Prompted by this story in Slate.com: The article is about a Muslim American woman, highly educated, an editor who works from her home, who has written a book about being one of two wives who share a husband. All are Muslims, and the subject admits that, while she was first upset by her husband’s decision to take a second wife, she’s now apparently OK with it.
Now, let me state emphatically that my upbringing, my respect for people, and my spiritual/religious beliefs preclude polygamy. It does, as the Slate article so aptly puts it, give me the heebie jeebies.
But as I assessed my objections to it, I realized they they are all what I consider cultural objections. That doesn’t make them any less important to me, but it does make them nobody’s business but mine. I know the common legal justification for legislating behavior is that it’s best for society, mainly in the way resources are distributed. Marriage is a state-recognized contract, and as long as all parties to the contract are happy with what happens if one or more of the parties dies or leaves the union, why would the rest of us care what the contract says? I think this is the main argument gays make (and one I subscribe to) when arguing that they should be allow to enter into same-sex marriage.
So, while the idea still gives me the heebie jeebies, and while my unsupported opinion is that it’s nothing more than a dodge for older men to have sex with lots of (younger) women, it does seem to stand the reason test for legality. Or does it?