Commentary Magazine


Topic: Have

Re: Does South Africa’s “Big Love” President Have a Lesson for Liberal America?

Jonathan, you bring up an interesting point: “If your libertarian instincts tell you that it’s none of your business if two men or two women marry each other, then why is it the state’s business if one man marries two, three, or four women, so long as they are all consenting adults?”

Properly construed, the subject of homosexual marriage is awkward for ardent libertarians because it insidiously suggests another question to which their doctrine provides no comfortable answer: Should marriage of any form, even the traditional, be within the domain of state regulation?

In as far as the relationships, duties, and privileges of marriage are confined in their reach and consequences to the adult spouses, libertarians see no reason for the state to treat marriage any differently from ordinary contracts. From this point of view, traditional marriage too is just a contractual union not to be accorded special treatment or “social subsidies” by the state. Conversely, seen as yet another contract, any domestic union that wants to call itself marriage should be allowed to take place. The finer point is that libertarians, even in their laissez-faire attitude toward marriage, neither dispute nor defend the virtues of transgressive unions. What they advocate, while professing moral agnosticism on the matter, is that marriage be divested of its social mystique and institutional protections—that it shrink to a merely appellative label for an open-ended category of contractual domestic relationships.

Whatever its merits, this radical position fails on practical grounds. The obvious enormity of polygamy is often cited to make the point—the same could be said for other far more aberrant though contractually sound unions.

By contrast, most so-called progressive liberals do not champion homosexual unions in the context of fully deregulated marriage. Whatever libertarian instincts they might be endowed with, their prevailing instincts are statist. Unlike confused libertarians, they are not prone to fall down the rabbit hole of “if homosexual marriage, then why not polygamy?” because they have no reservations about wielding the Leviathan’s scepter against unions they themselves find distasteful or destructive. Of course they see marriage as a public good: a vital institution worthy of state sanction, societal approval, and “social subsidies.” This also means they must defend, on its moral merits, whatever union they deem worthy of calling marriage, so as to justify the latter’s high standing.

To this effect they are advancing the argument that marriage is—essentially—monogamy. In this context, same-sex monogamous unions are seen as normative. Cultural conservatives insist that, rather, marriage is essentially the union between man and woman. The conservatives’ argument carries the authoritative weight of thousands of years of continuity in human customs. Marriage has always been between men and women, even in societies most tolerant of homosexuality. Ironically, it has only occasionally been monogamous, even in Abrahamic religions.

But being made by man, marriage could also be changed, improved by man. And it has. Indeed, monogamy is now nearly synonymous with marriage—aberrations from it are seen as barbaric relics from tribal, primitive societies or Islamist theocracies. Perhaps the institution of marriage can withstand further changes productively—but it certainly cannot do so as flimsily as today’s “progressives” propose. Human traditions do matter. In fact, it may be the rites of marriage, the cultural myths surrounding it, its promises of domestic bliss and family adventures, of home and hearth, that homosexual couples covet most of all when they aspire to marriage. But these are the cultural byproducts of a heterosexual tradition, with the peculiar relations it prescribes between men and women, which may or may not scale well across same-sex unions. In the debate to define marriage, it would take a very powerful argument to compete with the force of tradition, especially when that tradition partly accounts for the very allure of marriage to those who seek to redefine it.

Could the virtues of monogamy-above-all-else trump the fitness between man and woman as the truest essence of marriage, thus conveniently extending marriage to homosexual couples while banishing polygamy? Perhaps so, but liberal progressives are not the best advocates for an argument that elevates marital exclusivity as the cornerstone of marriage, given their own distaste for and attacks against traditional culture. For that’s where the sentiment that monogamy and fidelity are the ideal form of marriage is grounded.

Jonathan, you bring up an interesting point: “If your libertarian instincts tell you that it’s none of your business if two men or two women marry each other, then why is it the state’s business if one man marries two, three, or four women, so long as they are all consenting adults?”

Properly construed, the subject of homosexual marriage is awkward for ardent libertarians because it insidiously suggests another question to which their doctrine provides no comfortable answer: Should marriage of any form, even the traditional, be within the domain of state regulation?

In as far as the relationships, duties, and privileges of marriage are confined in their reach and consequences to the adult spouses, libertarians see no reason for the state to treat marriage any differently from ordinary contracts. From this point of view, traditional marriage too is just a contractual union not to be accorded special treatment or “social subsidies” by the state. Conversely, seen as yet another contract, any domestic union that wants to call itself marriage should be allowed to take place. The finer point is that libertarians, even in their laissez-faire attitude toward marriage, neither dispute nor defend the virtues of transgressive unions. What they advocate, while professing moral agnosticism on the matter, is that marriage be divested of its social mystique and institutional protections—that it shrink to a merely appellative label for an open-ended category of contractual domestic relationships.

