Not all change is bad

Why aren’t Presbyterians allowed to have sex standing up? Because it can lead to dancing.

It’s an old joke but one that perfectly sums up the fears of those who oppose change: if you relax one rule who knows where it will lead.

This slippery-slope mentality is what’s behind the fear that allowing same-sex couples to marry will lead to the recognition of other marital arrangements like polygamy.

Opponents of change say if marriage is all about love and commitment then what about the love and commitment between one man and his four wives?

There’s an element of hypocrisy and mischief-making in this rhetorical question.

Often those who oppose same-sex marriage justify themselves by referring to “biblical values”, conveniently ignoring the fact that the Bible is full of polygamous relationships.

They also talk a lot about marriage being for “procreation”, again ignoring the fact that multiple wives makes for hordes of kids.

Although it’s never explicitly said, I suspect opponents of same-sex marriage also sometimes raise polygamy because it echoes the old myth about homosexual promiscuity.

But for now let’s take the question on face value: does removing marriage discrimination against gay couples open the door to polygamous unions?

My answer is “no”.

In none of the countries which allow same-sex marriage is polygamy officially recognised, even though some of them, like Spain and Holland, have large religious minorities that traditionally allow it.

There is an even wider gulf between the two issues in countries which allow polygamy.

In places like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Nigeria, homosexuals are not only unable to marry, they’re put to death.

This isn’t a coincidence. Same-sex marriage and polygamy are not just different, they are utterly incompatible.

Polygamy, as it’s generally practised, is about a man ruling the lives of several women. It is an arrangement that comes from a time when women were considered less valuable and capable than men, restricted to the house and to childrearing, and made their husband’s property.

This is reflected in the legal status of the wives in polygamous relationships. Generally they lose their rights and autonomy when they marry, are punished much more harshly for adultery, and can be the divorcee but not the divorcer.

Wherever values like this prevail same-sex marriage is inconceivable.

Where all husbands are legally dominant and all wives mere submissive extensions of their mate, it is absurd and profoundly threatening for there to be an official union between two husbands or two wives.

Where marriage is the union of a bread winner who must always be male and a child-carer who must always be female, it is economically unsustainable for people of the same sex to marry.

Same-sex marriage only begins to make sense in a society where there is social and economic equity between men and women and legal equality between marriage partners.

It only becomes possible for two men or two women to marry if men and women are already free to choose how we lead our lives regardless of their gender.

Seen this way, same-sex marriage is about more than love and commitment, as important as these things are.

Unlike polygamy, same-sex marriage is also about equality of the sexes and individual freedom of choice. These are values which represent the best and most precious inheritances in the western tradition and they are values which most Australia hold dear.

Not all change is bad. When it is guided by the values which underpin society it can actually enhance us.

By confirming that Australia is a free and egalitarian society, same- sex marriage will do just that.