My personal feelings about gay marriage are deeply, deeply influenced by my family history. It's something to think of yourself as normal, and then go out into the world and find out that your style is actually frowned on. Families need to be utilitarian, not doctrinal. If it works, let it work.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/mt-42/mt-tb.cgi/6330
First of all, TNC, thank you for writing so personally and so often about gay marriage. It sincerely means a lot that, given all the other topics you could devote your attention to, you choose to spend so much time on this one.
My experience was the reverse of yours. I was raised in a very conservative church, and I had the distinct impression for my entire adolescence that the whole word hated people like I knew myself to be, and found us revolting, sub-sinner-class reprobates. It wasn't until after I got out into the wider world that I learned that plenty of perfectly normal people, including other Christians like me, viewed gays as essentially normal.
Thanks for being honest. Reading this blog has changed my opinions about a lot of things and caused me to think more deeply about others.
"It's something to think of yourself as normal, and then go out into the world and find out that your style is actually frowned on"
I struggle with this every day. Middle class and upper middle class people have different norms and expectations which unlike among poorer people are never explicitly stated when a person violates them.
What you say about families should be applied to life.
Families need to be utilitarian, not doctrinal. If it works, let it work.
Ding! Ding!
I dunno if folks have read Katherine Newman's book, Falling From Grace, about white collar workers caught up in the downsizing mania of the 1980s. There's a brief section in there where she talks about gay men, and the fact that they were able to draw on "lateral networks" of close friends, and ended up with lower levels of depression and similar problems than did their straight counterparts. While reading her description, I kept thinking, "Those 'lateral networks' are what we call 'families of choice,'" those networks of friends, ex-lovers and their current lover, a couple of tricks that became friends, someone's mom, and the like. Those complicated circles of people on whom we draw for love and support and that don't fit those traditional definitions of family.
We need to support people, not impose rigid ideological definitions of what makes a "family." I'm a gay man who thinks the pursuit of marriage is too limited and clouds certain issues. What matters are relationships of interdependence--emotional, social, material, etc. Who you're sleeping with should have nothing to do with the availability of health care. You shouldn't be at risk of losing a jointly-owned home if one person dies just because you don't have a licensed marriage.
Great summary, Ta-Nehisi. And I really appreciated your earlier pic and post, and the whole discussion that's followed. I'd add that there's a sort of meta-challenge here: even if a person has settled on the practical arrangement that fits their life, it's very easy for kids in that arrangement to infer a doctrinal aspect to it: "the way I was brought up is the way to be brought up." We all know that kids love rules -- a lot of the time "playing a game" in the back yard with them is mostly about making the elaborate rules -- and it's important to engage with them about what the real rules are (e.g., love, respect, and self-respect) so they don't imagine that the more superficial stuff (rings, names, etc) constitutes the fundamentals.
Absolutely. One of my professors in undergrad was full of wise sayings, and she used to say that we should think about families in terms of what they do, not what they look like.
A family is a group of people who love, respect, and take care of one another. It isn't just Mom, Dad, 2.5 kids and a picket fence. Maybe you were raised by one parent. Maybe by your grandparents. Maybe you don't have kids, just close friends and loved ones. Maybe you have two dads. Maybe you have step-siblings. Maybe parts of your extended family live with you. Whatever it is, we shouldn't look down on people for the bonds that they have built in this world.
Of course part of the story is that in the U.S., families have had the luxury of being doctrinal... and/or the doctrinal family was a species of conspicuous consumption.
While I agree completely about the need for families to be utilitarian, I don't understand your stance on marriage, let alone gay marriage. Why aren't you and your partner married? I can support gay marriage because I think there are concrete advantages to participation in the "institution" that should not be denied to anyone. You, on the other hand, would seem to think that these advantages are not important enough to be worth pursuing.
I've written about this quite a few times actually, but it goes back to what I just said--if it works, let it work. This is what works for us. At some point, maybe something else will work. But for now, we're both very happy.
I'm as mystified by this response as I am by the one against gay marriage. The point isn't to find a system that's best for all humanity, but to empower people to make choices about what works for them.
How can marriage possibly diminish the love you feel? Plenty of people make the mistake of rushing into marriage or children with the hope that it will somehow magically improve what has been lacking. But it seems odd to me that anyone could believe the reverse, that marriage might somehow break what is already working.
Just Karl, you're not hearing the man. Relationship is a thing that people decide between and amongst themselves, as private a thing as there is (though, obviously, with a public face). They have determined a thing that works for them; you're insisting he explain why he doesn't want to step into one of your boxes.
This would be more justified if you wanted to make an argument for the societal importance of the marriage contract in particular. As it is, you're just expecting him to explain why his feelings and perceptions don't match yours.
I've long held that this is the basic distinction between liberals and conservatives, at least in our contemporary models. Today's conservatives are so resistant to the changing of form that they are blind to the continuity of function.
In my more cynical moments, I take a darker but similar position: conservatives oppose the change in form because they recognize the change in function—that white males no longer have singular power over everyone else—and their professed concern about the loving and supportive function of families is just cover. Which interpretation I hold today is a matter of how much I am willing to attribute motivations to people I don't know.
This would be more justified if you wanted to make an argument for the societal importance of the marriage contract in particular.
Wrong. Anyone who feels that a marriage contract has no societal importance can't possibly justify the need for gay marriage. The societal importance of the marriage contract is the reason to justify gay marriage
TNC, I defend same gender loving cats because growing up I went through some painful things. They are reflected in the political struggles I see them go through in social, religious, and political quarters. So when I speak up loudly, it's often very personal.
Loneoak, form and function = so true. I'm going to bite that one in my next discussion/debate, if you don't mind! ;-)
"Anyone who feels that a marriage contract has no societal importance can't possibly justify the need for gay marriage."
Karl, please point out a case when I've said that. I'm not a Christian either. But it would be ridiculous to extrapolate from that that I bekieve the church has "no societal importance." You can defend the right to choice, even if you'd never make the choice yourself. There are plenty of people who are pro-choice in regards to the law, but would never hae an aboirtion themselves.
If you have an argument please make it. But don't strawman your way there. Address the actual argument that I'm making--not the one you want me to make.
I don't know what your belief on gay marriage is or exactly how your beliefs are influenced by your family. If you will reread my original comment, I was asking you to clarify. In the absence of any stated beliefs I can only infer what those might be based on your actions (or lack thereof). I'm not trying to "box" you into getting married. I really don't care. I'm happy that you are happy with your family relationship. But, taken on it's face, it seems to imply that you don't believe marriage is important. For all I know you could believe that the government has no place getting involved at all. If you've talked about this before please refer me to your previous writing on the subject. I'm eager to read it.
