When the push for equal marriage was happening here in Canada, I remember those opposed coming up with all sorts of, shall we say, “creative” reasons why it should not be allowed to happen. Amongst those was the idea that if the institution of marriage was altered to include same-sex couples, then it would be a short skip and a jump to legalizing polygamy. The idea was dismissed as ludicrous by many of us advocating same-sex marriage.
It now seems given the case involving Winston Blackmore and James Oler, two of the leaders of the polygamous sect of Fundamentalist Mormons based in Bountiful, BC, that equal marriage critics weren’t too far off.
I don’t know if the case will lead to legalization or at least a political-legal tolerance of pluralistic marriage. Blackmore et al are certainly planning on arguing their case on constitutional grounds, freedom of religion. Blackmore, who has a certain media savvy going for him, has been recently quoted as saying that if the State can allow “gay marriage” he sees no reason why it cannot allow pluralistic marriage.
I am not 100 percent sure how or what I feel about polygamy. I absolutely recognize the issues attached to it; underage girls being married off to much older men, the subjugation of women under an “alpha male,” the strict adherence to gender roles, the requirement that females (girls, especially, but also older women) remain “sweet,” which is to say demure, modest, and obedient. I have an issue with the underage-girls-being-married-off situation and I have an issue, if indeed it is what is actually happening, of women subjugating themselves to the male head of the household.
However, while the former issue is pretty clear cut for me, the latter issue is not as clear cut. Here I see a conflict between what might be the reality and what the rest of society’s perception of the reality is.
Certainly those of us involved in general society look at the women involved in polygamous marriages, or at least those involved in the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (which it must be noted, is distinct from the mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or the Mormons), with their long braided hair, their plain cotton gingham dresses with collars tightly buttoned up and long sleeves and long skirts - and we see women who we perceive as not just anachronisms, but as women held down by the men in their lives. Perhaps they are, but then perhaps they’re not. Perceptions are, quite literally, all in the eye of the beholder and rarely reveal the whole truth. As gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and transfolk, we of all groups should be able to grasp that concept.
Certainly any of the women interviewed in recent years who are involved in polygamous marriages seemed quite capable of expressing their opinion. They came across as strong women, sure of what they want, and prepared to defend it.
Now that polygamy has filtered into the common consciousness and is the cause de jour, all sorts of opinions about it are finding their way into editorial pages, letters to the editor, and other media. The opinions, by and large, are opposed to allowing pluralistic marriages any sort of legal standing in Canada whatsoever - and, again, I am of two-minds on that. However, what I find interesting is much of the “anti-” opinions mirror arguments made against same-sex marriage. There is a very similar sort of reaction (as opposed to response) to the whole idea of polygamy (or polyandry for that matter - one woman, two or more husbands) that is very similar to reactions against same-sex marriage or against homosexuality in general. And, it would appear, founded on about the same amount of fact - which is to say, very little.
Still, I am torn. First off, I don’t think - separate from the abuse of minors issue - that it is anybody’s business how consenting adults choose to organize their lives. How does polygamy harm you or me? It doesn’t. Whether it harms those involved or their children...well, that’s the crux, isn’t it? Does it or doesn’t it?
Secondly, many of us are quite aware of individuals within our own community who, while not “polygamous” are most certainly polyamourous. Off the top of my head I can think of at least four or five triads (3-some relationships) that existed for several years. A couple of them continue to exist. Is it something I’d consider? No. While I am in an open relationship of many years duration, I found having a partner and a boyfriend - which I did a couple of times over the years - to be just plain emotionally confusing. I eventually made a conscious choice to not involve myself in “outside romantic relationships” anymore. Outside sexual relationships are a different breed of cat....
When I was involved in the Leather/SM/BDSM community it was not uncommon to encounter polyamourous relationships of various configurations, usually involving a dominant partner, his or her life-partner who may or may not have also been involved in Leather/BDSM, and at least one bottom/submissive if not a couple of them. Complicated? You betcha. Workable? Sure, if one was prepared to spend the time and energy to make it work.
I suspect, then, that the relationships Winston Blackmore and James Oler have with their wives, as well as the relationships each woman has with her sister-wives, involves similar ongoing negotiations and paying attention to the emotional needs of everyone involved. To not do so invites disaster. Several of the wives have noted in interviews that while jealousy can be an issue, especially in the early years after a new wife joins the household, the need to negotiate and take everyone’s feelings and well-being into account is something that has taken them “out of themselves,” allowed them to perceive the world not just from their own perhaps selfish perspective, but from within a broader more “macro” view. I think there is something to be said for that.
Blackmore has now revealed that he intends to use what he calls “gay marriage” (equal or same-sex marriage) as part of his defense. Certainly the main thrust of his arguments will be centered around freedom of religion. Blackmore claims pluralistic or “celestial” marriage is central to his spiritual beliefs; he cannot enter Heaven otherwise. He may well have a point. If the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canada’s constitution, upholds freedom of religion - meaning not only the freedom to believe what one’s religion teaches but to practice that religion openly - then if his religion maintains that pluralistic/celestial marriages are holy and central to the faith an argument can be made, and will be made, he should be allowed to practice his religion as his religion dictates.
Of course, the other aspect of all this is the fear of the Islamization of Canada. If the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints can openly and, let’s say for the sake of argument, legally practice polygamy then so, too, can a devout Muslim since the Qu’ran allows him to have up to four wives, as long as he treats them all equally.
If a Muslim can legally be married to more than one wife in Canada, does that then open the door another crack to having Sharia law in Canada? It might. There have already been attempts to institute Sharia law in areas of family law in Ontario, with the support of some Member of Provincial Parliament. Those attempts failed.
This is where it gets a bit dodgy for me...if polygamy is legalized, or at least legally tolerated (which is to say not actually “legal” but not “criminal” or prosecuted) where does it end? And that, as I alluded to earlier, sounds far too much like what some of those opposed to equal marriage came out with. If you allow two men or two women to marry, where does it end? It’s against natural law. It’s morally wrong. It’s this, it’s that.
It concerns me when I read some of the vitriol published as opinion in letters to the editor, for instance. It is the same crap people wrote about us when equal marriage was being debated. Agree or disagree with polygamy (or equal marriage, for that matter), but at least base the arguments against it on sound fact. An opinion not grounded in fact is not opinion, it’s just prejudice.
