Sexual Morality and Marriage

by Lucas Fernandes

Plural Marriage in America
The New York Times Room for Debate: Should Plural Marriage Be Legal? opens up an
interesting discussion on whether or not plural marriage has democratic value. Ron Den Otter
and Melynda Price seem to agree that pluralism in America should be legalized, as the equal
distribution of marital rights offers a greater chance for social democracy: for Otter, plural
marriage is no different from same-sex marriage; for Price, plural marriage is another boundary
breaker and should be perceived as meritorious, as a stepping stone for high egalitarian
freedom. Others like W. Bradford Wilcox and Shoshana Grossbard believe that plural marriage is
a step in the wrong direction and inherently harmful to women. The authors John Corvino and
Ralph Richard Banks scrutinize the underlying questions: What are the merits of pluralism, and
do or do not those who engage in polyamory deserve our respect?
For the most part, I am on the fence on this issue. While I agree we must strive for socially
egalitarian communities, I am skeptical of pluralisms merit in our time. The introductory image
on the NYTs Room for Debate page on this issue depicts a suited man surrounded by four
women, all seemingly unaware of the resulting discussions.

Price remarks that by legalizing pluralism, the greater freedom to determine the
architecture of own marriages comes into existence. This comment struck me as trivially liberal,
1 FERNANDES
and equally dangerous: does absolute marital freedom compensate for the threat of marital
anarchy? By this I mean, is more, simply, better? She says, We have moved in slow, plodding
steps from a nation that practiced widespread exclusion to a more expansive democracy of
this I am proud; it has taken us ages indeed to recognize homosexuals, women, and non-white
people as merely human beings and still discrimination, sexism, and racism are threaded into
our culture. We have come a long way, but there is a long way to go. Is marital pluralism the next
step? It remains to be seen.
Grossbard and Wilcox both make compelling arguments about pluralisms potentially
harmful characteristics, citing its maltreatment of women and child neglect. I can see how this is
an issue in an age when feminism is socially and politically prevalent. Pluralism, by nature,
suggests that women (and even men) have a market value a bride price as Grossbard says.
Therefore, by advocating plural marriage, the threat of a marital capitalism becomes evermore
pervasive and feeds the institutions which keep men at the center of all societal, cultural, and
political establishments.
I am thus open to more debating; I am curious to understand why pluralism might or
might not be creditable and suggest that the discussion remains active. Only by discussing and
understanding do we have a chance to progress, and we must progress.
2 FERNANDES