After the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision requiring Massachusetts to recognize gay marriage, I wrote a column called, “The Binary Nature of Marriage: The Point of Two.” Based on the logic of the Massachusetts’ court, I reasoned if the male-female union is no longer vital to the legal definition of marriage then nothing is sacred about the number two, as in a couple. Many of my critics protested that no one would seriously or legally consider eroding the binary nature of marriage. Well, I think I can safely write, “I told you so” next to that column. The more-than-two crowd is not even waiting until gay marriage is institutionalized to begin looking for their place at the altar. Wait and see: the chapel is going to get crowded.

In a recent San Francisco Chronicle article, reporter Don Lattin wrote about a group called the Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness (UUPA). Mr. Lattin described the polyamorist movement as “another front in the liberal crusade to expand the definition of marriage and family in America.” Expand is an apt word. According to UUPA, polyamory is “the philosophy and practice of loving or relating intimately to more than one other person at a time with honesty and integrity.''

Some within the leadership of the polyamory movement, many of whom identify as bisexual, favor making civil marriage open to three or more people. In the Chronicle article, Jasmine Walston, president of UUPA, said, "We're where the gay rights movement was 30 years ago.''

Lest you dismiss these individuals as a fringe posing no serious challenge to the coupled nature of marriage, consider the current case pitting three people who wish to legally marry against the state of Utah. Two of the individuals were already married and wished to include another woman in the bliss via a marriage license from Salt Lake City. When they were refused, the trio filed suit in Federal district court. According to their attorney, Brian Barnard: "This prohibition of polygamist relationships is as unconstitutional as Texas' prohibition against homosexual sodomy because it criminalizes a private sexual relationship between consenting adults." Precedent is in place; if government can’t regulate adult sexual relationships in any form then how can it regulate the number of people who wish to enter them? Following Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court logic, if one feels constrained by religious belief or sexual orientation to enter polyamorous relationships, then how can government withhold the civil benefits of marriage?

Finally, are these reports concerning advocacy for legal recognition of multiple spouses related to the current political push for same sex marriage? While no doubt different same sex marriage proponents have different motives, one advocate of gay marriage seems to see the legal recognition of same sex marriage as just one step toward more diversity in relationships. Concerning the right of gays to marry, Matt Foreman of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force recently was quoted saying:

“We want full equality under the law, which, right now, means the freedom to marry. But we're also hopeful that we create different ways in which people can form relationships and families that don't come with all the baggage and the downsides of marriage. One of the great things about where we're going is that we are creating new ways for people to relate, new ways for people to obtain rights and benefits.” (pridesource.com, 4/29/04; emphasis added)

What are “the baggage and downsides of marriage?” If marriage is so bad, then why is Mr. Foreman’s organization fighting so hard to get it? He wants to attain the right to marry in order to get the right to something else. So what could be different than same sex marriage between two people or opposite sex marriage between two people?

If you are puzzled by the meaning of “different ways in which people can form relationships and families” referred to by Mr. Foreman, I suspect there are some people in the UUPA and the state of Utah who could help you understand.

I told you so.

Dr. Warren Throckmorton