![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsIf you're poly, remember this name: Elizabeth F. Emens. Ms. Emens has written an absolutely brilliant paper called Compulsory Monogamy and Polyamorous Existence, available only in paper from The New York University Review of Law and Social Change, a journal for which my uncle used to be senior editor.
Emens makes a rather elegant case for extending the logic of gay marriage to legalized polyamory. She extends the argument from bisexuality: first, accept that some people do manage to be monogamous their whole lives, but also accept that many do not. There exists a continuum of individuals from intensely monogamous to intensely polyamorous, just as there exists a contiuum of individuals from intensely heterosexual to intensely homosexual. The argument from innateness is irrelevant. The question is simple: how do we adress the moral needs of those existent people now at the far end of the spectrum?
And Emens has an utterly, wonderfully clever argument for putting polyamorous relationships on a strong legal footing: covenant marriage.
A few states offer covenant marriages. The idea is simple: A covenant marriage is not covered under no-fault divorce laws. Instead of a traditional marriage license, the couple chooses to get a covenant marriage license which mandates, in part, that the couple may not get divorced without first receiving counselling and spending a significant period of time separated but actively seeking reconciliation.
It's clear from the source that covenant marriage is a religiously-inspired idea, but it's also clear that since anyone can apply for it, it serves a quasi-secular purpose and so is legal under the Establishment Clause.
If that's the case, Emens proposes her alternative: nonmongamous marriage. If the right can craft a menu of marriage licenses from "standard" to "strict," she suggests making monogamy itself another item on the menu. Couples could choose up front, by agreement, that their marriage will not include monogamy as a given.
This is something polyamorists have been arguing for years: that the assumption of monogamy in marriage, without explicit discussion, is harmful to marriage in general. Emens has created the foundation of a framework for mainstreaming polyamory while leaving intact the structure the right has been trying to create-- indeed, she's using their tools.
The American tradition of "fairness and equality before the law" now becomes a crowbar in the hand of polyamorists: if they have a law for their way of marriage, why can't polyamorists have one as well?
Emens makes a rather elegant case for extending the logic of gay marriage to legalized polyamory. She extends the argument from bisexuality: first, accept that some people do manage to be monogamous their whole lives, but also accept that many do not. There exists a continuum of individuals from intensely monogamous to intensely polyamorous, just as there exists a contiuum of individuals from intensely heterosexual to intensely homosexual. The argument from innateness is irrelevant. The question is simple: how do we adress the moral needs of those existent people now at the far end of the spectrum?
And Emens has an utterly, wonderfully clever argument for putting polyamorous relationships on a strong legal footing: covenant marriage.
A few states offer covenant marriages. The idea is simple: A covenant marriage is not covered under no-fault divorce laws. Instead of a traditional marriage license, the couple chooses to get a covenant marriage license which mandates, in part, that the couple may not get divorced without first receiving counselling and spending a significant period of time separated but actively seeking reconciliation.
It's clear from the source that covenant marriage is a religiously-inspired idea, but it's also clear that since anyone can apply for it, it serves a quasi-secular purpose and so is legal under the Establishment Clause.
If that's the case, Emens proposes her alternative: nonmongamous marriage. If the right can craft a menu of marriage licenses from "standard" to "strict," she suggests making monogamy itself another item on the menu. Couples could choose up front, by agreement, that their marriage will not include monogamy as a given.
This is something polyamorists have been arguing for years: that the assumption of monogamy in marriage, without explicit discussion, is harmful to marriage in general. Emens has created the foundation of a framework for mainstreaming polyamory while leaving intact the structure the right has been trying to create-- indeed, she's using their tools.
The American tradition of "fairness and equality before the law" now becomes a crowbar in the hand of polyamorists: if they have a law for their way of marriage, why can't polyamorists have one as well?
