Being multi-cultural and generally left-brained, there are some ideas that crystalize in my mind that may never cross most people’s minds.  Humans are social animals and there are standards by which we conduct ourselves; if we didn’t what we think of as civilized society would collapse.  “Thou shalt not kill” is generally one that we accept.  Naturally, there are others.  For the purposes of this discussion, I’m referring to the rules here in the United States, I don’t pretend to know the nuances in other countries.

To me what is most interesting is the distinction between what we should do and what we must do.  Let’s say that you go to the grocery store to pick up a quart of orange juice.  The only thing that you must do is pay for it.  There is an entire array of what you should do to which you may not adhere.  Do you say “please” and “thank you” to your cashier?  Do you politely ask someone to move their cart instead of screaming at them or pushing it out of the way?  If you know you’re going to be conversing with someone, do you get off your mobile phone?  Do you take the shopping cart back to the store or cart corral or leave it in the middle of the parking lot?  If you leave without paying for the orange juice, it makes you a criminal.  If you don’t follow some of the other rules, it doesn’t make you a criminal, but it does make you a bit of an asshole.  Should we make it a crime for you not to respond with “Thank you” when interacting with your cashier?  Keep in mind that some of these differences are cultural or even regional.

How do we distinguish between the “should” and “must” rules?  We make the “must” rules into law; we criminalize it.  Killing someone else is a crime, no debate.  While we may find it rude and detestable for someone to be on the phone while we enjoy our date night dinner, we don’t criminalize it.  We do, however, uniformly disallow your talking on the phone while driving, since studies show that it endangers people’s lives.  Here in the United States, we generally give you the freedom to do what you want and establish a law when the behavior impinges upon the freedoms and rights of others.  The subtle part of this is that you can’t morph a “should” rule into a “must” rule simply because it doesn’t align with your moral compass.

“Most people feel like I do, we can make it illegal to do X.”

Actually, no you can’t.  It doesn’t matter if 99% of the population opposes something (like let’s say eating lutefisk).  You can’t pass a law that denies the 1% of the population the right to eat lutefisk just because you find it vile.  There are examples of this.  There are few people that have passionate opinion (either for or against) about eating lutefisk, but there are many people that are passionate about the desecration of the flag.  In fact, when burning the flag was used to protest, many legislators tried to pass laws that banned flag desecration.  These are routinely struck down for being unconstitutional.  The fact that you don’t like it, doesn’t mean that you can take away someone’s first amendment right to express themselves by burning the flag.  I personally think that it’s an ineffective way to get people’s attention, but I think that it should absolutely be protected by the first amendment.

“The country was founded on X religion, our laws should follow those standards.”

No, it wasn’t.  Our country was founded on freedom of religion.  It’s in the first amendment right along with freedom of expression and freedom of the press.  While it’s true that many of our early citizens practiced some religions more than others, it’s not necessarily true that those standards should be law.  We were wise enough to explicitly say that you may practice different religions (and not a particular set of them), and thus separation of church and state.  We were also wise enough to concede that we may not get it right from the beginning, and thus allowed a mechanism to change it, the ability to amend the constitution.  You should absolutely be given the freedom to practice your religion according to your moral compass, but you can’t pass laws that impinge upon other’s rights simply because it doesn’t align with that moral compass.

“If we don’t have religion, we wouldn’t be able to distinguish between right and wrong.”

[Imagine my reaching across the table and landing a humiliating slap firmly upon your face]

Do you really need religion to understand that if you didn’t like that slap landing solidly upon your cheek, maybe you shouldn’t be doing that to others?

I will give you this… in early stages of childhood development, children may not fully understand empathy or compassion.  For those early years, it may be considerably easier to control their behavior by scaring the bejesus out of them with visions of a fire pit and eternal damnation, but once they get to the age when they understand empathy and compassion, they have the capacity for a moral compass.

It leads us to rationalize ideas and prosecute them in a way that they weren’t intended.  For instance, scripture was used to establish laws against miscegenation (mixed race couples), based on the vague mention that people from different ‘tribes’ should not mix.  Aren’t a Caucasian couple from the US and Canada legitimately from different ‘tribes’?  Was it really intended to put couples in jail for simply getting married?  This law was struck down in the Supreme Court (Loving versus Virginia) in 1967, but it wasn’t until 2000 where it was completely off the books (in Alabama).

What is worse is that the inverse of this rule is profoundly dangerous.  If your religion becomes your inextricable boundary for right and wrong, then you are not allowing your own moral compass to work.  You have effectively become Darth Vader, watching Emperor Palpatine frying your son Luke into crispy bacon, except without any remorse.  Opinions change over time, but they can’t if we don’t allow ourselves the ability to question.  Without it, we can’t hope to change laws around miscegenation or gay marriages.

Why do I mention all this?  Explain to me why polygamy is against the law.  Allow me to be very explicit.  Polygamy, in practice, had instances where it exploited both women and children.  I’m not debating that; I’m not suggesting we allow that.

There are established rules about age of consent in every state; some polygamists violated those rules to marry children; prosecute that.  Most religions that practice polygamy do so as one husband and multiple wives.  While I’m not suggesting that the United States should stipulate how someone should practice their faith, I am suggesting that if we were to lawfully allow polygamy we should also explicitly lawfully allow the cases of one wife and multiple husbands.  Once we address those two issues that exploit children and the inequity with women, why can’t we legalize polygamy?

Picture this scenario…  One woman (Liz) and two men (Donald and Mark) are in a lifelong committed relationship.  They have three children among them.  Liz is legally married to Donald, but Mark is really no less her husband.  They share everything.  Their marriage bed, the finances, the parenting duties, etc.  Mark and Donald are only different under the eyes of the law.

Liz and Donald are driving home from work and get into a car accident and are hospitalized.  Mark is not officially family to either of them.  He’s not related by blood; he’s not related by marriage.  Despite being life partners and sharing everything, he is not allowed to visit them at the hospital due to the ‘family’ rule.  Their three children, in this case, being biologically Liz’s offspring, are allowed to visit, but Mark cannot.

Tragically, Liz and Donald do not survive their injuries.  The house was under Liz’s name, but Mark is not family and has no standing.  The house goes to their next of kin, who are the three kids, the oldest of whom is thirteen.  They could sign the house over to Mark, but that would have serious tax implications.

Then there’s the discussion of custody.  Only one of the three children is biologically Mark’s.  While Mark has been collectively their father as much as Donald was, he is disallowed from continuing to care for the remaining two.  What happens in this case?  Does he petition for custody for them?  What if Donald’s sister, who does not approve of their lifestyle, wants to separate them from Mark?

These are the same challenges that gay couples faced for years.  You can absolutely draw up legal documents to outline all these other contingencies and try to imagine every conceivable corner case, but you know what would be much easier?  A marriage license

We are perfectly happy to give Liz and Donald these rights and everything that comes with marriage?  …but we’re apprehensive about giving Liz, Donald, and Mark collectively these very same rights?

Before you allow your mind to run wild with ideas about what I personally want…  I do not want two wives (or a husband for that matter), I’m not emotionally equipped for that.  I’m just wondering what the most fair application of our laws should be.

Just because I don’t want it (or don’t have a need for it), doesn’t mean that I should deny it from others.

As it happens, there’s been recent talk about finally making polygamy legal in the United States.  I welcome this and think that it’s about time.  Despite the fact that we tout ‘freedom of religion’, there have been people from different religions that have not be allowed to practice their religion.  This is because some of us find it ‘icky’.

To put it bluntly, your sense of ‘icky-ness’ does not outweigh their right to be married.