Whatever its merits, this radical position fails on practical grounds. The obvious enormity of polygamy is often cited to make the point—the same could be said for other far more aberrant though contractually sound unions.

By contrast, most so-called progressive liberals do not champion homosexual unions in the context of fully deregulated marriage. Whatever libertarian instincts they might be endowed with, their prevailing instincts are statist. Unlike confused libertarians, they are not prone to fall down the rabbit hole of “if homosexual marriage, then why not polygamy?” because they have no reservations about wielding the Leviathan’s scepter against unions they themselves find distasteful or destructive. Of course they see marriage as a public good: a vital institution worthy of state sanction, societal approval, and “social subsidies.” This also means they must defend, on its moral merits, whatever union they deem worthy of calling marriage, so as to justify the latter’s high standing.

To this effect they are advancing the argument that marriage is—essentially—monogamy. In this context, same-sex monogamous unions are seen as normative. Cultural conservatives insist that, rather, marriage is essentially the union between man and woman. The conservatives’ argument carries the authoritative weight of thousands of years of continuity in human customs. Marriage has always been between men and women, even in societies most tolerant of homosexuality. Ironically, it has only occasionally been monogamous, even in Abrahamic religions.

But being made by man, marriage could also be changed, improved by man. And it has. Indeed, monogamy is now nearly synonymous with marriage—aberrations from it are seen as barbaric relics from tribal, primitive societies or Islamist theocracies. Perhaps the institution of marriage can withstand further changes productively—but it certainly cannot do so as flimsily as today’s “progressives” propose. Human traditions do matter. In fact, it may be the rites of marriage, the cultural myths surrounding it, its promises of domestic bliss and family adventures, of home and hearth, that homosexual couples covet most of all when they aspire to marriage. But these are the cultural byproducts of a heterosexual tradition, with the peculiar relations it prescribes between men and women, which may or may not scale well across same-sex unions. In the debate to define marriage, it would take a very powerful argument to compete with the force of tradition, especially when that tradition partly accounts for the very allure of marriage to those who seek to redefine it.

Could the virtues of monogamy-above-all-else trump the fitness between man and woman as the truest essence of marriage, thus conveniently extending marriage to homosexual couples while banishing polygamy? Perhaps so, but liberal progressives are not the best advocates for an argument that elevates marital exclusivity as the cornerstone of marriage, given their own distaste for and attacks against traditional culture. For that’s where the sentiment that monogamy and fidelity are the ideal form of marriage is grounded.

Read Less

Does South Africa’s “Big Love” President Have a Lesson for Liberal America?

You have to hand it to the Republic of South Africa. That continent’s richest country may have a lot of problems, but there’s no obsessing about the sexual escapades of its political leaders in the way we prudish Americans obsess about ours. South Africans appear to believe in marriage and lots of it. In fact, in a story that didn’t make it into the pages of most American newspapers on Monday, Britain’s Guardian reports that South African President Jacob Zuma reaped the congratulations of his countrymen by marrying his third wife today in a traditional Zulu ceremony. The only hitch in the proceedings occurred when the 67-year-old president slipped and fell backward while performing a traditional solo dance throughout which he wore animal pelts and white tennis shoes. He is believed to be uninjured.

According to a different report about the event from the AP, South Africa’s new first (or should I say third) lady, 38-year-old Tobeka Madiba, has actually already been married to the president under civil law (he paid her family the bride price back in 2007) and has given birth to three of Zuma’s 19 children.

But three isn’t enough for the popular Zuma, who revels in his reputation as a representative of Zulu traditionalism. The Guardian says he is planning on marrying a fourth woman, Gloria Bongi Ngema, who has also already given birth to one of his children. His other wives are Sizakele Khumalo, whom he married in 1973, and Nompumelelo Ntuli, who became his wife in 2008. Another marriage ended in divorce (though that wife is now South Africa’s home-affairs minister). Yet another wife killed herself reportedly after describing her marriage as “24 years of hell.”

For those wondering how South African women feel toward a polygamist president, a better question would be to wonder how they feel toward a president who was tried for rape in 2006. Zuma was acquitted of raping the daughter of a family friend. His defense consisted of stating that he believed that the woman’s decision to see him alone was an invitation to consensual intercourse. The following year, the victim was granted asylum in the Netherlands.

While all this may seem either revolting or ridiculous to Western sensibilities, it does raise the question of whether or not polygamy is compatible with genuine democracy. Back in 2006, Stanley Kurtz penned a fascinating piece in the Weekly Standard, which insisted: “Polygamy in all its forms is a recipe for social structures that inhibit and ultimately undermine social freedom and democracy. A hard-won lesson of Western history is that genuine democratic self-rule begins at the hearth of the monogamous family.”

However, as Kurtz noted then, in the era we live in, a growing number of Americans, including the majority of some courts and legislatures, appear to believe that it is not only permissible but also mandatory to redefine our traditional concepts of marriage to allow gay unions. But it isn’t clear what legal — as opposed to religious — principle would mandate that same-sex marriage be labeled kosher while plural marriage still be treated as beyond the pale.

