Sanction one and all

The quest to gain same sex couples the benefits – insurance, Social Security and family leave for the birth of children (always conceived with the help of a third party) – available to heterosexual married couples, found an empathetic ear in Boston, Mass., last week.
The Massachusetts high court declared gays are entitled to nothing less than marriage and that Vermont-style civil unions will not suffice.
Unless the federal government amends the Constitution with a heterosexual definition of marriage, the legal ramifications will eventually be felt across the country. Equal status will be sought for relationships now termed polygamous, incestuous, unethical or biologically inadvisable.
Through the past 100 years of statehood, a few heterosexual, polygamous family units in Utah have persisted in clinging to the premise that one man can love more than one woman and their children. The decision of these three or more consenting adults has led to arrests, fines and jail time.
Polygamy was openly practiced in Utah until 1890, despite Congressional decrees against it in 1862, 1882 and 1887. In 1890, church elders of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) issued an edict against practicing polygamy. That edict some say was forced on the church to gain statehood for Utah – which is dominantly Mormon.
The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization service will not grant a permanent residence card (Green Card) or citizenship to anyone who practices polygamy. This mandate includes families of the Muslim faith where men can have up to four wives – if they can support each one equally.
The same argument for sanctioned marriage could be put forth for polyandrous relationships – one woman married to more than one man. If the men and their woman are really committed to each other, have purchased property together and had children, shouldn’t they be afforded all the benefits of a sanctioned homosexual marriage?
In the past, same-sex relationships were considered offensive and were not legally recognized. Since the 1960s talk shows, sit-coms, political rallies, sympathetic essays and editorials and eventually court rulings, have contributed to a change in viewpoint.
Currently in the United States, polygamy, in either form – while it offends many – is not legally recognized. If the advocates of these relationships continue to argue the legitimacy of their relationships publicly, perhaps one day they also will be sanctioned as the Massachusetts courts did for same-sex relationships.
Equally un-sanctioned are the men and women involved in relationships currently considered highly offensive and illegal. But why should they be excluded? What happens if a widowed grandfather and his granddaughter realize they really love each other and want to spend their lives together as a heterosexual couple? Even if they agree to never have a child together to avoid potential genetic complications, shouldn’t his bride automatically receive his family benefits? Shouldn’t she be the one to have first say in his medical and burial arrangements? Shouldn’t their union be sanctioned as much as one that is same-sex?
What if the couple is a brother and sister, who can not find anyone else they love as much? She keeps house and run errands, he works and carries the insurance, pension and Social Security. Certainly they can also conceive children by a third party to insure against genetic complications. Why couldn’t they have a sanctioned marriage with all the benefits?
If our nation will not define marriage as the union between one unrelated man and one woman which transforms their status in society and establishes them as a solitary family, then we compromise our basic understanding of what constitutes a legal marriage and we open the door for consideration of so much more that we currently find morally reprehensible and improbable.
(Joan Hershberger is a reporter at the News-Times.)