As promised, some follow up thoughts on polygamy

Yesterday, I referenced this post by Amanda and said that I wanted to post my thoughts later. Ladies and gentlemen, this is that post.

Amanda quotes from Marci Hamilton's God vs. the Gavel, who argues that the argument that is commonly put forward in favor of same sex marriage is inadquate when arguing for the legalization of polygamy. Because they both expand marriage rights, so the common argument goes, the two are roughly equivalent. But Hamilton argues that in fact, they are not. Though I quoted it in yesterday's post, here again is Amanda's summary of Hamilton's argument:

At first glance, the two arguments--one in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage and one in favor of legalizing polygamy--seem basically identical, which is to say that the people advocating for these changes feel that the marriage laws as they stand discriminate against them. But Hamilton argues that if you take a realistic look at the way religion factors into these arguments, then you start to see a much different picture emerge, because both controversies have someone arguing that their religious beliefs should dictate the law, but with same-sex marriage it's the opponents who are arguing this and with polygamy it's the proponents. If you start with her basic argument that it's antithetical to the 1st Amendment to allow law to be dictated by religious belief over other concerns like the greater social good, it's clear that these two reform movements are completely different--same sex marriage proponents are using a social good measure for their arguments and polygamy proponents are arguing that social good isn't a factor because their religious belief trumps it. To keep it simple.

Hamilton has a reason to want to keep these arguments separate. She argues that those in favor of polygamous marriage are most often members of certain religions who are using polygamy as a tool to oppress women. Because it is an argument from religion, and because the result is bad, polygamy shouldn't be legalized.

I do have a problem with this reasoning, and part of it comes from the definition of polygamy. Amanda quotes the United Nations' Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women:

Polygamous marriage contravenes a woman’s right to equality with men, and can have such serious emotional and financial consequences for her and her dependents that such marriages ought to be be discouraged and prohibited.There is a glaring hole in this argument. The implicit assumption is that all polygamous marriages consist of one man with several wives. But Mormons are not the only people who want polygamous marriage legalized. In fact, because most religions teach that polygamy is morally wrong, most of the arguments in favor of polygamy are strictly secular. And if secular arguments exist -- and they do -- then it doesn't make much sense to argue that we should ignore the arguments from social principles on the grounds that some people favor the same outcome due to religious beliefs.

I find it hard to trust Hamilton's argument here. It seems that she'll go to any measure to stop an existing abuse of women. While I applaud her goal, I think she's painting with too broad of a brush and ignoring some very real collateral damage that will occur as a result of her attacks.