As for making a strawman argument about the societal benefits of the marriage contract, these have been mentioned so often in the gay marriage debate that I thought them self evident at this point. Hospital visitation rights, inheritance, family leave, etc. etc. Are these not important to your family? Perhaps you are able to skate by on the implication of marriage or common law, where same sex partners would not be able to do the same, I don't know. But I think whatever the marriage laws are, they must be applied equally to everyone. Using your example of Big Love, do you believe that polygamy should be legalized. I don't. Where should we as a society draw the line? If it works, let it work is not adequate, in my view, to govern marriage or religious belief.
I can't tell if your intentionally ignoring the point or what--but I'll give it one last shot. Here was your question:
"Why aren't you and your partner married? I can support gay marriage because I think there are concrete advantages to participation in the "institution" that should not be denied to anyone. You, on the other hand, would seem to think that these advantages are not important enough to be worth pursuing."
Here is my answer:
Because we chose not to be. I don't support gay marriage because I think marriage is necessarily a societal good. It may well be, but that isn't my argument. I support it because I don't think gay people should be discriminated against. It's really that simple.
But what does that mean? Nothing is necessarily good or bad. Should everyone just be allowed to do whatever they want as long as there is mutual consent? Polygamy? Incest? Is it discrimination to deny these people the opportunity to get married? Where do you draw the line and why? I happen to believe that marriage is a societal good. Not only does it serve to establish consent and define the legal obligations and rights of the contract, but I think that the boundaries help individuals to maintain control over unhealthy emotions like lust and jealousy. Obviously it's not perfect, there are drawbacks, limitations, and plenty of failures, but to claim that any boundary is discrimination is to invite chaos. And chaos would require the need for further government intervention to settle the inevitably ugly disputes.
I believe marriage is a societal good therefore I believe it is discrimination to prevent two unrelated and consenting individuals of the same sex from achieving that good. To say that you don't know if something is good or not, and then claim it's discrimination to prevent someone from having it still seems confused to me. Is it discrimination for society to allow my grandfather to possess certain controlled substances but not me? Those drugs are good for him and would probably be bad for me and the rest of society. That is why can't I set that boundary for myself. If marriage were not a societal good then how can you argue that denying to anyone is discrimination?
I'm someone who is not sure that marriage as it has been traditionalized (for want of a better word) is a good thing, which is probably why I am a little like TNC -- never married, even though I'm currently in a very committed longterm relationship that I do not see ending before either of us bites the big one. But my ambivalence about marriage as a cultural institution does not stop me from being fully in support of the right of same-sex couples to enter into marriages. If marriage is a social good, then it is something that should not be denied to people based solely on the sex of the persons with whom they want to be wedded. If it's not, then that's hardly an argument for denying same-sex couples the opportunity to enter into the same flawed relationship structure straight folks are currently entitled to enter into on a whim (see, e.g., Britney Spears).
'Form over function' is the construct that allows well-intentioned folks to bear false witness to prevent two adults from getting married--because it's anti-family.
Function over form, family of choice, lateral networks are some of the names for the construct that family is made by action, not a particular legal or biological set of facts.
One of my state legislators, who bravely insists on carrying a marriage equality bill year after year even knowing that it will never get out of hearings, refers to the first type of thinkers as the Leave It To Beaver-ists. They aren't all Baptist or Catholic or Mormon, but they all worship Ward coming home at the end of a hard day of honkying to put his feet up and straight out the boys' problems, in 22 minutes.
The weirdest thing about the process of getting cleared to adopt was the requirement to get references from '3 people not in your family'. Yeah, anyone who knows me well enough to act as a personal reference for the activity of parenting IS going to be in my family, as I conceive family. And if you conceive family in the Leave It To Beaver-ist format, adoption may not be for you anyway.
You asked why I wasn't married. I answered--many times over. I put a lot of myself out there on this blog, so I understand that that necessarily opens me up to be critiqued. That's fine. But I'm human, and I have my limits. Listening to people speak--with absolute certainty--about what's best for the lives of my loved ones, tests those limits.
I think I've been pretty good about indulging your questions about my life. But some boundaries are now appropriate. They're very simple--you can ask me anything, I probably will answer. But insisting that your sure about what's best for me and mine is a step too far.
If it's not, then that's hardly an argument for denying same-sex couples the opportunity to enter into the same flawed relationship structure straight folks are currently entitled to enter into on a whim (see, e.g., Britney Spears).
For me, Britney Spears is an argument for tighter controls and restrictions like requiring premarital counseling. Certainly I believe that same-sex couples should not be denied the opportunity, though. I just don't think the argument is best made by individuals who lack the desire to get married in the first place. I guess I see it like someone who doesn't vote but wants the electoral college system to be changed.
Whoa, dude. Have I been repeatedly asking why you are not married or something? I asked once and got the answer that you like baked chicken and because you choose to. Neither is really an answer but that's fine. When have I suggested what's best for you and yours or criticized your choices? Me thinks you doth protest too much.
I'm not trying to "box" you into getting married. I really don't care. I'm happy that you are happy with your family relationship.
I thought I was pretty clear. I'm happy if you are happy. I was simply curious as to whether there was a philosophy behind your choice. If there is, I don't feel that you expressed it. Maybe you did and I just didn't understand it.
If you have an argument please make it.
I thought it was you who asked me to make a case for marriage as a societal good. None of what I wrote was intended as an attack on you. And I'm not absolutely certain of my thoughts on any of this. I'm trying to work them out as I type.
"Today's conservatives are so resistant to the changing of form that they are blind to the continuity of function." loneoak
TR: I would say, when it comes to the family, this is more every generation of conservatives and that it crosses cultures as well. The "form" of a family is almost certainly meaningful to most "conservatives" of Japan or Senegal or Bhutan or Greenland.
If the family is "a group of people who love, respect, and take care of one another" it is essentially no different from any mutually beneficial social unit. The commune, support group, book club, gun club, Green Party chapter, etc can all be families by this perspective. To see the family in utilitarian terms, not distinct from any social unit, is always going to be the more liberal/progressive position.
The conservative perspective is pretty much by definition going to be about permanence and nature of things. The people on my College Bowl team are not still people in my College Bowl team. College Bowl doesn't even exist anymore. My cousin is my cousin no matter if I end up liking her much less than any of my former team-mates. My sister is my sister regardless. I'd think, at the least, the conservative position would almost always indicate being raised with someone does make a difference. This is because of the nature of early childhood experiences and how they effect us.
And I'm probably ticking people off again, but I'd tried to phrase this as gently as I could.
