Are Laws Barring Polygamy Destined to Fall? Law Prof Defends Marriage of Two
Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University, and author of a forthcoming title, “Why Two in One Flesh: The Western Case for Monogamy over Polygamy.” The ABA Journal article discusses a piece Mr. Witte authored entitled "Why Monogamy is Natural" (how many times have we heard that one???) and published by the Washington Post last month in it's Guest Voices blog for "Other Views on Faith and Its Impact on the News." It seems to me to demonstrate Witte to be a fundamentalist Christian first and a law professor second. He relies only on information that is the standard party line according to the likes of the The Institute for American Values, the primary home of leaders of the (traditional) marriage movement. Perhaps we should ship him a copy of Sex at Dawn. And a couple dozen for him to share.
My comment on the ABA article is WAY down the list at #126, in which I say:
Mr. Witte needs to do his homework. There are significant numbers of people today who practice egalitarian polyamory. They are not fundamentalist Mormons, and their relationships have nothing to do with religion. Community standards are very much based on equality for all those involved. Many polyamorists have long-term love relationships that last decades. Those whose families live in households of more than two adults find that there is more abundance of everything - more income, more love and support, more hands to care for sick partners and children.
So when the time comes and the question of multi-partner marriage is addressed by the law in the U.S., there will be a great many people standing up and pointing out that if it is decided purely on the question of issues that are irrelevant to the non-religious, egalitarian polyamorous population, a great injustice will be done by denying the fundamental human right of family to those who love and commit to more than one adult, and in so doing, harm no one.
For the record, the Canadian case referenced in another comment included an intervenor non-profit group given status by the Court, the Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association.