Man Man Beaver (No, not THAT kind of beaver!)

Man Man Beaver is a new web-based animated series described as follows: 

"Following California's legalization of gay marriage and, logically then [because the slippery slope argument really is logical as to rights of consenting adult human beings, and we poly people are fine with that], every conceivable sexual pairing and so called perversion, a 'couple' comprised of two gay men and man-sized, talking beaver relocate into the state to finally live openly and take on idiocy and narrow-minded buffoonery each week...all while surviving the unique challenges of their married life. An animated satire series."

Check it out and let me know what you think in comments below - enjoy! 



Episode 1: "I'm With The Black Guy" from Man Man Beaver on Vimeo.

New Newsweek Article on Polyamory

UPDATE: Regarding my discussion below about comments to the following article, as my friend Alan points out in his comment to this post, please know that there are also many positive comments with a "live and let live" tone to them, and many other civil, rational ones made by poly people who explain and clarify. It's not easy for me to shrug off the negative ones, they bring out the determined advocate in me, but balance is still very important. Thanks to Alan for reminding me to focus on the positive, too. I guess that's what happens when I write up such a post late at night after 12 hours on the road on a trip that should have taken eight!

Here's my original post - read on.

-------------------------------

Newsweek has just published an excellent poly article on its website entitled "Only You. And You. And You." Publication in the magazine to follow. "Family" web series writer and director Terisa Greenan and her partners are featured.

I'm quoted at the end of the first page - interesting how Glenn Stanton (Focus on the Family) and Andrew Sullivan (same sex marriage proponent and critic) prove my point. Sullivan arrogantly makes it clear that poly interests aren't nearly as important as his and reduces us to irrelevancy. Stanton warns the faithful that we need close watching. We polyamorists didn't ask to be dragged into the same sex marriage debate, and polyamorists are overwhelmingly supportive of same-sex marriage, but both sides are still taking their issue frustrations out on us and show no signs of stopping until the same-sex marriage question is finally settled. Wouldn't it be refreshing to see Sullivan, Freedom to Marry Executive Director Evan Wolfson, etc., figure out a way to stop being so hypocritical? But alas, being so isn't politically expedient.

There's a lot more to the article than the polyamory-as-political-football issue, so enjoy!

Comments that follow the article are all over the place. I encourage you to leave your own poly-supportive comments but ask that you do so in a voice of calm reason - that's what will be more likely to win over the undecideds than something more combative in tone.

There are many hateful comments, which is par for the course as these articles go. I haven't read them all, but this one really stands out to me, I think because it is a perfect example of religious extremists being so sure that they're way is the only way:

Now I know for certain we are definitely in the last day's. All like sheep have gone astray, each after his own way. This is not judging people, it's a warning. Because of what you're doing, nothing but a bunch of fornicator's like rabbit's, you will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. But then, why would you want any part of heaven? That's not where your heart is. But you will get what's coming to you.

I've been working with the media on articles like these for many years now. I'd think I'd be used to the comments by now, but it's still surprising to me at times just how it is that people honestly and openly loving more than one person at a time (instead of the status quo of cheating) is so disturbing to so many people. We polyamorists just want to go about living our lives and to be treated fairly.

We advocates still have a lot of work to do to correct outrageously mistaken assumptions if article comments are any indication of how widespread knee-jerk reactions about us are, i.e.:

"It may be exciting for them but it's not love. They can't have the intimacy you get from a relationship with one person. If they do get something close to that with one of their partners then the others are not having it."

"... this just sounds like people too afraid to really love someone, trying to pretend they don't care."

"... this lifestyle choice is for a dominant personality and a bunch of passive clingers. Strange."

"...this behaviour is not masculine. Men are dominant and possesive by nature. Any man who is ok with his girlfriend/wife sleeping with another guy on a regular basis is not a man."

Some are incredibly convoluted in their attempt to explain us away, i.e.:

"There are people who are reverting back to prehistoric times. Some social classes of homo sapiens seem to be de-evolving into homo-erectus. These social classes are beginning to exhibit many of the social characteristics of lower animal life forms, i.e. getting closer to the origin ancestors instead of continuing to evolve into higher intelligence."

and

"I see polyamory, polygamy, and gay marriage as socially destabilizing. Polyamory in particular reminds me of a radioactive element -- constantly forming and reforming into new elements, always decaying."