Just Karl, you're just asking like an entitled jerk. Deal with it when you're treated as such. TNC has explained himself well, but you obviously just want him to admit he's wrong and get married tomorrow. Nobody has to answer to you for your life choices.
"I would say, when it comes to the family, this is more every generation of conservatives and that it crosses cultures as well. The "form" of a family is almost certainly meaningful to most "conservatives" of Japan or Senegal or Bhutan or Greenland.
If the family is "a group of people who love, respect, and take care of one another" it is essentially no different from any mutually beneficial social unit. The commune, support group, book club, gun club, Green Party chapter, etc can all be families by this perspective. To see the family in utilitarian terms, not distinct from any social unit, is always going to be the more liberal/progressive position."
I think it is interesting that you do bring up African societies here. In some African societies, including in parts of Nigeria, your identity and your name is defined on social situations and interactions within a larger society. Your name is different depending on with whom you are talking. (A professor of African history I studied under was brought in to testify as an expert witness for a fraud case against a Nigerian national living in the US, pointing out the fact that he had multiple IDs from Nigeria with different names was actually quite normal where he was from and did not constitute evidence of an intent to commit fraud.) Family is a more sprawling concept (especially when you add in the effects of polygamy) than in monogamous nuclear European Christian forms of 2 parents and 2.5 kids.
Being raised by an Indian immigrant mom who grew up in mostly Europe and Africa and a white Republican Catholic dad, I've grown up with multiple definitions of what family means within just my own family. On my mom's side, people who are not related by blood are considered family. I eventually stopped trying to reconstruct who is related to who because those webs are so complicated and a lot of the time they are family without a blood or marriage tie to anyone. The lines were so cross-cutting it was understood that a friend's parents could act in parentis locus (sp?) in her biological parents' absence with her parents' approval and yell at her if necessary. My mom's home growing up was always filled with people having lunch, having dinner, bringing their kids over to play, etc.
Even then, on my dad's side, being Catholic, was more of the sprawling mode than the average white Christian conservative family (but never matching that extent with my mom's side). When one of his aunts came out after her husband died and her kids were grown, people just dealt with it and integrated this new knowledge into their own knowledge of her and continued to love her. The same has happened with another cousin of mine who came out as a lesbian. When she visited her parents with her partner and they said she could only sleep in the same bed with her if they were married, they were forced to confront the fact that their pre-conceptions of legal marriage didn't their daughter's situation. What works, works. As long as people are happy, are loved, are supported and children in the family (if any) are protected, educated and raised well, that's all that matters.
To add to this, in summary I'm just saying the white Protestant norm of family that was established in this country in the postwar days is very, very narrow. It was never permanent. It grew in a very particular time and place with very particular segments of the population. They were never the norms of large parts of the population, from many Latin families to Hassidic communities to gay couples. As this country becomes more gay-friendly, more culturally Muslim, more culturally Hindu and American Christianity becomes re-defined with a greater presence of Latino Catholics, Lebanese Maronites, etc., what constitutes a "conservative" family structure and a "progressive" family structure will change. What is considered radical for WASP conservatives is considered traditional for Latinos, Indians and others.
I don't really mean that "what's a family" is the same in Nigeria as it is in Bali or the Bahamas. Or even that it's the same in the Igbo parts of Nigeria as it is in the Hausa ones. Obviously this is not the case.
Still I do think in those places it's probably less about "utility" or even "love" than some kind of custom or tradition. I could be radically wrong there, but I don't think so. Also generally speaking I think "family" does involve either biological, marital, or adoptive relationships. Maybe there's a society where it involves none of those, but I can't think of one offhand.
So "The child of the first husband of my father's first wife" I could get as a family. However something like "my co-workers are my family" or "the group home is my family" or "the people I'm sharing a loft with are my family" doesn't precisely make sense to me except in a metaphorical way.
I know that may sound judgmental and maybe it is in a way. However I'm not saying that these other kinds of relationships are bad or anything.
Just Karl says: "Not only does it serve to establish consent and define the legal obligations and rights of the contract **but I think that the boundaries help individuals to maintain control over unhealthy emotions like lust and jealousy**."
Really? A piece of paper is supposed to help us "maintain control" over normal and very real emotions like lust and jealousy? Really?!?!
"Still I do think in those places it's probably less about "utility" or even "love" than some kind of custom or tradition. I could be radically wrong there, but I don't think so. Also generally speaking I think "family" does involve either biological, marital, or adoptive relationships. Maybe there's a society where it involves none of those, but I can't think of one offhand."
Except that concepts and institutions evolve as people need them. The nuclear family didn't exist in this country as we know it until after WWII. Then that became the "conservative" way of doing things, but it wasn't at the time. The fact that marriage would be based on love, for instance, was once quite radical, but now is important to American conservative views of marriage. Form may lag behind function, but it can't stay static forever.
"Families need to be utilitarian, not doctrinal. If it works, let it work."
Makes sense, as far as it goes, but to what extent does this require us to ignore mountains sociological evidence that some arrangements tend not to "work" as often as others?
Utilitarianism? Well, I suppose. But only if it's heavily informed by unabashed empiricism.
To Follow up on brucds... (and to go back to Just Karl's original post..)
Just Karl says: While I agree completely about the need for families to be utilitarian, I don't understand your stance on marriage, let alone gay marriage. Why aren't you and your partner married? I can support gay marriage because I think there are concrete advantages to participation in the "institution" that should not be denied to anyone. You, on the other hand, would seem to think that these advantages are not important enough to be worth pursuing.
In this passage, Just Karl, seems to imply that you have to be a participant in an activity, institution, or other such grouping in order justify your support for it.
It is not clear to me why this need be true.
I can believe that the military is a good thing without being a soldier.
I can support interracial marriage without ever intending to marry someone of another race.
I can believe and support the rights of all kinds of religious groups to practice their own religions, while being an atheist.
I can support all of these things--and TNC's position on families being utilitarian, not doctrinal fits in here--for two main reasons..
a) because a basic belief in equality of all people to have the same basic rights
b) the belief that no one is omniscient and that a person's personal beliefs and choices--so long as they don't impose upon others--should be as large as possible.
According to these two stances--Everyone's choice to engage in marriage--be they gay or straight--even if I don't make that choice. Equally true, if I see this choice being denied to people, I can fight against it, not because of actual content of the choice, but because I believe the denial of the choice itself is unfair and evil.
Finally, because I know this might come up, I do not believe that everyone has all choices available at all times. 4 year olds should not be given loaded pistols. 8 year olds should not have the choice to smoke crack.
