Those who argue against same-sex
marriage sometimes argue that to legalise it would be to
fundamentally redefine marriage. Legalise same-sex marriage, they
argue, and you may as well legalise polygamy. If marriage shouldn’t
be confined to a man and a woman, why should it be confined to just
two people? Why not one man and two women, or one woman and two men etc.

This sort of argument is routinely
dismissed as ridiculous by same-sex marriage advocates. Or at least
it used to be. Polygamy seems to be going mainstream.

Only a couple of years ago, a Muslim
man demanded that the Irish state recognise his polygamous marriage
in a High Court case.

The man was from Lebanon, where
polygamy is permitted. He was married to two women and has been
granted Irish citizenship. The Department of Justice refused to grant
the man’s first wife a visa. The Lebanese entered Ireland with his
second wife and claimed asylum. His first wife did not arrive until
much later. The man had children with both women.

Earlier this week, the youth wing of
the Finnish Green Party said that the Government there should
legalise polygamy, while in March, a court in the Canadian province
of British Columbia heard a case to decide whether polygamous
marriage as practiced by a Mormon sect, is protected by the Canadian
constitution’s guarantee of freedom of religion.

Increasingly, mainstream publications
are suggesting that polygamy should be permissable.

A blog on the website of renowned
magazine The Economist recently suggested that there is “a
persuasive case” for allowing polygamy.

Quoting a legal advocate for polygamy,
Jonathan Turley, the author writes: “’It is widely accepted that a
person can have multiple partners and have children with such
partners’, Mr Turley observes. ‘But the minute that person expresses
a spiritual commitment and ‘cohabits’ with those partners, it is
considered a crime.’”

He continues: “This certainly seems
arbitrary. Indeed, the law positively encourages de facto polygamous
families to organise into multiple households lacking the cohesion
and economies of our culture’s idealised single-household family.”

Even some of those same-sex marriages
advocates who are so dismissive of suggestions that same-sex marriage
is the first step down the road to polygamy appear to be changing
their tune.

Jonathan Rauch, a leading advocate of
same-sex marriage, says he is “a polygamy opponent”.

He continues: “Polygamy is bad social
policy for exactly the reason gay marriage is good social policy:
everyone should have the opportunity to marry.”

But he then goes on to argue that
polygamy should be decriminalised.

Rauch is arguing against a Utah law
which allows a man to live with two women and call them his
girlfriends, but criminalises him if he calls them both wives.

In today’s world, Rauch argues “where
lifestyle choices have been broadly deregulated, throwing people in
jail for speech and expressive behavior (wearing wedding rings
without a license, for example) is too legally vulnerable on too many
fronts to stand up for long”.

“Worse, making criminal cases out of
so-called polygamists brings them attention and martyrdom. Better to
ignore them and relegate them to the fringe,” he says.

To be fair to Rauch, and the Economist
blogger, neither is arguing that polygamy should be given the same
status as marriage. They are arguing that the State shouldn’t
penalise it, a slightly more nuanced position.

The fact that this conversation is even
taking place, however, shows how far we’ve come. Once, polygamy was
considered unthinkable in most of the Western world. Now it’s
becoming a legitimate topic of conversation. Soon, we’re going to be
told that laws banning polygamy are the burning issue of our time.