In his recent Economist piece entitled “The case for monogamy”, Princeton University professor Stephen Macedo reveals the depths to which leftist social activists will go in securing “rights” for themselves while selectively denying similar “rights” to others as they see fit. He begins by citing Chief Justice John Roberts, who, like many of us, saw very clearly that the Supreme Court’s ruling on homosexual unions would inevitably lead to a legal recognition of plural marriage in its various forms as well. Presenting plural marriage as a practice that is inherently harmful to society, Macedo proceeds to give the reasons for which we should officially accept and recognize monogamous same-sex marriage but not polygamous marriage of any kind.

Not surprisingly, Macedo opens with the claim that “…libertarians seem unaware of the extensive evidence of plural marriage’s social harms, as well as the principled reasons for distinguishing plural from same-sex marriage. They are also too quick to conflate social tolerance, partial recognition and equal recognition of plural marriages.” The interesting thing about this is that it echoes exactly the points that social conservatives have long been making against same-sex marriage. A common attitude – particularly among Christians – has long been that such people should not be punished by law for living together as if they were married or for holding wedding ceremonies. The only thing demanded by social conservatives as a whole was that such arrangements not be officially recognized or advocated by the government that was supposed to represent them. The evidence presented has similarly consisted of “principled reasons” for minimizing identifiable “social harms” associated with such arrangements, primarily regarding children.

To substantiate his claims that plural marriage is inherently harmful, Macedo cites studies conducted among poor, religious, and rural societies, in which polygyny (one husband, multiple wives) has long been the predominant form of plural marriage. However, pointing to the negative effects of plural marriage in such situations is about as meaningful as it was for social conservatives to point to the negative effects of homosexual profligacy that ran rampant in various societies of antiquity. It makes no sense to block recognition of plural marriage in the 21^st century in the United States on the grounds that polygyny in rural Arabia has been found to reinforce misogyny, as there are other important contributing factors in rural Arabia that are simply not realities here. In a society in which women can own property, attend universities, and become the bosses of men, we can hardly expect them to suddenly start getting traded around like cattle. In a society in which divorce and adultery are commonplace and often even openly encouraged – and in which women have a higher tendency to seek out commitment than men – we can hardly expect to see all of the women monopolized by an elite cadre of men while the lower 20{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} live as monks. (Actually, something similar may be happening now, but marriage has nothing to do with it.)

Moving on, Macedo makes the claim that, while homosexual monogamy is legitimized by the idea that sexual preference is set in stone and therefore not even a preference at all but a destiny, plural marriage is something that exists as a purely elective phenomenon and has no grounding in fundamental human behavior patterns. And yet, he immediately shows the fallacy in his views by stating that “men seem most prone” to wanting an additional spouse. Yes, men exhibit a tendency toward it because it is natural for them to do so. Animal species evolve, adapt, and build on their strengths specifically because strong males go to great lengths to spread their genes throughout the pool as much as possible. This is a genetic trait that has defined our behavior since before our ancestors were even primates. The supposition that same-sex marriage has a stronger basis in biology than plural marriage does is nothing short of laughable. In suggesting that men should do something other than what they feel a natural inclination to do, Macedo sounds strangely like a conservative religious leader.

Another claim that Macedo makes (and probably a valid one) is that plural marriage multiplies the problems that come when people try to make life decisions together – that it “compounds the complexity of all these negotiations and is a recipe for conflict.” This should be obvious for anyone: when a man takes a second wife, there now not just two adult relationships in this family, but three. However, such concern is hardly grounds for “banning” (a term as inaccurate now as when it was used regarding same-sex marriage) something that people see as their fundamental right. Also, even if there is such an observable trend, that does not mean it is a significant concern in all cases. Do we ban cars because people drive while intoxicated? As Macedo himself even says, “I also allow that in particular instances polygamous families can be successful and healthy.”

The fourth in Macedo’s list of points substantiating the social harms of recognizing plural marriage is the most offensively hypocritical. He says: “Plural marriage, in contrast, changes the character of marriage deeply in a way that degrades its core meaning.” Macedo himself recognizes that plural marriage, though uncommon now, has been quite common throughout most of human history. Same-sex marriage, on the other hand, is a modern invention. Other than a few blips of vaguely recognized homosexual “partnerships” and “pairings” throughout history, marriages between people of the same sex have never been officially recognized on any large scale as we are now recognizing it in the West. Therefore, to say that plural marriage – which, love it or hate it, has been common for tens of thousands of years – somehow “changes the character of marriage deeply in a way that degrades its core meaning” while same-sex marriage does not is a slap in the face to anyone capable of plain reason.

Just when it seems that Macedo’s double standard could not get any more infuriating, he ends his article with this gem: “History’s arc, as best we can now tell, bends away from the plural marriage and toward monogamy, gender equality, and same-sex marriage.” Actually, history’s arc shows that “traditional marriage” – that is, monogamous marriage between a man and a woman – has arisen as a result of thousands of years of trial and error. It has won out against polygyny, polyandry, polyamory, homosexual arrangements, and bisexual arrangements so completely that we have falsely labeled it “traditional” even though, in many periods and in many places, it was not traditional at all. It appears traditional only because it was unequivocally found to be the superior social model and was therefore adopted virtually everywhere. That we have decided to relapse into the same social experiments that have been performed so many times before simply because we did not like the previous results proves nothing other than that we are foolish.

If all arguments against same-sex marriage were always categorically bigoted, Macedo’s arguments against plural marriage are as well, because he essentially makes the same arguments. Tolerance and respect but not official recognition? Mr. Macedo, I have been saying that for years, and I have been lambasted for it countless times. Ultimately, the decision of the Supreme Court regarding same-sex marriage arose not from any consideration for social benefit on the whole, but from a consideration for the rights of the individual in choosing a “partner”. Or, simply put, “Equal love.” If a spiritual, relative, and poorly defined concept like love can be used as the basis for law in terms of same-sex marriage, it can be similarly applied to plural marriage. But even if the more “traditional” people championing heterosexual polygyny meet stout legal resistance based on Macedo’s arguments, they need not fret: they only have to wait for a set of three men or three women to announce their love for each other on the steps of the Capitol, and even these hypocritical barriers will have to come down.

And then, society will be saved from neither the negative effects of plural marriage, which Stephen Macedo highlights, nor the negative effects of homosexuality, which he ignores.

Ronald Kimmons is an independent candidate for U.S. Congress in Texas’s 7^th Congressional District.