As HBO’s “Big Love” series about Mormon fundamentalists gears up for the premiere of its fourth season this week, Zuma’s shenanigans provide a version of reality TV that makes Bill Hendrickson, the show’s embattled home-improvement entrepreneur with three very different women to deal with at home, look pretty tame. But as Kurtz wrote in 2006, the impetus for the premise of the series may come from a liberal Hollywood mindset that seeks “to highlight the analogy between same-sex unions and polygamy.” The point is, if your libertarian instincts tell you that it’s none of your business if two men or two women marry each other, then why is it the state’s business if one man marries two, three, or four women, so long as they are all consenting adults? Kurtz’s answer, dictated in no small measure by his concern about the spread of polygamy in the West as a result of tolerance for the Muslim practice of plural marriage, was that “stable, monogamous, parenthood-focused marriage” is part of the foundation of a society in which freedom can thrive. There is little question that, as Zuma’s preeminence in South Africa proves, polygamy can lead to a society ruled by men, not laws. That’s a sobering thought that ought to worry even the most ardent libertarians on such issues.

You have to hand it to the Republic of South Africa. That continent’s richest country may have a lot of problems, but there’s no obsessing about the sexual escapades of its political leaders in the way we prudish Americans obsess about ours. South Africans appear to believe in marriage and lots of it. In fact, in a story that didn’t make it into the pages of most American newspapers on Monday, Britain’s Guardian reports that South African President Jacob Zuma reaped the congratulations of his countrymen by marrying his third wife today in a traditional Zulu ceremony. The only hitch in the proceedings occurred when the 67-year-old president slipped and fell backward while performing a traditional solo dance throughout which he wore animal pelts and white tennis shoes. He is believed to be uninjured.

According to a different report about the event from the AP, South Africa’s new first (or should I say third) lady, 38-year-old Tobeka Madiba, has actually already been married to the president under civil law (he paid her family the bride price back in 2007) and has given birth to three of Zuma’s 19 children.

But three isn’t enough for the popular Zuma, who revels in his reputation as a representative of Zulu traditionalism. The Guardian says he is planning on marrying a fourth woman, Gloria Bongi Ngema, who has also already given birth to one of his children. His other wives are Sizakele Khumalo, whom he married in 1973, and Nompumelelo Ntuli, who became his wife in 2008. Another marriage ended in divorce (though that wife is now South Africa’s home-affairs minister). Yet another wife killed herself reportedly after describing her marriage as “24 years of hell.”

For those wondering how South African women feel toward a polygamist president, a better question would be to wonder how they feel toward a president who was tried for rape in 2006. Zuma was acquitted of raping the daughter of a family friend. His defense consisted of stating that he believed that the woman’s decision to see him alone was an invitation to consensual intercourse. The following year, the victim was granted asylum in the Netherlands.

While all this may seem either revolting or ridiculous to Western sensibilities, it does raise the question of whether or not polygamy is compatible with genuine democracy. Back in 2006, Stanley Kurtz penned a fascinating piece in the Weekly Standard, which insisted: “Polygamy in all its forms is a recipe for social structures that inhibit and ultimately undermine social freedom and democracy. A hard-won lesson of Western history is that genuine democratic self-rule begins at the hearth of the monogamous family.”

However, as Kurtz noted then, in the era we live in, a growing number of Americans, including the majority of some courts and legislatures, appear to believe that it is not only permissible but also mandatory to redefine our traditional concepts of marriage to allow gay unions. But it isn’t clear what legal — as opposed to religious — principle would mandate that same-sex marriage be labeled kosher while plural marriage still be treated as beyond the pale.

As HBO’s “Big Love” series about Mormon fundamentalists gears up for the premiere of its fourth season this week, Zuma’s shenanigans provide a version of reality TV that makes Bill Hendrickson, the show’s embattled home-improvement entrepreneur with three very different women to deal with at home, look pretty tame. But as Kurtz wrote in 2006, the impetus for the premise of the series may come from a liberal Hollywood mindset that seeks “to highlight the analogy between same-sex unions and polygamy.” The point is, if your libertarian instincts tell you that it’s none of your business if two men or two women marry each other, then why is it the state’s business if one man marries two, three, or four women, so long as they are all consenting adults? Kurtz’s answer, dictated in no small measure by his concern about the spread of polygamy in the West as a result of tolerance for the Muslim practice of plural marriage, was that “stable, monogamous, parenthood-focused marriage” is part of the foundation of a society in which freedom can thrive. There is little question that, as Zuma’s preeminence in South Africa proves, polygamy can lead to a society ruled by men, not laws. That’s a sobering thought that ought to worry even the most ardent libertarians on such issues.

Read Less




Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.