A Stitch in Haste

I have previously explained why the "gay marriage demands polygamy" thesis is invalid.

But let's use Charles Krauthammer as an excuse to revisit the issue:

Posit a union of, say, three gay women all deeply devoted to each other. On what grounds would gay activists dismiss their union as mere activity rather than authentic love and self-expression? On what grounds do they insist upon the traditional, arbitrary and exclusionary number of two?

This is, of course, utter nonsense.

People who take Krauthammer's position do not understand the actual nitty-gritty implications of marriage qua legal status. Love and self-expression aren't the issue here -- how would you make it work legally is the Great Unanswered.

---

Here's a math question for you: If you want to cut something into two equal pieces, then how many cuts are required?

The answer is, of course, not two but one. To cut anything into n equal pieces requires n-1 cuts, not n.

Same with marriage: the magic number is not the "arbitrary" number of two (as in two people) but the anything-but-arbitrary number of 2-1=1, (as in one marriage to one spouse).

This number (which is, again, the number one, not two) is not "arbitrary" -- it is axiomatic for marriage qua legal status.

It is not "prejudice" to recognize what marriage qua legal status attempts to achieve: a simple, contract-free, bureaucratically efficient system of elevating a single person above all others in terms of legal claims to (and against) another person. This form of elevation -- that of a single person -- is the only form of elevation that is possible, which is why "legal polygamy" is a contradiction in terms.

And that is why gay marriage is perfectly reasonable and polygamy is perfectly nonsensical.

---

Sometimes you hear a response like this: "If businesses can have partnerships of more than two people, then why can't we have marriages of more than two people? Isn't marriage like a partnership?"

Well, no. Entering into a partnership is an act of legal equalization; marriage is an act of legal elevation. It is a declaration, as a matter of law and not just love, that one person has superior claims to the spouse (and against the spouse) than any other person.

But this elevation must, as a matter of metaphysics, be limited to a single person; it is a discrete and indivisible concept. Mathematically, A cannot be both greater than B and less than B simultaneously. Legally, Spouse A cannot have both a greater legal claim and a lesser legal claim than Spouse B simultaneously.

This is not prejudice, this is not parochialism, this is not sophistry. It is simple math, simple logic and simple law.

The better business analogy to marriage is not a partnership but a corporation. It is impossible to have multiple, truly equal "co-CEOs." The very nature of "elevation" requires that, when push comes to shove, one person be elevated above all others -- by force of law if necessary.

Or consider an autocratic triumvirate of the old Roman Empire variety -- it is impossible to have truly equal "co-dictators." In the end, "there can be only one."

Back to the legal nitty gritty: What do we mean by "elevation"? Consider the various manifestations. How exactly is divorce supposed to work in a polygamous arrangement? Estate law? Child custody? Testimonial privilege? Employment benefits?

"We'll figure it out later..." is not an answer. The whole point is that it can't be figured out at all. Neither is the snark of "Just have contracts..." You can't contract away your child's rights, or give yourself testimonial privilege by contract, or a hundred other facets of marriage that cannot be replicated by contract. Finally, "The government should just get out of the marriage business..." is not a noble libertarian proclamation but a limp-wristed cop-out.

Anyone who, unlike Krauthammer, thinks about the issue, in terms of marriage qua legal status, for more than ten seconds realizes how absurd the "gay marriage implies polygamy" argument is.

---

Other thoughts at To The People, Good As You, PoliBlog, Unrepentant Individual, Below the Beltway.