And some are just plain mean-spirited:

"It's even lamer than swinging. They talk about each other's feelings after humping each other. By the way, the lady in the picture is no prize. I think she got the better end of the deal with the two sorry dudes fawning over her. I am guessing one or both of them suffers from Asberger's syndrome and are socially awkward. It's also wimpy that they all moved to Seattle because one guy got a job with Microsoft and the others glommed on, as he was to be their primary meal
ticket."

"These type of freaks make me ashamed to be a Liberal."

"Usually, older (35+) or uglier women have more boyfriends. Guys will do a lot of little things for easy sexual pleasure."

Here are two videos included in the article:

Response Re: Polyamory Rights, Proposition 8, and the ACLU

This is my response to the letter from Anthony Romero (see this post), Executive Director of the ACLU, regarding support for California Proposition 8 on election day, November 4, 2008:

Hi Anthony -

You wrote of your mother, "She knew that treating gay and lesbian people like second class citizens -- people who may be worthy of "tolerance, " as Sarah Palin asserts, but not of equality -- was and still is the last socially-acceptable prejudice." I hear your pain in that sentence. Correction - I hear OUR pain, and I hear a lack of awareness in that statement. Socially-acceptable prejudice is thriving against the polyamory community, as well as against other sexual minority groups,

In her keynote address at the October 4, 2008 polyamory pride rally in Central Park, queer and sex-positive activist Tristan Taormino said the following:

"Some gays and lesbians have responded to the charge of the “slippery slope” by calling it ridiculous, but others have defended gay marriage by denouncing polyamory. What about those of us who are queer and poly? Queers and polyfolk have a lot in common, and we need to recognize the ways we can help each other. Queer people must stand up and say we believe in the rights of everyone to love, commit to, and marry whomever they want. We must not throw polyamory under the bus in favor of advancing queer marriage rights."

Considering that, as Tristan points out, a sizeable segment of GLBTs also live a poly life, I am reminded of the quote from the venerable cartoon Pogo, "We have met the enemy... and he is us"

The wider polyamory community is well aware that those who've worked so hard for GLBT rights and marriage equality are paving the way for acceptance and equality for polyamorists and other sexual minorities, and we are grateful, even though some of the marriage equality leaders have denied our existence and that our issues exist and are equally legitimate. I get that doing otherwise is believed to place marriage equality in jeopardy thanks to Stanley Kurtz's slippery slope messaging, but it hurts nevertheless to see those who should surely recognize the injustice in that strategy adopt it nevertheless.

We polyamorists certainly have work to do to eradicate anti-poly bias, and we are doing it. Today polyamory is being mainstreamed, largely through strong interest from print, broadcast and electronic media. As polyamory awareness is increased, more and more people oppose what we do. More and more poly people experience discrimination on the job, in family courts where child custody is at stake, and by their friends, family and religious institution. Our heartbreaking experience of discrimination is the same as yours and so many other GLBTs. I hope that as time passes and dyadic marriage equality is made a reality, those who have fought for it will respond to the support we polyfolk have given at crucial times like the upcoming vote on Proposition 8 by proclaiming their support for our rights and our equality.

Thanks for considering!

"Where's the Poly Pride Update?", you ask. Also, Poly in NY Times and NY Post

Several of you have written saying you're waiting for me to post about the Poly Pride weekend celebration in NYC this past weekend. I hope to get that up later today. The delay is attributable to a very late arrival home Sunday, being jammed at work Monday and Tuesday, a root canal last night, and to top it off, scheduling time off work and pre-surgical testing in anticipation of knee surgery on October 17. And of course, there was the presidential debate last night. But never fear, I've got a lot of juicy stuff to post and you'll have it soon.

In the interim, here are links to the articles in the NY Times and the New York Post that coincided with the Poly Pride event. (You may have to log in or create a membership to see the articles.) Note that the NY Post article includes a great picture of the fabulous folks who put together all the way cool Poly Pride events that happened over the course of this past weekend.

