow all consenting adults to do whatever it is they wish to do, either alone, or with one other person, or with many people, provided, of course, that no rights are thereby violated?

If we really oppose polygamy, we ought to reconsider our position on serial monogamy, which is now entirely within the law. At present, a man may marry as many women (who will have him) as he wishes, and, of course, vice versa. There is no real upper bound, except for life expectancy. For example, he could start at age twenty, and continue, say, until he was seventy, marrying one woman per year, divorcing her within twelve months and then starting in again with the next Mrs. on his dance card. If so, he would have had fifty wives. (He might be a bit confused, but that is another matter.) There must be very few polygamists who are married to over four dozen women at any given time. Yet, what is the real difference between polygamy at any one time, and polygamy over time, that is, serial monogamy? Does anyone favor placing an upper limit on the number of monogamous marriages a person may enter into? Elizabeth Taylor, Larry King, call your congressman.