But the reasoning here is that there are concrete biological reasons and strong, repeatable empirical evidence that such situations almost always lead to bad results..
In any case.. this is not 100% thought out.. but just some additional thoughts.. I found TNC's position quite easy to understand.. perhaps because I'm much the pragmatist...
Human beings come hardwired with so many flaws that it's not surprising that so many families are "dysfunctional." I really hate that word.
You do the best you can.
In the meantime, I'm continually astounded by the inherent tolerance my (9 year old) son displays. After Prop 8 passed, I asked him if he thought men should be allowed to get married (sorry about the restriction to men but it was the easiest way to ask the question) and he responded, "Sure, why not, if they love each other."
I think polygamy between consenting adults should be legal. I am a straight, secular, married, childless woman. I chose marriage in order to enjoy personal, familial, economic, and societal comforts. Marriage is a challenge and an adventure, and if a couple, or larger family group, wishes to try to grow and live under a formal or legal commitment, more power to them. Or if they don't want to, that's okay with me too. I'm sure there are lots of ways to be committed and lots of ways to have a family.
Forgive me if I'm assuming incorrectly, but if you describe yourself as secular and childless, I'm guessing you'd also accept "feminist" as a label as well.
What polygymous society has ever treated its women with anywhere near the degree of equality that Western monogamous (however imperfectly practiced) ones have?
It seems odd to me, but I don't necessarily find it hypocritical Meh. Even people like Sullivan are not really arguing all gay couples will, or must, get married if SSM is allowed. So the same would be true of straight couples now.
Admittedly I don't really "get" the idea of being with someone permanently, with kids, and not marrying. However it's his life.
Meh is exactly right. But he left out the first part where TNC links to a post relating his family to the polygamous family on Big Love. Is it too personal to ask exactly where his boundaries are?
It could be too personal, I don't know. Although I believe he's said why he's not getting married before so I could see not wanting to repeat himself. (Possibly he could've linked to the blog post where he gave his reasons, but I get the sense blogging is sort-of new for him or that it'd be too complicated to do so)
I think this is part of why I'm uncomfortable with terminology like "the culture war." I think tradition is important and certain set-ups are better than others, but I don't ever think of myself as "at war" about it. To me "culture war" implies I want my cultural views to just smash and destroy others, which is not my thing. I believe in defending traditional communities, folkways, religions, etc but I generally don't want to war with those not in them.
So I'm not necessarily concerned with ending polygamy in America. From a Catholic perspective America is a highly polygamous nation as divorce+remarriage is "serial polygamy." Sometimes it's closer to actual polygamy as some couples retain relationships to their current and ex-spouse. Polygamy seems rather complicated and proned not to work to me, but it's not something I intend any "war" against as many Americans believe in it and have accepted its burdens. Although communities should feel comfortable saying why they don't believe in polygamy too. Or why they don't believe in homosexuality or heterosexuality or pre-marital sex or marital sex or whatever.
Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander, guys. The whole point is that for a whole class of birds out there, somebody's smacking them on the hand every time they reach for the ladle.
And some of us don't like gravy anyway. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be on the table.
Just Karl, try to think harder about TNC's analogy about religion. Think about someone who said he thinks the church is really important and provides valuable social goods, freedom of religion is really important, etc etc and didn't personally attend church, would it be appropriate to infer some sort of contradiction that demands explaining?
And of course pluralism has outer limits (incest, etc), and setting those limits is a tricky balancing act that we often get wrong. But precisely why that's relevant here, I have no idea. TNC's pramatist mantra didn't, from what I can see, include an insistence that there can never be any exceptions ever to this. His comment wasn't about that.
Also keep in mind that, say, according to Medieval Christianity (where, if you were a member of the majority population, that is to say not a noble, you just pretty much had to make a promise to one another and then have sex, witnesses not necessary) and in several US states, even (see "Common Law Marriage") Ta-Nehisi IS married. He's married ENOUGH. The definition of marriage for heterosexuals is that fluid, even in our time. (And as such, under "common law," it's quite arguable he still has protections that many gay couples would not enjoy -- inheritance rights, custody rights -- even if they'd been together twice as long.) I'm not sure why it's such a point of contention, and I do not see hypocrisy here. (Not to mention I don't see how it's our business either way.)
I am interested though, in the question of polygamy being legal. I think it COULD give women and men both more choice and freedom, since if multiple women can marry one man (or vice versa) you could be more likely to end up with 'coveted' partners - like kind, wonderful people - who would have the option to marry and share happiness with more than one person. And less coveted individuals - say outright bullies - might be less successful at marrying.
The actual history of polygamy however, gives me pause. Even Big Love debates this - the fact that both Barb and Nicki feel they have far less agency and freedom than Bill does, even though every decision is supposed to be made 'as a family'.
Jive Turkey, yes, feminist too, which is to say simply that all people should be treated equally.
I think the key phrase in your comment is "Western" monogamy. I'd also add the qualifier "modern" to that. I think it's difficult to know what polygamy would look like if it were practiced legally and openly in America today. Just as with the "War on Drugs," forcing certain behaviors (that are otherwise "safe") into the dark shadows of society provides space for dark characters and dangerous people to exploit others.
Re: according to Medieval Christianity (where, if you were a member of the majority population, that is to say not a noble, you just pretty much had to make a promise to one another and then have sex, witnesses not necessary
The Church did recognize any private promise between a couple as a valid marriage, even between nobles, but it was more normal to celebrate some sort of festivity in church over marriages, any marriages. Peasant weddings were pretty bare bones of course, though the village would have a rowdy feast afterward, but peasants did marry in church.
Here's a piece no one cared about. Meh, whatever, probably the most enjoyable article I did during my stint at TIME. Premiered a month before I got laid-off. The nail in the coffin? Ya think?
Here's me going after Al. I didn't so much have a problem with him, as I had a problem with media acting like this dude was the go-to guy for everything black.
This was my first real story at time. I was writing for the Business section, a real change of direction for me. At any rate, it's about Wal-Mart's attempts to colonize the inner-city. As much as I enjoyed this piece, I mostly enjoyed going out to Chicago, which is a beautiful, beautiful city.
This a piece I did about the cops just outside our nation capitol, in Prince George's County, a few years back. I wanted to offer a counter to the dumb, conventional wisdom that if you paint your police force black, you could eradicate police brutality. In fact, Prince George's--one of the richest, blackest counties in the country--also had one of the most brutal police force's in the country.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
First of all, TNC, thank you for writing so personally and so often about gay marriage. It sincerely means a lot that, given all the other topics you could devote your attention to, you choose to spend so much time on this one.