I got a laugh out of The Agitator's morning links today, which includes a reference to the Agitator's very clever parody, Careless Whispers, posted in 2004, on Stanley Kurtz's same-sex marriage, um, issues,

Polyamory hits the New York Times, Stanley Kurtz’s head a’splodes.

Polyamory on the Senate Floor

I came across the following in my email archives. Since it happened on 6-6-06 (666? hmmm....) and predates my establishing this blog, I'm posting it FYI. At the time this happened, the amendment to the constitution to make sure marriage is only between one man and one woman was being debated.

The following are the words of ultra conservative, presidential hopeful Republican Kansas senator Sam "Chicken Little" Brownback. What's interesting about them besides the fact that someone actually used the word polyamory in a senate debate is that he's using alarmist tactics to galvanize the Senate to act to "protect" marriage. I'm very well connected to the polyamory activist community, and there is no poly marriage movement waiting until same-sex marriage is legalized to stake out its claim - this assertion is nothing more than typical Washington political posturing.

A lot of polyamorists have no desire to be legally married to their partners. I personally have advocated for getting the government out of marriage for a long time now.

Brownback: There is another argument I want to further develop while my colleagues are coming to the floor; that is, this one on ``slippery slope.'' People say this is one that isn't going to happen. It is not going to develop. Yet I think the legal pedigree is there for a slippery slope to develop. Some will be recognizing different groups that have stepped forward already to say that if two people of the same sex can be married, why can't there be additional people? What is the legal bias against having more than two people in a marital arrangement? This even has a term now, polyamorist. They have already had one court case trying to gain recognition for a marriage of a woman and two men. They say in some of their advocacy that they are waiting for same-sex marriage to pass to begin agitation to legalize more than two people getting married.

If you think that is not going to happen, you had the minority opinion in the Supreme Court case that recognized that, what is your legal basis of stopping that, too, if it can be two men or two women? Why is it only two? That is what this group is starting to agitate for. They are saying that granting same-sex marriage is supported on equal protection grounds. How is the court going to deny them? There are plenty of polyamorists out there.

The problem goes further. We have an advocacy group called the Alternatives to Marriage Project which supports polyamory and other innovations to parental cohabitation. The Alternatives to Marriage Project is quoted frequently in the mainstream media. Believe it or not, some of the most powerful factions of family law scholars in the law schools favor legal recognition of both polyamory and parental cohabitation. Even law review articles have been published advocating for both. Again, they argue that if two men can get married and two women can get married, if this is an equal protection argument, why is it limited to just two? What is the legal basis or foundational basis in society for this?

I raise that as a point because this area of law is starting to develop. Even the influential American Law Institute came out with proposals that would grant nearly equal recognition to cohabitation. So this is developing in the law.

I raise these items as issues knowing that some people will scoff at it. You can look at what happened in the world in the past year or so as well. Sweden passed the first same-sex partnership plan in the world and had serious proposals floated by parties on the left to abolish marriage and legalize multipartner unions. So this is out there and it is one of those things we should watch.

Family Law Academic Acknowledges Significant Difference Between Religious Polygamy and Polyamory as Regards Public Policy

Canadian Law Professor Lorraine E. Weinrib's column, Second Opinion, published today online at LawTimesNews.com includes the following statement, the first of its kind I've seen that recognizes the legitimacy of the interests of polyamorists in public discourse and debate over marriage rights as they apply to same-sex marriage, religious polygamy, and the slippery slope to polyamory as defined by Stanley Kurtz.

In forging public policy, it is important to distinguish between polygamous marriage within authoritarian religious communities and polyamorous relationships. The latter do not necessarily pose harm. They presumably involve mature, informed, and consenting adults, who have access to reproductive health information and health-care services, full exit rights, and access to enforcement of the relevant legal entitlements and protection.

It is heartening to now see that family law academics are publicly and knowledgeably identifying the significant differences in the context of public policy between the non-egalitarian ways of religious polygamy and the egalitarian ways of polyamory. These differences matter significantly in human rights terms.

Same-Sex Marriage and the Slippery Slope to Polyamory

So I recently promised in my last post here to explain how it is that polyamorists and same-sex marriage advocates find themselves sometimes at odds with each other. It all started with a guy named Stanley Kurtz. Kurtz is a fellow at the think tank Hoover Institution, a contributing editor to the National Review Online as well as The Weekly Standard, all highly respected bastions of conservatism, with a special interest in America's culture war. As a Harvard Ph.D. in social anthropology, his writings focus on the family, feminism, homosexuality, affirmative action, and campus political correctness.

