Features

You May Now Kiss the Bride and the Other Bride and the Other Bride and the Other Groom

Why Poly Marriage Is Never Going to Happen

You May Now Kiss the Bride and the Other Bride and the Other Bride and the Other Groom

Simone Shin

If you've ever observed a debate about same-sex marriage, then you've heard this argument: If we let gay people marry, the next bump on the slippery slope to the Total Collapse of Society is polyamorous marriage. To hear right-wingers tell it, you'd think there was an army of group-marriage revolutionaries howling at the barricades to overthrow our single-spouse oppressors. Seattle has a large polyamorous community (including me!). So perhaps you're wondering: Now that we have same-sex marriage, is it only a matter of time before King County executive Dow Constantine is signing marriage licenses for trios and quartets? It would certainly test the mettle of wedding planners, wouldn't it? I'm thinking Costco would be THE place for people doing multipack marriage to register for gifts.

But hold on a sec. For starters, poly- marriage organizers would have to agree on a precise definition of what, exactly, poly marriage even is. Explaining the flowcharts and Venn diagrams of poly relationships can be trickier and take longer than a play-by-play of naked Twister. And you can't just engrave "It's Complicated" on tasteful ivory card stock and mail it off to however many sets of in-laws. So how would you define it? Is poly marriage a system where a set group of people enter into an all-with-all marriage as a fixed-size unit? Or would it perhaps be a system of marrying only one spouse at a time, but having the right to enter into additional marriages concurrently? Or something else entirely? No matter how you phrased it, any workably pithy legal definition would necessarily exclude certain configurations of people. And poly people get uncomfortable at the idea of excluding people—it reminds us unpleasantly of monogamy. So that's a problem.

But let's say the poly community comes up with a way of defining "poly marriage." Then comes the price tag: It costs five bucks to file an initiative, but persuading voters to change the law in favor of poly marriage would take a lot of skillful and extremely expensive political marketing. How many gay/lesbian bars have I been to where a drag queen or a leather daddy had a microphone in hand and was working the tipsy crowd like a carnival barker for marriage-equality donations? Too many to count. Unfortunately, poly people are not oppressed enough to have our own bars. We only have potlucks, and no one drinks very much at those (although I have very much wanted to on the few occasions I attended one). I shudder at the idea of Obama-esque daily e-mails from Poly Marriage Now begging me for money. But fundraising infrastructure is key—and queers have it, poly people don't.

Perhaps I'm not the only poly activist who sees what a Sisyphean task this would be, because when I asked around poly networks about it, I heard... crickets. Oh, occasionally a poly activist dreams out loud about poly marriage on a blog, but no one in Washington State is doing anything serious at all to bring about poly marriage. That must surprise the right-wing types—they were certain that by now we'd be on a federally funded high-speed train to Sodom and Gomorrah. But you know who it doesn't surprise? Me. I'm a polyamorous person who has never yearned for poly marriage.

Does that sound unromantic? It's not. My whole adult life, I've actively pursued the wisdom and skills to sustain multiple romantic relationships, and I'm pretty good at it. But no matter what you do, it ain't all rainbows and unicorns. I think romantic love that leads to deep, committed relationships is wonderful. But the romance of filing a group tax return? I'll pass. The legal aspects aside, I've never been interested in sharing a household with more than one person. Frankly, even one person is a bit much sometimes. I appreciate cozy domestic intimacy as much as a monogamous girl, but I'm an introvert who requires blocks of time alone. And one of the things I have always loved about being poly is knowing I can turn to my partner and say, without a shred of compunction, "Darling, I love you, but why don't you go see your other girlfriend for a while?" That's harder to do when the other girlfriend lives with you. Multiple-partner cohabitation always seemed to me like it would have all the usual relationship difficulties, plus less closet space, more scheduling headaches, and definitely more emotional processing. I am not alone in my opinion. When I remarked to a poly friend that I was writing about this topic, he quipped wryly, "Oh, right. Poly marriage: When sustaining one happy marriage just isn't challenging enough for you!"