My experience was the reverse of yours. I was raised in a very conservative church, and I had the distinct impression for my entire adolescence that the whole word hated people like I knew myself to be, and found us revolting, sub-sinner-class reprobates. It wasn't until after I got out into the wider world that I learned that plenty of perfectly normal people, including other Christians like me, viewed gays as essentially normal.
I wrote about about it here, with regard to Ted Haggard:
http://bleakonomy.blogspot.com/2009/01/very-sad-case-in-point.html
Thanks for being honest. Reading this blog has changed my opinions about a lot of things and caused me to think more deeply about others.
"It's something to think of yourself as normal, and then go out into the world and find out that your style is actually frowned on"
I struggle with this every day. Middle class and upper middle class people have different norms and expectations which unlike among poorer people are never explicitly stated when a person violates them.
What you say about families should be applied to life.
"Families need to be utilitarian, not doctrinal."
So simple, yet so on point.
Families need to be utilitarian, not doctrinal. If it works, let it work.
Ding! Ding!
I dunno if folks have read Katherine Newman's book, Falling From Grace, about white collar workers caught up in the downsizing mania of the 1980s. There's a brief section in there where she talks about gay men, and the fact that they were able to draw on "lateral networks" of close friends, and ended up with lower levels of depression and similar problems than did their straight counterparts. While reading her description, I kept thinking, "Those 'lateral networks' are what we call 'families of choice,'" those networks of friends, ex-lovers and their current lover, a couple of tricks that became friends, someone's mom, and the like. Those complicated circles of people on whom we draw for love and support and that don't fit those traditional definitions of family.
We need to support people, not impose rigid ideological definitions of what makes a "family." I'm a gay man who thinks the pursuit of marriage is too limited and clouds certain issues. What matters are relationships of interdependence--emotional, social, material, etc. Who you're sleeping with should have nothing to do with the availability of health care. You shouldn't be at risk of losing a jointly-owned home if one person dies just because you don't have a licensed marriage.
Hey MAJeff, good to see you over here!
Great summary, Ta-Nehisi. And I really appreciated your earlier pic and post, and the whole discussion that's followed. I'd add that there's a sort of meta-challenge here: even if a person has settled on the practical arrangement that fits their life, it's very easy for kids in that arrangement to infer a doctrinal aspect to it: "the way I was brought up is the way to be brought up." We all know that kids love rules -- a lot of the time "playing a game" in the back yard with them is mostly about making the elaborate rules -- and it's important to engage with them about what the real rules are (e.g., love, respect, and self-respect) so they don't imagine that the more superficial stuff (rings, names, etc) constitutes the fundamentals.
"Families need to be utilitarian, not doctrinal."
Absolutely. One of my professors in undergrad was full of wise sayings, and she used to say that we should think about families in terms of what they do, not what they look like.
A family is a group of people who love, respect, and take care of one another. It isn't just Mom, Dad, 2.5 kids and a picket fence. Maybe you were raised by one parent. Maybe by your grandparents. Maybe you don't have kids, just close friends and loved ones. Maybe you have two dads. Maybe you have step-siblings. Maybe parts of your extended family live with you. Whatever it is, we shouldn't look down on people for the bonds that they have built in this world.
The form is not as important as the function.
Concise and to the point. If it works, let it work.
Nice way of closing the circle!
Of course part of the story is that in the U.S., families have had the luxury of being doctrinal... and/or the doctrinal family was a species of conspicuous consumption.
"Families need to be utilitarian, not doctrinal."
Great concision of a very fraught subject. I'm going to remember that line. It should be the starting point for any further discussions.
Ta-Nehisi,
While I agree completely about the need for families to be utilitarian, I don't understand your stance on marriage, let alone gay marriage. Why aren't you and your partner married? I can support gay marriage because I think there are concrete advantages to participation in the "institution" that should not be denied to anyone. You, on the other hand, would seem to think that these advantages are not important enough to be worth pursuing.
I've written about this quite a few times actually, but it goes back to what I just said--if it works, let it work. This is what works for us. At some point, maybe something else will work. But for now, we're both very happy.
I'm as mystified by this response as I am by the one against gay marriage. The point isn't to find a system that's best for all humanity, but to empower people to make choices about what works for them.
How can marriage possibly diminish the love you feel? Plenty of people make the mistake of rushing into marriage or children with the hope that it will somehow magically improve what has been lacking. But it seems odd to me that anyone could believe the reverse, that marriage might somehow break what is already working.
Just Karl, you're not hearing the man. Relationship is a thing that people decide between and amongst themselves, as private a thing as there is (though, obviously, with a public face). They have determined a thing that works for them; you're insisting he explain why he doesn't want to step into one of your boxes.
This would be more justified if you wanted to make an argument for the societal importance of the marriage contract in particular. As it is, you're just expecting him to explain why his feelings and perceptions don't match yours.
You like fried chicken. I like mine baked. One day I may try it fried. But I really enjoy the baked.
I've been working like crazy lately --I am still now-- but yes, TNC, to second Dan, thank you very much.
The form is not as important as the function.
I've long held that this is the basic distinction between liberals and conservatives, at least in our contemporary models. Today's conservatives are so resistant to the changing of form that they are blind to the continuity of function.
In my more cynical moments, I take a darker but similar position: conservatives oppose the change in form because they recognize the change in function—that white males no longer have singular power over everyone else—and their professed concern about the loving and supportive function of families is just cover. Which interpretation I hold today is a matter of how much I am willing to attribute motivations to people I don't know.
This would be more justified if you wanted to make an argument for the societal importance of the marriage contract in particular.
Wrong. Anyone who feels that a marriage contract has no societal importance can't possibly justify the need for gay marriage. The societal importance of the marriage contract is the reason to justify gay marriage
A few thoughts:
TNC, I defend same gender loving cats because growing up I went through some painful things. They are reflected in the political struggles I see them go through in social, religious, and political quarters. So when I speak up loudly, it's often very personal.
Loneoak, form and function = so true. I'm going to bite that one in my next discussion/debate, if you don't mind! ;-)
"Anyone who feels that a marriage contract has no societal importance can't possibly justify the need for gay marriage."
Karl, please point out a case when I've said that. I'm not a Christian either. But it would be ridiculous to extrapolate from that that I bekieve the church has "no societal importance." You can defend the right to choice, even if you'd never make the choice yourself. There are plenty of people who are pro-choice in regards to the law, but would never hae an aboirtion themselves.
If you have an argument please make it. But don't strawman your way there. Address the actual argument that I'm making--not the one you want me to make.