Over the past few years, Kurtz has become the darling of the religious right and the marriage movement via his writings about why permitting same-sex partners to marry will literally bring about the demise of our civilization as we know it. He explains everything so smoothly, logically and reasonably while using no hate speech that he gains a lot of credibility for his assertion that same-sex marriage will open the door to the “slippery slope to polyamory”

He first establishes this premise in his August 4, 2003 Weekly Standard article entitled “Beyond Gay Marriage: The Road to Polyamory” in which Kurtz explains his point like this. If same-sex partners are permitted to marry, once the legal definition of marriage is altered to permit anyone other than two opposite sex partners to marry, then there will be no legal basis for denying the same rights to polygamists, polyamorists, or even members of the same biological family. Naturally, the very idea of this is so abhorrent to conservatives (who, by the way, know little to nothing about polyamory itself), especially to religious conservatives, that this premise grew legs almost instantaneously and began to be used far and wide by religious extremists to incite those opposed to same-sex marriage to stand up and voice their opposition in what has at times sounded like a genuine frenzy of freaking-out. Of course, they've been intentionally alarmed with the belief that what other people do in their marriages is somehow going to affect *their* marriages. What a lot of baloney.

For the record, Cathy Young, a columnist I often admire who writes for The Boston Globe and the libertarian magazine Reason, also wrote on this subject in 2004 in her article entitled "Opening Marriage: Do Same Sex Unions Pave the Way for Polygamy?" She also blogged on the subject here.

Kurtz seems to do his homework, at least after a fashion. In his subsequent, lengthy piece in the National Review Online dated March 23, 2005, entitled Rick Santorum was Right, he managed to unearth the Divilbiss child custody case which took place in Memphis back around 2000 – and he also located Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness, though he misidentifies their mission as one of advocacy for polyamory and poly marriage instead of advocacy within the Unitarian Universalist Association – a HUGE difference - for polyfolk who are UUs. How he missed Lovingmore, The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom, and The Institute for 21st Century Relationships I can’t say, each of which is a bona fide non-profit advocate for polyamory (though none has taken on multi-partner marriage as part of their mission as of yet).

What is more important in the March 2005 article is that Kurtz cited Elizabeth Emens, whom he refers to as “A whiz kid with a Ph.D. in English from Cambridge University and a J.D. from Yale Law School.” He goes on to say:

“Emens, who [while writing her paper taught at] the University of Chicago Law School, has published a major legal and cultural defense of polyamory (group marriage). In ‘Beyond Gay Marriage,’ I showed that state-sanctioned polyamory was rapidly becoming the favorite cause of scholars of family law. Yet not until now has anyone offered so bold, informed, intelligent, and comprehensive a brief for polyamory. Emens's breakthrough article is a sign that the case for mainstreaming polyamory is finally being...well, mainstreamed.”

From Stanley’s mouth to God’s ear. Yes, Elizabeth Emens did indeed do we polyfolk an excellent turn with her paper. One could argue that she is equally responsible for endangering the same-sex marriage movement, but there is no denying the integrity of her work.

Kurtz, to bang the drum some more, followed up the two previously-referenced articles with yet another in the Weekly Standard dated December 26, 2005, entitled "Here Come the Brides: Plural marriage is waiting in the wings." I don't recall there being much in this one that he hasn't already said. Maybe he still owed those for whom he shills a bit more drum banging.

Ironically, we polyfolk have no argument with his premise that same-sex marriage must logically lead to multi-partner marriage. He is likely correct. Where we differ is whether we think that is a bad thing or a good thing.

As you can imagine, none of this came as good news to the same-sex marriage movement. As a result, some of its guiding lights, as well as its supporters, don’t think much of polyamory and really, really, really hope we will just be quiet and not spoil their chances. (See my last post here for an example of this.) Why it is that sexual minority groups feel so free to discriminate against other sexual minorities, an affront no less hurtful to we polyfolk than the same kind of discrimination from the mainstream is to them, I cannot say, except that there is a huge sense of entitlement that must come from being treated as second class citizens for so long.