My other reason for being leery of poly marriage? A close brush with poly divorce. You see, I lived with a partner in a polyamorous relationship for 12 years. He and I were happy and well-suited to each other—we were both active in the poly community, we both had long-term relationships with other partners throughout that time, and lots of people thought we had this poly thing all nailed down. We thought we did, too—for a while. We broke up about a year ago.

It was just as awful as breakups always are, but I dodged a bullet in one crucial matter: Two years before we broke up, my ex told me he wanted to buy a new house with me—and his other partner. He wanted all three of us to live together in a house we'd own collectively. I seriously considered the idea—he was my committed partner, I got along very well with his other girlfriend, and I knew it would have made him happy. But in the end, I was too uneasy about the challenges of this sort of secular sister-wives arrangement. My refusal was a pivotal issue in the demise of our relationship. My partner's dream of a group poly household had become more important to him than I was, so I left. Now, a mortgage isn't a marriage license—although I probably could have gotten a divorce faster and cheaper than I could have sold one-third of a house. But I'm extremely glad now that I didn't make a legal and financial commitment to two other people that I would have had to dissolve while going through an intense emotional upheaval with one of them.

No matter who you are, love is complicated. Anyone who thinks poly marriage is what all poly people want hasn't met many poly people, because groups of poly partners living together long-term is actually not that common. Of all my polyamorous friends, I can count on one hand the households where multiple partners have all happily cohabitated for many years. If you can find one person to love and live happily with your whole life, you're doing very well. The odds of finding two, and having all of you want to commit to each other and live together forever? Roughly like hitting the polyamory Powerball. But being in love doesn't have to include a ring or a big white cake. To be polyamorous is to let your heart grow to hold many loving relationships that come in different shapes and sizes. Once you've learned to do that, why would you try to squeeze it back down into a pattern built for two? recommended

Mistress Matisse is a professional dominatrix who writes about BDSM, polyamory, and sex work. Follow her on Twitter @mistressmatisse.

 

Comments (27) RSS

Newest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
27
I live in a stable "W". I don't find this reasoning convincing at all http://polyskeptic.com/2013/03/20/why-po…
Posted by wfenza on March 20, 2013 at 7:53 PM · Report
26
Excellent Comment!

Marriage is a tool for oppression not for liberation! Do Bonobos marry???
Posted by Equinoxious on March 4, 2013 at 1:49 PM · Report
25
It seems that there are lots of people who idealize having a group relationship. It's not impossible for more than two people to realize they all want to be together, but the more people who are added, the more unlikely it is that everyone will genuinely like everyone else. So I feel like some people who are really keen on group relationships might be trying to force something together. It is much more complicated and I suspect that poly marriage would for the most part just mean a return to polygyny. By the time poly marriage is a viable issue, I'd rather see marriage de-institutionalized.
Posted by sbc on February 25, 2013 at 7:31 PM · Report
24
I'm in a stable triad with my husband and my wife. Our biggest difficulty in not being able to recognize our wife legally is with insurance. I recently looked at what it would cost for me to get a single policy (not through an employer) and discovered that it would cost me more than it would cost her. If that had not been the case, I would have pushed for a legal divorce between me and our husband and then a legal marriage between the two of them. Between my health issues and hers, we're really struggling to figure out how to cover us all affordably, with access to quality care.

Posted by annekaelber on February 18, 2013 at 2:05 PM · Report
23
As a man in a stable triad with two lovely partners I found your article dismayingly convincing. Although I can envision a not-too-complicated tax structure for poly families who wish to file jointly (we could get around this hurdle; likewise we could write wills to ensure proper disposal of our estates), my wife and I would like to have the ability to list our “girlfriend” as a beneficiary of our health and life insurance policies, for example. Furthermore, and more vitally, we would like for her to be recognized as an equal, integral partner instead of an outsider. That being said, your argument regarding the lack of political interest in (read: fundraising for) universal marriage equality seems insurmountably dispositive.

