Thursday, January 5, 2012

Santorum on the three-way, bigots on the left

Here we go again.  This afternoon Rick Santorum was booed loudly and roundly at a collegiate event (hello?  fellow professors?) in New Hampshire when, challenged on his rejection of civil marriage for gays and lesbians, he suggested that such a right might also include marriages consisting of three or more partners.

(In the past, he has, idiotically, also suggested that the argument for gay marriage might be extended to "man on dog."  I'm not even fond of dogs in the conventional sense so, yes, this does seem like a different case to me.  Call me conservative.  But for heaven's sake, don't call this guy Mr. President.  Nevertheless...)

Those on the left of him (most of the room) seemed to think that introducing the idea that the grounds for gay marriage and the grounds for plural marriage are similar constitutes a smear campaign designed to make gay marriage seem radical.  But the grounds for these two cases are not similar, they are the same.  If marriage is to be understood as a civil institution joining two people together in a contract that includes things like commitment and intimacy and fulfillment and a communion of support, well, why would this be limited to duets?

I'm not being sarcastic here.  I can readily imagine a home of two men and one woman, maybe with a child or two from a previous marriage or one of the sexual unions, in which the three adults are genuinely committed to a community of intimacy and partnership.  We always imagine the suggestion of plural unions as swinging sexy "three-fers," when in fact, I'm guessing, in real life these communities may well develop out of a web of long-term friendships and support (you know, the way your marriage did).

You are disagreeing, saying we outlawed this already.  Didn't I just see the trial, with oppressed pale women in oversize Laura Ingalls Wilder get-ups and a really sick misogynist at the helm of it all? Well, yes.  But these sins are not unique to people living in compounds in rural Idaho, bad romances are all over my lovely Connecticut suburb.  If the guy on TV had been happy with just one abused woman, of course, this would all be on the up and up.

The point here is that we have already, in the civil realm, re-defined marriage in such a way that plural marriage is simply another form of Heather's two mommies and Tommy's life with his single dad and your cousin's two-person straight marriage on the beach with a Universal life minister. The consensus at the moment is to regard civil marriage as a private deal about the happiness of those involved, and the rest is none of your business.

Santorum is quite right to point this out, and those who boo to shut down thinking are the bigots in the room.