Post by kaima on May 18, 2008 8:54:00 GMT -7
The institution of marriage has been put into play.
A couple of judges in Hawaii, tossing judicial restraint to the gentle breezes, have declared that marriage need no longer be construed as the legal union between a man and a woman. They have ruled that the denial of marriage licenses to homosexual couples is discrimination on the basis of sex, unconstitutional in that state.
What is upsetting Americans in the other 49 states (not to mention the great majority of Hawaiians) is the possible extension of this ruling throughout the nation by virtue of the "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution. That says plainly that each state must recognize "public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state."
Remember the old days when unhappy spouses traveled to Nevada for a quickie divorce, which had to be recognized as legal at home? Same principle: If the state judges get their way, marriage in Hawaii would enable a gay couple to claim all the legal and insurance protections of marriage anywhere in the U.S.
Those of us who run our thumbs along the cutting edge of social change, however, are less interested in the pros and cons of "same-sex marriage" than in the possibility its acceptance would open up for a far larger segment of the population.
With the age-old institution of one-man, one-wife finally in play, the time has come to make the case for polyandry.
For those who have not given the matter much thought, polyandry is the marriage of one woman to two or more men. (Do not confuse it with the discredited, sexist "polygamy," the marriage of one man to more than one woman.) Consider what the adoption of polyandry would do for the social fabric of families in America.
What is the reason for the divorce explosion, wedlock-free children, the loss of our traditional values, galloping anomie and rampant ennui? The root cause is the way some men have their way with women and then run out on them. "Deadbeat dads" are an alliterative blight on our society.
But if just one judge in one state dared to strike a blow for polyandry, think of the positive repercussions:
1. A woman's chance of being left alone would be cut in half overnight. If one man left, there would still be another standing by. Both the wife and the stay-behind spouse would, in their joint rejection, be drawn more closely together. Moreover, the search for a replacement second husband would be easier, conducted by two abandoned spouses, one of whom could work or stay home with the children while the other cruised singles bars or followed up personal ads. Also, because women live longer, a backup husband reduces full widowhood.
2. The likelihood of the presence of a male role model in the home for children would be doubled. The era of the latchkey child would end abruptly, as one of the husbands would be at home at all times for roughhouse and nurturing.
3. Marital fidelity would be enhanced by internalizing the eternal triangle. The costs of living together could be cut sharply by eliminating the need for assignations. Three can live as cheaply as two; remove the adult from adultery.
Who could oppose this modest proposal to extend connubial rights, inheritance-tax advantages and benefits blessings to millions of lonely women and angry extra males?
Oh, we can expect to hear from feminists who fear to go too far, as well as male chauvinists who are not into sharing and caring. Traditionalists may mutter about the risks of fiddling with fundaments, though research will show the origins of polyandry in biblical times.
To the peroration: If you believe marriage to be indispensable to the upbringing of children; if you argue for the stability this institution brings to human relationships; if you sense the values inherent in the mutual love and loyalty of families; and if you believe, with our Federalist Fathers, in the "full faith and credit" clause -- then how, in the name of all that virtuous men and women hold sacred, can you object to the expansion of this bulwark of civilization?
Ladies and gentlemen of the Platform Committee, if this polyandry plank is not included intact, I am marching my people right out of this convention.
March 18, 1996
Essay: A Case for Polyandry
By WILLIAM SAFIRE www.nytimes.com
A couple of judges in Hawaii, tossing judicial restraint to the gentle breezes, have declared that marriage need no longer be construed as the legal union between a man and a woman. They have ruled that the denial of marriage licenses to homosexual couples is discrimination on the basis of sex, unconstitutional in that state.
What is upsetting Americans in the other 49 states (not to mention the great majority of Hawaiians) is the possible extension of this ruling throughout the nation by virtue of the "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution. That says plainly that each state must recognize "public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state."
Remember the old days when unhappy spouses traveled to Nevada for a quickie divorce, which had to be recognized as legal at home? Same principle: If the state judges get their way, marriage in Hawaii would enable a gay couple to claim all the legal and insurance protections of marriage anywhere in the U.S.
Those of us who run our thumbs along the cutting edge of social change, however, are less interested in the pros and cons of "same-sex marriage" than in the possibility its acceptance would open up for a far larger segment of the population.
With the age-old institution of one-man, one-wife finally in play, the time has come to make the case for polyandry.
For those who have not given the matter much thought, polyandry is the marriage of one woman to two or more men. (Do not confuse it with the discredited, sexist "polygamy," the marriage of one man to more than one woman.) Consider what the adoption of polyandry would do for the social fabric of families in America.
What is the reason for the divorce explosion, wedlock-free children, the loss of our traditional values, galloping anomie and rampant ennui? The root cause is the way some men have their way with women and then run out on them. "Deadbeat dads" are an alliterative blight on our society.
But if just one judge in one state dared to strike a blow for polyandry, think of the positive repercussions:
1. A woman's chance of being left alone would be cut in half overnight. If one man left, there would still be another standing by. Both the wife and the stay-behind spouse would, in their joint rejection, be drawn more closely together. Moreover, the search for a replacement second husband would be easier, conducted by two abandoned spouses, one of whom could work or stay home with the children while the other cruised singles bars or followed up personal ads. Also, because women live longer, a backup husband reduces full widowhood.
2. The likelihood of the presence of a male role model in the home for children would be doubled. The era of the latchkey child would end abruptly, as one of the husbands would be at home at all times for roughhouse and nurturing.
3. Marital fidelity would be enhanced by internalizing the eternal triangle. The costs of living together could be cut sharply by eliminating the need for assignations. Three can live as cheaply as two; remove the adult from adultery.
Who could oppose this modest proposal to extend connubial rights, inheritance-tax advantages and benefits blessings to millions of lonely women and angry extra males?
Oh, we can expect to hear from feminists who fear to go too far, as well as male chauvinists who are not into sharing and caring. Traditionalists may mutter about the risks of fiddling with fundaments, though research will show the origins of polyandry in biblical times.
To the peroration: If you believe marriage to be indispensable to the upbringing of children; if you argue for the stability this institution brings to human relationships; if you sense the values inherent in the mutual love and loyalty of families; and if you believe, with our Federalist Fathers, in the "full faith and credit" clause -- then how, in the name of all that virtuous men and women hold sacred, can you object to the expansion of this bulwark of civilization?
Ladies and gentlemen of the Platform Committee, if this polyandry plank is not included intact, I am marching my people right out of this convention.
March 18, 1996
Essay: A Case for Polyandry
By WILLIAM SAFIRE www.nytimes.com