Far from embracing poly love, the LGBT community (with its immensely powerful lobby) has done its darndest to distinguish itself from people like my partners and me (even though they are bisexual, and embracing any iteration of coupledom would leave them un-whole).
I am reminded of the contemporaneous struggle undergone by African and female Americans: although both groups strove for similar goals, they often found that speaking up for the “other” was disadvantageous, because doing so risked alienating their support base. Without the backing of proponents of marriage equality (and because of Mormon history, and the concomitant bias which prevails to this day), modern polygamists cannot expect to be taken seriously, or treated with equal respect.

All we can hope for is to be treated with disinterest. That is, the State should never intrude upon our home. You may have no personal desire to live in a ‘sister-wives’ situation, but we do. (I expect the pivotal difference is that my partners love each other too.) Should we choose to have children (which commitment is incalculably more permanent than marriage or buying a house), we will demand the right to be left alone. No nosy interference from child-welfare agencies or any b.s. like that. Ideally, our kids will even be able to play with their neighbors’ without getting called plygs.

We’re fortunate that we live in Seattle. For now, our friends actually think our thing is pretty cool.
More...
Posted by gypsysattva http://gypsysattva.wordpress.com on February 18, 2013 at 12:31 PM · Report
22
I have spent the last 14 years in a poly triad (actually a V) that is still going strong. The three of us have lived together since 2000. A few years ago the woman in the center married the other man, mostly so she could get on his work health insurance plan. And I simply don't care that she's married to him and not me, and don't care about having the right to marry her also. We're married already in every way that matters except the legal perks. Maybe the day will come when I will be denied some rights I ought to have as a spouse, and then I will give a shit. But I will NOT support marriage between more than two people until it is legally clarified that a corporation is not actually a human being after all. The nightmare visions that provokes ...
Posted by scottycam on February 18, 2013 at 12:18 PM · Report
21 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
20
Aw, poor Matisse! I thought she and Max would be a permanent thing....
Posted by Sad.Fan. on February 18, 2013 at 10:21 AM · Report
19
I find your stance on this issue surprisingly conservative, Mistress. I mean, just because polyamorous marriage would present legal and logistical difficulties doesn't mean it shouldn't happen, or you shouldn't fight for it. "Being in love doesn't have to include a ring or a big white cake" is a terrible argument against marriage equality, and I might add, can be used against same-sex marriage. Your anecdotal experiences and discussions with your friends about Polyamory does not prove there is no support out there for Poly Marriage. I'm sorry you had some bad experiences with cohabitation, but you need to realize that not all people are introverts and not all partners are like that property-obsessed ex of yours. You mentioned that you could count on one hand the number of happy poly households that have cohabitated for many years. Don't you think at least some of those people would enjoy things like hospital visitation rights, next of kin status, and adoption privileges? Sure, Polyamorous Marriage doesn't seem likely now, but neither did gay marriage before Stonewall, or even 20 years ago. So when Poly Marriage does happen, maybe don't stand in the way?
Posted by Brandon J. on February 18, 2013 at 2:53 AM · Report
18
Here's another reason why poly marriage won't easily follow same-sex marriage: The implementation of same-sex marriage is bureaucratically trivial: Change the text in some forms and laws, from "Husband / Wife" to "Spouse 1 / Spouse A" and Bob's yer uncle. But adjusting laws, tax codes, etc. to accommodate more than two spouses? A bureaucratic nightmare. It'll never happen. Better to stick with legal constructs that already exist -- like the LLP mentioned in previous comments.

In "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" ("There ain't no such thing as a free lunch") Robert Heinlein describes some interesting variations on multiple marriage. The main character, Mannie, is a junior member of an arrangement called "line marriage".