I don't know what your belief on gay marriage is or exactly how your beliefs are influenced by your family. If you will reread my original comment, I was asking you to clarify. In the absence of any stated beliefs I can only infer what those might be based on your actions (or lack thereof). I'm not trying to "box" you into getting married. I really don't care. I'm happy that you are happy with your family relationship. But, taken on it's face, it seems to imply that you don't believe marriage is important. For all I know you could believe that the government has no place getting involved at all. If you've talked about this before please refer me to your previous writing on the subject. I'm eager to read it.
As for making a strawman argument about the societal benefits of the marriage contract, these have been mentioned so often in the gay marriage debate that I thought them self evident at this point. Hospital visitation rights, inheritance, family leave, etc. etc. Are these not important to your family? Perhaps you are able to skate by on the implication of marriage or common law, where same sex partners would not be able to do the same, I don't know. But I think whatever the marriage laws are, they must be applied equally to everyone. Using your example of Big Love, do you believe that polygamy should be legalized. I don't. Where should we as a society draw the line? If it works, let it work is not adequate, in my view, to govern marriage or religious belief.
I can't tell if your intentionally ignoring the point or what--but I'll give it one last shot. Here was your question:
"Why aren't you and your partner married? I can support gay marriage because I think there are concrete advantages to participation in the "institution" that should not be denied to anyone. You, on the other hand, would seem to think that these advantages are not important enough to be worth pursuing."
Here is my answer:
Because we chose not to be. I don't support gay marriage because I think marriage is necessarily a societal good. It may well be, but that isn't my argument. I support it because I don't think gay people should be discriminated against. It's really that simple.
But what does that mean? Nothing is necessarily good or bad. Should everyone just be allowed to do whatever they want as long as there is mutual consent? Polygamy? Incest? Is it discrimination to deny these people the opportunity to get married? Where do you draw the line and why? I happen to believe that marriage is a societal good. Not only does it serve to establish consent and define the legal obligations and rights of the contract, but I think that the boundaries help individuals to maintain control over unhealthy emotions like lust and jealousy. Obviously it's not perfect, there are drawbacks, limitations, and plenty of failures, but to claim that any boundary is discrimination is to invite chaos. And chaos would require the need for further government intervention to settle the inevitably ugly disputes.
I believe marriage is a societal good therefore I believe it is discrimination to prevent two unrelated and consenting individuals of the same sex from achieving that good. To say that you don't know if something is good or not, and then claim it's discrimination to prevent someone from having it still seems confused to me. Is it discrimination for society to allow my grandfather to possess certain controlled substances but not me? Those drugs are good for him and would probably be bad for me and the rest of society. That is why can't I set that boundary for myself. If marriage were not a societal good then how can you argue that denying to anyone is discrimination?
I'm someone who is not sure that marriage as it has been traditionalized (for want of a better word) is a good thing, which is probably why I am a little like TNC -- never married, even though I'm currently in a very committed longterm relationship that I do not see ending before either of us bites the big one. But my ambivalence about marriage as a cultural institution does not stop me from being fully in support of the right of same-sex couples to enter into marriages. If marriage is a social good, then it is something that should not be denied to people based solely on the sex of the persons with whom they want to be wedded. If it's not, then that's hardly an argument for denying same-sex couples the opportunity to enter into the same flawed relationship structure straight folks are currently entitled to enter into on a whim (see, e.g., Britney Spears).
'Form over function' is the construct that allows well-intentioned folks to bear false witness to prevent two adults from getting married--because it's anti-family.
Function over form, family of choice, lateral networks are some of the names for the construct that family is made by action, not a particular legal or biological set of facts.
One of my state legislators, who bravely insists on carrying a marriage equality bill year after year even knowing that it will never get out of hearings, refers to the first type of thinkers as the Leave It To Beaver-ists. They aren't all Baptist or Catholic or Mormon, but they all worship Ward coming home at the end of a hard day of honkying to put his feet up and straight out the boys' problems, in 22 minutes.
The weirdest thing about the process of getting cleared to adopt was the requirement to get references from '3 people not in your family'. Yeah, anyone who knows me well enough to act as a personal reference for the activity of parenting IS going to be in my family, as I conceive family. And if you conceive family in the Leave It To Beaver-ist format, adoption may not be for you anyway.
Karl,
You asked why I wasn't married. I answered--many times over. I put a lot of myself out there on this blog, so I understand that that necessarily opens me up to be critiqued. That's fine. But I'm human, and I have my limits. Listening to people speak--with absolute certainty--about what's best for the lives of my loved ones, tests those limits.
I think I've been pretty good about indulging your questions about my life. But some boundaries are now appropriate. They're very simple--you can ask me anything, I probably will answer. But insisting that your sure about what's best for me and mine is a step too far.
If it's not, then that's hardly an argument for denying same-sex couples the opportunity to enter into the same flawed relationship structure straight folks are currently entitled to enter into on a whim (see, e.g., Britney Spears).
For me, Britney Spears is an argument for tighter controls and restrictions like requiring premarital counseling. Certainly I believe that same-sex couples should not be denied the opportunity, though. I just don't think the argument is best made by individuals who lack the desire to get married in the first place. I guess I see it like someone who doesn't vote but wants the electoral college system to be changed.
Whoa, dude. Have I been repeatedly asking why you are not married or something? I asked once and got the answer that you like baked chicken and because you choose to. Neither is really an answer but that's fine. When have I suggested what's best for you and yours or criticized your choices? Me thinks you doth protest too much.
I'm not trying to "box" you into getting married. I really don't care. I'm happy that you are happy with your family relationship.
I thought I was pretty clear. I'm happy if you are happy. I was simply curious as to whether there was a philosophy behind your choice. If there is, I don't feel that you expressed it. Maybe you did and I just didn't understand it.
If you have an argument please make it.
I thought it was you who asked me to make a case for marriage as a societal good. None of what I wrote was intended as an attack on you. And I'm not absolutely certain of my thoughts on any of this. I'm trying to work them out as I type.
"Today's conservatives are so resistant to the changing of form that they are blind to the continuity of function." loneoak
TR: I would say, when it comes to the family, this is more every generation of conservatives and that it crosses cultures as well. The "form" of a family is almost certainly meaningful to most "conservatives" of Japan or Senegal or Bhutan or Greenland.
If the family is "a group of people who love, respect, and take care of one another" it is essentially no different from any mutually beneficial social unit. The commune, support group, book club, gun club, Green Party chapter, etc can all be families by this perspective. To see the family in utilitarian terms, not distinct from any social unit, is always going to be the more liberal/progressive position.
