???As state after state debates the issue of gay marriage, it appears as though such partnerships will be perched on the foreseeable horizon of legal validation within impending decades.
???And the age-old argument of "what new doors will this open into the realm of marriage and sexuality" remains at the hip of this social issue. Perhaps, though, if we are to legalize a partnership between two men or two women, it's time to expand our realm of legal unity.
???Marriage was originally contrived as a religious institution; as such, religion may dictate that recognized church marriage be between man and woman. Since government has chosen to expand the definition of marriage to include federal and state provisions, with issues wide and far as taxes and reproductive rights, the institution has been morphed into a concept that was in no way intended to be what it is now.
???The idea that gay marriage opens the door to man-animal partnership legalization is foolish. Most people recognize that the law won't expand to allow them to marry a rock, a stapler or a dog.
???But, let us reconsider the issue of polygamy: the institution itself is taboo, synonymous with child rape and the wedlock of old men to prepubescent teenage girls. Those who engage in multiple marriages are balked at, judged and shunned.
???Those who truly do not know the historical context within which polygamy became a major component of major world religions deem the institution perverse.
???Let us review.
???In different parts of the world, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Mormons, Muslims and the non-religious practice polygamy. While in America, the institution is most commonly affiliated with mormonism in Southern and Western states, the practice of multiple marriages is found on every continent, in every country, and in everyone's backyard.
???While United States law condemns the practice and has cited it as a crime, other nations lift up the practice. Perhaps these countries have not forgotten the roots from which polygamy derived: the need for men to take multiple wives to protect women because a woman without a husband was susceptible to violence.
???Sure, the practice is also a fun part of history when women were treated as property, not people. Disregarding that, because we must remember that things have not always been the way they are now, the practice was integrated as a part of many religions and cultures, especially in areas where war had left a hugely disproportionate ratio of men to women, with an emphasis on procreation still as strong as ever.
??? Now, currently the need to procreate, and the need to marry for protection are considered ancient history, leaving the mainstream the leeway to denounce and criticize. Homosexuality used to be considered deviant and evil behavior, but because of the support the gay rights movement has fostered over decades, public perception of homosexuality has been altered for many. Perhaps those adults who engage in polygamy simply have not yet harnessed a loud enough voice in the public forum.
???And while some cases of polygamy involve children and subordinated women, and in some cases, contributed to the spread of HIV and other diseases, the same problems exist within the context of both heterosexual and homosexual two-partner relations. Polygamy is condemnable when it includes unwilling partners or youths, but this is not always the case.
???If we are to expand our definitions of marriage to homosexuals, for whom homosexuality is seen by some as a choice and by others as an unnecessary union with no precursors, why should we not include those who engage in multiple heterosexual unions for religious purposes? Consider that more justification might exist for the legalization of polygamy between consenting adults for religious purposes, with the ability to procreate, than for members of the same sex who are unable to foster future generations naturally.
???Wouldn't allowing consenting adults the ability to practice a major part of their religion a greater reason to legalize polygamy than is, "because they want to" in the case of gay marriage? Perhaps, if we as a country are to expand marriage to mean something other than a religious union between man and woman, we should expand it to all people - not just those who have the loudest voices.
Photo: Courtesy of Laron Fomby