Posted by Swobbie on February 18, 2013 at 12:05 AM · Report
17
I wouldn't bet against that type of matrimonial arrangement from becoming legal here.
Posted by 5th Columnist on February 17, 2013 at 12:45 PM · Report
16
Gay and lesbian activists didn't throw poly people "under the bus" because there IS NO BUS! Same-sex marriage is not the same as poly-marriage. GLBT people have been working since Stonewall to achieve rights. Like Matisse said, poly marriage isn't even a defined thing. You can't legalize something when you can't even say what it is! If people want to figure out a way to do legal poly marriage, I have no problem with it, but don't act like non-poly gay and lesbian people owed them something.
Posted by LidaRose on February 16, 2013 at 2:47 AM · Report
doloresdaphne 15
The biggest reason I can see for poly marriage to not ever happen is that the (same sex) marriage equality movement very vocally distanced itself from polyamory in its efforts to get the conservative christian right on side.

Many marriage equality activists threw the poly people under the bus in order to achieve its rights.

This article made me think of the slogan "not gay as in happy, but queer as in fuck you," which to me, captured the split between sexual freedom, (Queer), vs. the modest demand for same sex marriage equality.

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4061/44944…

Posted by doloresdaphne on February 15, 2013 at 11:21 PM · Report
14
you cant just put "professional" on the front of anything
Posted by pblake123 on February 15, 2013 at 4:58 PM · Report
13
Poly marriage will not happen because of the federal tax code, Social Security . . . but the printing industry and the lawyers would love it.

Or maybe the state should issue boyfriend/girlfriend licenses. The names on the license could select a six month, year or five year expiration date. Any number of people or combo could be on the license.

Reserve "marriage" for an open ended contract.
Posted by billwald on February 15, 2013 at 4:55 PM · Report
12
@1: Actually, marriage is about love AND all that you mention. To me, this is one big reason why modern marriage is flawed. It just doesn't work for the majority of people. If you didn't love somebody, why would you want to be so legally and financially intertwined? And when you no longer love somebody, now you are legally pitted against your former partner to undo all that, making the entire process a nightmare.

Now, for those crazy enough to still want to do it, I think the state should have some mechanism available for any number of consenting adults (regardless of gender, of course) to enter into some legal benefits parallel to what we currently have with marriage, and otherwise be out of the marriage business altogether.
Posted by Paul F on February 15, 2013 at 2:21 PM · Report
11
With the proper legal instruments (LLPs are a good idea) and custody arrangements, polyamorous legal unions could work. If you solve the practical problems, I have no moral objection. So long as the gender ratios don't get too skewed as to cause social upheaval, go for it.
Posted by wxPDX on February 15, 2013 at 12:04 PM · Report
10
Yay, a new Mistress Matisse article! I'm used to hearing polyamorous people argue in favour of poly marriage, so it was especially interesting to hear someone say 'meh' to marriage.
Posted by Stabbity on February 14, 2013 at 6:11 PM · Report
9
Very well said! I always get such great perspective after reading something you wrote. How I've missed your writing and insights!
Posted by Ticia on February 14, 2013 at 4:33 PM · Report
8
Time for some Biblical truths amid the post-modern, amoral confusion: Marriage is between one man and one woman. It's Biblical. Now, I know Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines, but that was before he came to Jesus and repented and wrote the Song of Solomon: a guidebook for sanctified, Christian, Godly sex. I posted on this issue the other day. Read the Truth about Homosexuality here: http://lifeonmarsmountain.wordpress.com/…
Posted by Dale Deakins on February 14, 2013 at 1:20 PM · Report
Enjua 7
My slippery slope went the other way. I actually got interested in gay marriage by being in favor of poly marriage first. I was in college, dating a guy who was also dating another person, and I thought about the fact that we couldn't all get married. It didn't seem fair. And then I thought about other people who couldn't get married, including gay folks, and gay marriage seemed like a pretty good idea

I was monogamously married for about seven years in the interim, but I'm back to being actively polyamorous. And I'm completely uninterested in ever being married again. Not to one person, not to three people, not at all. But I do wish that poly people who wanted to be married could be married. It's not the kind of polyamory I'm interested in, but is is the kind of polyamory a lot of people at least idealize (including Mistress Matisse's ex, it seems).

