Piling On Polygamy

After last month's apparent legalization of polygamy in the Netherlands, Tim Cavanaugh minimizes the threat in (libertarian) Reason magazine:

Victor, Bianca, and Mirjam are specifically not entering into a marriage but into a civil union, to which gay couples already have broad access. Gay marriage proponents want access to traditional marriage, and once they get it will no doubt be just as defensive and niggardly with the privilege as their opponents are now.

On her own blog, libertarian-leaning columnist Cathy Young agrees the threesome isn't married:

it turns out that it's not even a civil union. Victor and his two wives have entered something called a samenlevingscontract, or "cohabitation contract" -- which is not the same thing.

(Apparently, one principal difference between the samenlevingscontract on the one hand, and marriage/civil union on the other, is that the terms of the contract -- i.e., whether there will be alimony in case of a breakup -- are pretty much set by the parties themselves, except for legal provisions to protect children.) . . .

So basically, the kind of contract the trio has entered into predates not only same-sex marriage but gay civil unions in Holland. Apparently there is some confusion over whether a cohabitation contract can include more than two people, or whether someone who is married can also enter into a cohabitation contract with a third person. This is the loophole the de Bruijns and Geven used to legalize their menage á trois. . . They could not have availed themselves not only of same-sex marriage but even of a civil union, which is essentially marriage in all but name.

Both Cavanaugh and Young downplay the Dutch legal definitions to lessen the likelihood of a slippery slope toward undermining the institution of marriage. Such quibbling misses the point, says Tacitus. Whereas the 1960s left-libertarian alliance sought to reform and perfect American culture and governance, their successors seek freedom from civilization and structure:

The irony of the social left retreating into the argument that society does not matter -- and that individual choice is the key determinant in the validity of institutions -- is thick. It also, given some reflection, completely negates the argument for diluting and expanding marriage in the first place.

It is the fetishization of individual choice as the prime value in itself that leads to absurdities and slippery slopes like these. Social structures are social structures, and inherently the business of society and its agents -- including government. The ability to choose and create them ex nihilo without reference to first principles -- or with the act of choice as the first principle -- is a recipe for monstrosities far beyond our Dutch farce. We already see it in the pathetic existence of political leaders who claim to believe that a certain act constitutes murder, and then disclaim any ability to do something about it. One such wretch ran for President last year. Choice, not human life, is the prime value here. Contrary to the wisdom-of-crowds fantasies of libertarians and communists, choice is as readily exercised for evil as good: and so it is inherently neither.

Instead of the triumph of the will, we presumably have law, culture, tradition, mores, and society. These things once mattered, and mattered more than the dissolute fantasies of a Dutchman, or the political agenda of a behavioral fringe. They do not now.

Agreed. The attack on traditional marriage is a symptom of a half-century of leftist reversal and retreat. Seventy years ago, they glorified Stalin's forced collectivization, which tried to fashion the "new Soviet man," but instead killed at least 5 million by starvation and another 6 million by more conventional means. Forty years ago, the left vowed to "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty," but flushed idealism down the memory hole and sat on their hands ever since. They attack tradition because it's traditional--indifferent to the unintended consequences of repeal.

Yet suddenly "progressives" trumpet excessive individuality. And they exalt one liberty über alles: promiscuity. They would fight to preserve the kulaks' right to unrestricted abortion on demand--except, oops!, few kulaks survived. They hate corporations and Congress, commerce and churches--and children in Boy Scouts. Leftists decry government interference with their lifestyle--but champion taxing success, with the revenues earmarked for failure.

So it's no surprise 21st Century liberals ran out of ideas and resist change. A 70 year winning streak is quite a thrill--better still with a note from their guru excusing them from repairing the proven traditions and civil society they distain.