The conservative perspective is pretty much by definition going to be about permanence and nature of things. The people on my College Bowl team are not still people in my College Bowl team. College Bowl doesn't even exist anymore. My cousin is my cousin no matter if I end up liking her much less than any of my former team-mates. My sister is my sister regardless. I'd think, at the least, the conservative position would almost always indicate being raised with someone does make a difference. This is because of the nature of early childhood experiences and how they effect us.
And I'm probably ticking people off again, but I'd tried to phrase this as gently as I could.
Just Karl, you're just asking like an entitled jerk. Deal with it when you're treated as such. TNC has explained himself well, but you obviously just want him to admit he's wrong and get married tomorrow. Nobody has to answer to you for your life choices.
"I would say, when it comes to the family, this is more every generation of conservatives and that it crosses cultures as well. The "form" of a family is almost certainly meaningful to most "conservatives" of Japan or Senegal or Bhutan or Greenland.
If the family is "a group of people who love, respect, and take care of one another" it is essentially no different from any mutually beneficial social unit. The commune, support group, book club, gun club, Green Party chapter, etc can all be families by this perspective. To see the family in utilitarian terms, not distinct from any social unit, is always going to be the more liberal/progressive position."
I think it is interesting that you do bring up African societies here. In some African societies, including in parts of Nigeria, your identity and your name is defined on social situations and interactions within a larger society. Your name is different depending on with whom you are talking. (A professor of African history I studied under was brought in to testify as an expert witness for a fraud case against a Nigerian national living in the US, pointing out the fact that he had multiple IDs from Nigeria with different names was actually quite normal where he was from and did not constitute evidence of an intent to commit fraud.) Family is a more sprawling concept (especially when you add in the effects of polygamy) than in monogamous nuclear European Christian forms of 2 parents and 2.5 kids.
Being raised by an Indian immigrant mom who grew up in mostly Europe and Africa and a white Republican Catholic dad, I've grown up with multiple definitions of what family means within just my own family. On my mom's side, people who are not related by blood are considered family. I eventually stopped trying to reconstruct who is related to who because those webs are so complicated and a lot of the time they are family without a blood or marriage tie to anyone. The lines were so cross-cutting it was understood that a friend's parents could act in parentis locus (sp?) in her biological parents' absence with her parents' approval and yell at her if necessary. My mom's home growing up was always filled with people having lunch, having dinner, bringing their kids over to play, etc.
Even then, on my dad's side, being Catholic, was more of the sprawling mode than the average white Christian conservative family (but never matching that extent with my mom's side). When one of his aunts came out after her husband died and her kids were grown, people just dealt with it and integrated this new knowledge into their own knowledge of her and continued to love her. The same has happened with another cousin of mine who came out as a lesbian. When she visited her parents with her partner and they said she could only sleep in the same bed with her if they were married, they were forced to confront the fact that their pre-conceptions of legal marriage didn't their daughter's situation. What works, works. As long as people are happy, are loved, are supported and children in the family (if any) are protected, educated and raised well, that's all that matters.
To add to this, in summary I'm just saying the white Protestant norm of family that was established in this country in the postwar days is very, very narrow. It was never permanent. It grew in a very particular time and place with very particular segments of the population. They were never the norms of large parts of the population, from many Latin families to Hassidic communities to gay couples. As this country becomes more gay-friendly, more culturally Muslim, more culturally Hindu and American Christianity becomes re-defined with a greater presence of Latino Catholics, Lebanese Maronites, etc., what constitutes a "conservative" family structure and a "progressive" family structure will change. What is considered radical for WASP conservatives is considered traditional for Latinos, Indians and others.
I don't really mean that "what's a family" is the same in Nigeria as it is in Bali or the Bahamas. Or even that it's the same in the Igbo parts of Nigeria as it is in the Hausa ones. Obviously this is not the case.
Still I do think in those places it's probably less about "utility" or even "love" than some kind of custom or tradition. I could be radically wrong there, but I don't think so. Also generally speaking I think "family" does involve either biological, marital, or adoptive relationships. Maybe there's a society where it involves none of those, but I can't think of one offhand.
So "The child of the first husband of my father's first wife" I could get as a family. However something like "my co-workers are my family" or "the group home is my family" or "the people I'm sharing a loft with are my family" doesn't precisely make sense to me except in a metaphorical way.
I know that may sound judgmental and maybe it is in a way. However I'm not saying that these other kinds of relationships are bad or anything.
Just Karl says: "Not only does it serve to establish consent and define the legal obligations and rights of the contract **but I think that the boundaries help individuals to maintain control over unhealthy emotions like lust and jealousy**."
Really? A piece of paper is supposed to help us "maintain control" over normal and very real emotions like lust and jealousy? Really?!?!
"Still I do think in those places it's probably less about "utility" or even "love" than some kind of custom or tradition. I could be radically wrong there, but I don't think so. Also generally speaking I think "family" does involve either biological, marital, or adoptive relationships. Maybe there's a society where it involves none of those, but I can't think of one offhand."
Except that concepts and institutions evolve as people need them. The nuclear family didn't exist in this country as we know it until after WWII. Then that became the "conservative" way of doing things, but it wasn't at the time. The fact that marriage would be based on love, for instance, was once quite radical, but now is important to American conservative views of marriage. Form may lag behind function, but it can't stay static forever.
"Families need to be utilitarian, not doctrinal. If it works, let it work."
Makes sense, as far as it goes, but to what extent does this require us to ignore mountains sociological evidence that some arrangements tend not to "work" as often as others?
Utilitarianism? Well, I suppose. But only if it's heavily informed by unabashed empiricism.
Shorter Karl:
If you don't personally enjoy the coffee served at Woolworths, why would you want to integrate the lunch counter ?
To Follow up on brucds... (and to go back to Just Karl's original post..)
Just Karl says:
While I agree completely about the need for families to be utilitarian, I don't understand your stance on marriage, let alone gay marriage. Why aren't you and your partner married? I can support gay marriage because I think there are concrete advantages to participation in the "institution" that should not be denied to anyone. You, on the other hand, would seem to think that these advantages are not important enough to be worth pursuing.
In this passage, Just Karl, seems to imply that you have to be a participant in an activity, institution, or other such grouping in order justify your support for it.
It is not clear to me why this need be true.
I can believe that the military is a good thing without being a soldier.
I can support interracial marriage without ever intending to marry someone of another race.
I can believe and support the rights of all kinds of religious groups to practice their own religions, while being an atheist.
I can support all of these things--and TNC's position on families being utilitarian, not doctrinal fits in here--for two main reasons..
a) because a basic belief in equality of all people to have the same basic rights
b) the belief that no one is omniscient and that a person's personal beliefs and choices--so long as they don't impose upon others--should be as large as possible.
