I’m unclear:

1. Are we supposed to be afraid that America is going to legalize polygamy?
2. Am I supposed to be really bent out of shape about that?

I’m late checking out this cover article from a Weekly Standard from June 6, but they seem to think the answers are: (1) yes; (2) should be.

I suppose my reason for doubting the case that the author — Stanley Kurtz — makes for polygamy being the next tidal wave to hit is that he seems to base so much of it on two TV shows: an Egyptian one about an old guy courting his second wife and HBO’s “Big Love” about a polygamous family. Um … yeahhh? That hardly strikes me as proof of a coming earthquake.

On the other hand, I feel a little less complacent about (2) than I did. Should I get bent out of shape? I was happy to stay on the sidelines and consider that having major objections to the very idea of polygamy was one of those “Protestant things.” What I hadn’t considered was that the people who are very interested in seeing marriage redefined in order to legitimize gay unions are willing to try an end run. Eat away at some other variations on the theme of one man and one woman, and you’ve got an opening to exploit.

Of course, liberal law professors aren’t defending polygamy out of affection for patriarchy. Their goal is to establish the principle that individuals have the right to create and define their families as they see fit. Ultimately, that would put same-sex marriage, polyamory, nonsexual group partnerships, and even singlehood on a par with traditional marriage, resulting in the effective abolition of marriage itself as a legal status.

I try not to be a conspiracy nut unless it’s really, really necessary. Is there a Vast Left-wing Conspiracy out at the Berkeley School of Advanced Liberal Law and Social Engineering coming up with gameplans for undoing everything sacred? No. But the events of the last fifty years or so have started forces in motion that seem to take many, many people along in their current. People who are taking any measures necessary to undermine the institution of marriage may not consider that they are doing it out of any bad intention; they may just worship a god whose name is Progressiveness or Freedom or (heaven forbid) Fairness in All Things, and that god may demand more and more by way of sacrifice.

It’s hard to feel like we’re all that close to having the legal precedence to launch an attack on monogamous marriage, but then I didn’t think we were anywhere close to legally sanctioned gay marriage until the state of Massachusetts went for it.

So, apart from the effect on one-woman, one-man marriage, is polygamy in and of itself a bad thing? It does, after all, have biblical precendent. There are stories of terrible abuses, but the pro-polygamists hasten to say that one could say the same of monogamy if one only looked at “bad” monogamy.

But here’s where Kurtz brings in some interesting analysis. The problem is that in order to get “good” polygamy, you have to have a societal situation that rarely exists in this country:

Yet [pro-polygamous law professor Angela] Campbell never stops to ask what it takes to make polygamy work. The answer: a set of rules and attitudes that could never be imported to North America, except in the few closed, authoritarian communities where “patriarchal” polygamy actually flourishes today. The Bamanan deflect jealousy by deemphasizing love. Bamanan marriages are arranged by families, and a sleep-rotation schedule damps down individual attachments. Economic success depends on having a large family labor force, and jealousy over newcomers is countered by apprenticing junior wives to senior wives, who closely supervise their daily work.

This same emphasis on rules and hierarchy within a tightly bound group explains why the Bedouin children studied by Al-Krenawi turn out all right. Things get better when Bedouin kids grow up and receive surrogate parenting from their extended kin. But that depends on giving up what Al-Krenawi calls “the Western liberal conception of individual autonomy.” To get all that surrogate parenting, the Bedouin adopt an “authoritarian and group-oriented” identification with an extended family and tribe. And consider “sororal polygamy,” easily the most emotionally successful variant of polygamy world-wide. In sororal polygamy, a man marries a set of sisters, minimizing jealousy. It’s a clever strategy, but just try adapting such kin-based preferences and arranged marriages to the United States.

The author goes so far as to say that you can’t have both democracy and polygamy.

Exclusive affection for a unique individual is the structural foundation on which Western families are built. In polygamous societies, where marriages are arranged and wives and children live collectively, too much individualized love (for spouses or children) endangers group solidarity. Yet in a democratic society, individualized love is praised and cultivated as the foundation of family stability. So take your pick. You can have a love-based democratic culture of monogamy, or an authority-based hierarchical culture of polygamy. But … you can’t have both.

I’m not that worried that our form of government will disappear without a whimper, but Kurtz’ observations on the end goal of “polyamory” did get my attention.

It is inherently difficult to keep multipartner unions together. The traditional solution is to rely on rules, clear lines of authority, the suppression of emotion, and a sense of obligation to kin. Collective solidarity is the material and spiritual payoff for all the sacrifice. Yet the polyamorists cultivate love, resist authority, dispense with organizational rules, and try to wish jealousy away. Once all the stability-inducing sacrifices have been dispensed with, impermanence is the inevitable result.

Polyamory is a cover-all term for a bewildering variety of relationship forms — everything from open marriage, to bisexual triads, to a man with multiple women, to a woman with multiple men, to large sexual groups, and many more. The “rules” governing these arrangements are entirely flexible. There might be three “primary” partners who actually live together, and several additional “secondary” partners (collectively shared or not) to whom the three “primaries” are less committed. The levels of commitment, and the range of partnership and mutual involvement, are subject to continual change and renegotiation. Open and honest communication is the only rule. Polyamorists emphasize that multipartner unions take intense and constant work. Yet this need for a higher level of monitoring and negotiation only highlights the forces pushing against stability.

So, bottom line: we may begin having societal progressives pressing for something that appeals to them merely for its novelty, its ability to shock conventional people and its possible usefulness as a platform to usher in gay marriage. In order for it to succeed, monogamous marriage has to fail, the tremendous benefits of democracy have to be compromised and everyone has to close their eyes to the systemic problems.

Yep, sounds groovy. I can’t wait. Maybe Greg’s second wife will help pick him up at the airport.