A polygamous breakthrough

I know we've had this discussion before, but I had what I think is a pretty good idea just now.

We all know the terms of the debate: one side says that same-sex marriage is a slippery slope that will lead to polygamy, cats & dogs living together, and general chaos in the Republic. The other side counters that it's completely ridiculous to assume same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy (or polyamory), but when pressed to define the legal difference between a partnership of "two" and of "three," comes up a little short. Now throw all of that out the window. I'm redefining the debate.

The state should have nothing to do with marriage whatsoever beyond the simple recognition of the creation of a partnership. The actual ceremony and 'significance' of the marriage to the individuals are private matters, really; all the government cares about is whether they're getting joint or separate tax returns and how much of the estate they get. On that basis, same-sex marriage between consenting adults (at whatever age the state defines that) is as equally valid as marriage between two heterosexual consenting adults.

Now, with the government out of the "marriage business" - beyond recognition of partnership - it would seem at first that this opens the gate wide for multiple-partner relationships without limit. Indeed, if marriage is merely a legal partnership, certainly there is no difference between a partnership of two, three, or forty, right? Certainly this would lead to fifteen people insincerely getting 'partnerships,' mocking the idea behind it, and creating chaos with our tax codes?

But here's where an interpretation of partnership, especially, the economic angle of it, becomes more important in my reading of the issue. In the business world, when a group of people pool their assets toward a common venture, and wish to be treated as a single entity for tax purposes, we call it a corporation.Well, there you have a solid analogy with polygamous marriage, don't you?

If five people (of various genders, it makes no difference) want to come together, fine, but legally speaking we can't consider it a simple partnership of the same kind as heterosexual or same-sex monogamous marriage.

So it can't fall under the same heading of 'partner benefits' as far as the government as concerned. It's a corporation!

And as we all know, corporations are designed for different purposes and have different numbers of shareholders. There's a vast diversity, from four people at an Internet start-up to millions of people all owning publicly-traded Wal-Mart. It would be the same with these 'polygamous corporations,' in fact, the exact same. Some of these partnerships would be two women and one man, some would be three men and one woman, and so on.

This framework has a built-in defense against the kind of abuse that would occur were we to extend 'partnership' to polyamorous unions. For one, the by-laws of the poly-corporation would be a matter of public record and have to conform to existing laws. As a result, each shareholder (if you will) would have certain legal rights and privileges, so if the union devolved into a harem-like tyranny of one man (the usual liberal argument against it), legal recourse could be swift for the aggrieved parties. At the same time, the social conservatives have no argument against it, either. It's not defaming the 'sacred name of marriage' : it's a corporation! Are we going to intrude on the individual right to form a joint-stock company? What are we, communists? And seriously, you've never heard of anyone being 'married to their work' before?

So there you have it. The government out of our bedrooms and into our boardrooms. Give it a thought.

And to my heterosexual male readers out there: I came up with this idea while having a particularly fruitful discussion of social issues with Boudicca. If you meet a woman with whom you can have a sensible discussion about abortion, consider marrying her.

Update: Sullivan references the same-sex marriage debate and related issues in a post about Mary Cheney here.