Personally, I want to live with a lot of people who I get along very well with. It's OK with me if some of them are lovers or important emotional partners live with me. If I live alone, or only with roommates who aren't that important to me, that's OK, too. What isn't OK for me is to have one person who is my emotional, sexual, and economic touchstone, who I live with and love and am strongly interdependent with. I dislike not just marriage and monogamy, but both the assumption and the system that you should find a person to share your life with.

What I want to do about marriage is weaken it. Make fewer and fewer laws and benefits depend upon it, make society not expect it, make it one strange choice some weirdos make. And I think those weirdos should be able to be polyamorous in addition to being monogamous.

So chalk me up as one more polyamormous person who isn't going to do any fundraising or activism for polyamorous marriage. It's for different reasons than Mistress Matisse (polyamory is quite a broad category), but I agree with essential conclusion.
More...
Posted by Enjua on February 14, 2013 at 8:11 AM · Report
6
If you think Eric`s story is impossible,, 3 weeks ago my uncle basically brought home $4448 putting in eighteen hours a week an their house and their best friend's half-sister`s neighbour has done this for 6 months and actually earned over $4448 parttime on line. apply the guidelines available here...
JUMP30.ℂOM
Posted by judiqw on February 14, 2013 at 6:41 AM · Report
5
FIRST, I SEE A CARTOON OF A CHICKEN AND A PUPPY GETTING MARRIED. NOW, HERE IS AN ARTICLE ABOUT POLY-MARRIAGE.

SO, SINCE gays NOW HAVE A FEW RIGHTS, THEY CAN STOP PRETENDING AND BE THE REAL FREAKS HETEROSEXUALS ALWAYS HAVE KNOWN THEY ARE.

CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON
Posted by CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON on February 13, 2013 at 7:29 PM · Report
4
And this is why I'm a fan of Limited Liability Partnerships. LLPs are a legal entity through which property ownership can be shared, health insurance and funds established, tax shelters utilized, and distribution of benefits realized. It even provides certain asset protections you can't get with a marriage license. Poly folks who are really committed to long-term relationship should look more into this.
Posted by silverbackbob on February 13, 2013 at 11:51 AM · Report
ScrawnyKayaker 3
Biggest obstacle to reich-wing pearl-clutchers' fantasy about gay marriage leading to plural marriage? The courts. Any judge can see that gar marriage has little effect on anything.

But if you can marry MULTIPLE people? Kaboom! Fer example: insurance companies then have no way of knowing how many additional people will become associated with one insured's policy. Not acceptable. And as we learned from Obamacare, in the USA, what insurance companies want, they get.
Posted by ScrawnyKayaker on February 13, 2013 at 11:46 AM · Report
Lissa 2
Thank you! So well put. I'm sorry about your break up. It's hard enough to have to go through that with out also having had your relationship viewed as some sort of Gold Standard by others.
I know a big poly household and the never ending battle for hot water in the morning alone is enough to make me shudder. My little Polycule works best with us all having our own spaces.
Posted by Lissa on February 13, 2013 at 11:43 AM · Report
1
I think you hit on the important point, although obliquely. Marriage isn't about love. You can have all the love you want, without it.

Marriage is about property, about survivor's benefits, parental rights, taxation and a whole bunch of other stuff that's completely complicated with just two partners. If it was just about love, it'd be a cinch. But once you get down to issues about spousal pension benefits, income tax exemptions, and estate distributions, it would be impossible to write a single set of fair rules to apply to everyone, that could be uniformly interpreted by courts and such.

Setting aside all the moral claptrap from the yammering fools, the real problem is that of practical implementation.

Posted by Brooklyn Reader on February 13, 2013 at 11:01 AM · Report

Add a comment

Most Commented in Features