Don’t get me wrong. I have no desire to actively seek to derail the effort for same-sex marriage. I know how important it is to many GLBTs, and, on the one hand, I understand and empathize with their longing to achieve this status so long denied them. But on the other hand, I still have to wonder why they long for something that has clearly showed itself to be fatally flawed for half the people who marry, only to end up in divorce court. Surely there is a better way, and I think Emens and the people who issued the Beyond Same Sex Marriage manifesto make a compelling case for some very viable alternatives, which I support. See my earlier post on why I think that government should get out of the marriage business entirely and why that is the only fair way to resolve the issue.

Bottom line here is that Stanley Kurtz can be credited with putting polyamory squarely in the center of the debate and making it the political football everyone is kicking around. Neither side sees a resolution of the issue as being in its best interests, mainly because they fear how such a resolution might affect them.

The polyamory community is still maturing and has not as of yet become organized enough to advocate for itself effectively in all of this - despite Kurtz's assertions to the contrary - but eventually that day will come, I assure you. Just give it some time.

New Jersey Religious Extremists Target Polyamorists

Well, this is a first to my knowledge, though no surprise. Tomorrow, June 2, 2007, in Mays Landing, New Jersey, a part of the Atlantic City area, a local marriage rally is being held opposing efforts by what religious extremist rhetoric calls "radical fringe groups such as polygamists and polyamorists, together with homosexuals to redefine marriage." Like so many sensationalist press releases issued by religious extremist groups, this announcement seems to only be showing up via Christian "news" sources. The mainstream press almost always ignores them. Still, so far they've not focused their efforts on polyamorists and have stuck with gay bashing. The main sponsor is the New Jersey Family Policy Council.

One thing I find curious is the title of the article: "Coalition Only Invites Citizens Who Disagree with Radical Attempts to Redefine Marriage to Rally this Saturday" It's like they think this will discourage those they wish to bash from attending.

Polyamory activists have made contact with local press and offered up resources for information on polyamory for any coverage they may decide to give this event, which it's not actually likely to get, so we aren't too concerned, but still, it is interesting to find ourselves squarely in the sights of religious extremists. It was bound to happen thanks to the efforts of Stanley Kurtz and his slippery slope message put forth repeatedly over the past few years, especially in his 2003 Weekly Standard article, "Beyond Gay Marriage" and his 2005 National Review article, "Rick Santorum Was Right"

Should polyamorists seek marriage rights?

When the subject of discussion is polyamory activism, some seem to indicate that a desire for marriage equality for polys is a natural primary goal of poly activism, even a no-brainer. I remain opposed to this course of action because the corporate and big government powers that be are unlikely to let it happen. I am speaking in this instance about the well-heeled, congress-in-its-pocket health insurance industry. Unless a very, very rich polyamory activism benefactor comes along, in no way does the polyamory community have the resources to fight the kind of fight we'd have to fight to get the huge morass of a system of marriage laws, privileges and benefits retooled to fit marriages of more than two.

Of course, this is not so as regards same-sex marriage. No rewebbing need take place, merely a lifting of the one man-one woman requirement. There is much less likelihood of a negative financial impact under those circumstances than what would surely be anticipated by health insurance companies and the IRS as regards three or more equal partners or "spice".

I support a more feasible method via improving the availability and affordability of individual health insurance, together with getting state and federal government out of the marriage business. Domestic partnerships of many kinds would be recognized, and the same benefits granted now to a more narrow definition of families would become available to all intentional families.

A plan along these lines has already been put forth by a group of activists, writers and academics in 2006, a group called Beyond Same-Sex Marriage

With federal and state government out of the marriage business, marriage would become a private matter in terms of getting the blessing of religious institutions and so forth. No one's existing marriage would be harmed, and no one's right to engage in marriage would be prevented.

Polyfolk might have to go to more trouble to designate who gets what financial, parental and inheritance rights, but I'd be willing to spend some money with a good lawyer if that's all it took to have good, effective legal protection, access to fair benefits and the ability to choose who and how many partners I want, while taking power to grant relationship legitimacy out of the hands of government.