Ready for Polyamory Yet?

Same sex marriage, polygamy, polyamory. What are the liberals up to? For some time Stanley Kurtz has been following the movement to break up the traditional heterosexual monogamous marriage. In his latest article he focuses on a feminist activist law professor in Canada who is leading the fight to abolish marriage and replace it with

a modern, secular, “non-patriarchal” relationship system that would allow for marriage-like unions in any combination of number or gender.

The way that activists like Martha Bailey, Queens University law professor, propose to get to their non-patriarchal unions is by dismantling the exclusivity and privileged position of heterosexual monogamous marriage by advocating same-sex marriage and polyamorous relationships.

Well, you can read all about it in Kurtz’s article, but let us think about what these activists are missing.

Suppose they are wrong in supposing that monogamous marriage is “patriarchal,” that is, oppressive to women. The argument of conservative writers on marriage like George Gilder in his Men and Marriage is that the opposite is true. Far from oppressing women, monogamous marriage is a profoundly democratic institution that binds men to the mothers of their children and civilizes them out of the gang and into productive work. It is, of course, women that civilize these men, and the work of civilization is a hard and “oppressive” job. But without monogamous marriage, Gilder argues, boys mature into aggressive predators that do little work and prey on the flocks of single women that are created by the collapse of marriage.

The advocates of non-heterosexual marriage are high-status women who see a vision of a more relaxed, more creative world where people are free to pursue their personal vision of sexual relationship and experience. But suppose that the relaxed, creative world is instead a hell on earth? It is not as if we don’t have clear indications that it will, with the growth of violent underclasses throughout the western world where traditional marriage has broken down under the warped financial incentives of the welfare state.

And then there are the children. Children seem to want a mother and a father—their mother and their father—and they get pretty angry when they don’t get them.

And when women have less sexual security they have less children. We are finding out in the aftermath of the sexual revolution that the twenty years of female fecundity is not all that long. When a woman takes a couple of detours through graduate school or a live-in relationship or a failed marriage she ends up having less children than she might have instinctively preferred. When she gets to the other side of 50 she regrets that she didn’t have those children. But then it is too late.

It is easy to get angry with the same-sex marriage movement, their mendacity and the blindness of their cloying elitism. But things are really more serious than that. As we will shortly find out.