According to these two stances--Everyone's choice to engage in marriage--be they gay or straight--even if I don't make that choice. Equally true, if I see this choice being denied to people, I can fight against it, not because of actual content of the choice, but because I believe the denial of the choice itself is unfair and evil.
Finally, because I know this might come up, I do not believe that everyone has all choices available at all times. 4 year olds should not be given loaded pistols. 8 year olds should not have the choice to smoke crack.
But the reasoning here is that there are concrete biological reasons and strong, repeatable empirical evidence that such situations almost always lead to bad results..
In any case.. this is not 100% thought out.. but just some additional thoughts.. I found TNC's position quite easy to understand.. perhaps because I'm much the pragmatist...
Human beings come hardwired with so many flaws that it's not surprising that so many families are "dysfunctional." I really hate that word.
You do the best you can.
In the meantime, I'm continually astounded by the inherent tolerance my (9 year old) son displays. After Prop 8 passed, I asked him if he thought men should be allowed to get married (sorry about the restriction to men but it was the easiest way to ask the question) and he responded, "Sure, why not, if they love each other."
It's as simple as that.
TNC: Gay marriage should be allowed because-- who are we to judge what works for those peeps?
Karl: How can you want gay marriage for people and then be a hypocrite and not get married yourself?
TNC: I like baked chicken.
Karl: What about polygamy? What if that works for folks too-- does that mean we should allow that as well?!
TNC: STFU
I think polygamy between consenting adults should be legal. I am a straight, secular, married, childless woman. I chose marriage in order to enjoy personal, familial, economic, and societal comforts. Marriage is a challenge and an adventure, and if a couple, or larger family group, wishes to try to grow and live under a formal or legal commitment, more power to them. Or if they don't want to, that's okay with me too. I'm sure there are lots of ways to be committed and lots of ways to have a family.
Laure,
Forgive me if I'm assuming incorrectly, but if you describe yourself as secular and childless, I'm guessing you'd also accept "feminist" as a label as well.
What polygymous society has ever treated its women with anywhere near the degree of equality that Western monogamous (however imperfectly practiced) ones have?
Again, not just the abstract, but the empirical.
It seems odd to me, but I don't necessarily find it hypocritical Meh. Even people like Sullivan are not really arguing all gay couples will, or must, get married if SSM is allowed. So the same would be true of straight couples now.
Admittedly I don't really "get" the idea of being with someone permanently, with kids, and not marrying. However it's his life.
Meh is exactly right. But he left out the first part where TNC links to a post relating his family to the polygamous family on Big Love. Is it too personal to ask exactly where his boundaries are?
It could be too personal, I don't know. Although I believe he's said why he's not getting married before so I could see not wanting to repeat himself. (Possibly he could've linked to the blog post where he gave his reasons, but I get the sense blogging is sort-of new for him or that it'd be too complicated to do so)
I think this is part of why I'm uncomfortable with terminology like "the culture war." I think tradition is important and certain set-ups are better than others, but I don't ever think of myself as "at war" about it. To me "culture war" implies I want my cultural views to just smash and destroy others, which is not my thing. I believe in defending traditional communities, folkways, religions, etc but I generally don't want to war with those not in them.
So I'm not necessarily concerned with ending polygamy in America. From a Catholic perspective America is a highly polygamous nation as divorce+remarriage is "serial polygamy." Sometimes it's closer to actual polygamy as some couples retain relationships to their current and ex-spouse. Polygamy seems rather complicated and proned not to work to me, but it's not something I intend any "war" against as many Americans believe in it and have accepted its burdens. Although communities should feel comfortable saying why they don't believe in polygamy too. Or why they don't believe in homosexuality or heterosexuality or pre-marital sex or marital sex or whatever.
My personal feelings about gay marriage are influenced by my belief that it isn't the government's damn business.
Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander, guys. The whole point is that for a whole class of birds out there, somebody's smacking them on the hand every time they reach for the ladle.
And some of us don't like gravy anyway. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be on the table.
(Metaphor officially dead dead dead)
Just Karl, try to think harder about TNC's analogy about religion. Think about someone who said he thinks the church is really important and provides valuable social goods, freedom of religion is really important, etc etc and didn't personally attend church, would it be appropriate to infer some sort of contradiction that demands explaining?
And of course pluralism has outer limits (incest, etc), and setting those limits is a tricky balancing act that we often get wrong. But precisely why that's relevant here, I have no idea. TNC's pramatist mantra didn't, from what I can see, include an insistence that there can never be any exceptions ever to this. His comment wasn't about that.
Also keep in mind that, say, according to Medieval Christianity (where, if you were a member of the majority population, that is to say not a noble, you just pretty much had to make a promise to one another and then have sex, witnesses not necessary) and in several US states, even (see "Common Law Marriage") Ta-Nehisi IS married. He's married ENOUGH. The definition of marriage for heterosexuals is that fluid, even in our time. (And as such, under "common law," it's quite arguable he still has protections that many gay couples would not enjoy -- inheritance rights, custody rights -- even if they'd been together twice as long.) I'm not sure why it's such a point of contention, and I do not see hypocrisy here. (Not to mention I don't see how it's our business either way.)
I am interested though, in the question of polygamy being legal. I think it COULD give women and men both more choice and freedom, since if multiple women can marry one man (or vice versa) you could be more likely to end up with 'coveted' partners - like kind, wonderful people - who would have the option to marry and share happiness with more than one person. And less coveted individuals - say outright bullies - might be less successful at marrying.
The actual history of polygamy however, gives me pause. Even Big Love debates this - the fact that both Barb and Nicki feel they have far less agency and freedom than Bill does, even though every decision is supposed to be made 'as a family'.
Jive Turkey, yes, feminist too, which is to say simply that all people should be treated equally.
I think the key phrase in your comment is "Western" monogamy. I'd also add the qualifier "modern" to that. I think it's difficult to know what polygamy would look like if it were practiced legally and openly in America today. Just as with the "War on Drugs," forcing certain behaviors (that are otherwise "safe") into the dark shadows of society provides space for dark characters and dangerous people to exploit others.
Re: according to Medieval Christianity (where, if you were a member of the majority population, that is to say not a noble, you just pretty much had to make a promise to one another and then have sex, witnesses not necessary
The Church did recognize any private promise between a couple as a valid marriage, even between nobles, but it was more normal to celebrate some sort of festivity in church over marriages, any marriages. Peasant weddings were pretty bare bones of course, though the village would have a rowdy feast afterward, but peasants did marry in church.