Are polyamory and polygamy inalienable rights?

[nuclearfuels]

If homosexuality is an inalienable human right, so are polygamy and polyandry

By Kwaku Badu

 

 LISTEN   AUG 2, 2021   0

Apparently, the opponents of the LGBTQI+ practices have been contending somewhat consistently that if the act of homosexuality is an inalienable human right, so is polygamy-the practice of a man marrying two or more spouses.

Recently, we have been reading with an intense interest that the Parliament of South Africa is blissfully deliberating on the idea of giving the right to women to practise polyandry-marry more than one husband if they so wish.

Indeed, if the act of homosexuality is deemed as a sexual or romantic preference, so are polyandry and polygamy.

One would think of human rights as universal, interrelated, interdependent, inalienable, and indivisible, as rights shared equally by everyone regardless of sex, race, nationality and wealth. However, the opposing political traditions over the centuries have settled on conflicting visions of human rights anchored in past social struggles.

Suffice it to emphasise that such historical legacy and contemporary contestable meanings of human rights have been persisting despite the estimable efforts of the architects of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Ishay 2004).

We should, however, not lose sight of the fact that basic human rights are based on values like dignity, fairness, equality, respect and independence. But then again, human rights are not just abstract concepts – they are defined and protected by national and international laws.

Given that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights acknowledges that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights, one would have expected universal coverage of human rights.

However, it does not appear to be the case. The human rights of some members of the human family who have disparate sexual preference are non-existent in most countries (UN 2011).

How sexual preference became an inalienable human right in international law

Mertus (2007) asserts that before 1993, the idea of "sexual rights” was non-existent in international documents.

Mertus insists that apart from the provisions prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of sex, the concepts of sexuality and sex practices were utterly absent.

As a result of strenuous endeavours of a vociferous and well organized coalition of women's rights advocates, phraseologies of sexuality were included in the 1993 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action.

But despite the inclusion of sexuality in the 1993 Vienna Declaration and the Programme of Action, the idea of a right to sexuality was incorporated only in a negative sense, as in recognition of women's right to be free from sexual violence (Mertus 2007).

It was not until the International Conference on Production and Development in 1994 that sexuality would "begin to sneak into international documents as something positive rather than always violent, abusive, or sanctified and hidden by heterosexual marriage and childbearing."

In 2006, a committee of human rights experts came up with the Yogyakarta Principles, which emphasised the application of International Human Rights Law in relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (Yogyakarta 2006).

Ironically, in 2006, joint statements were delivered by Norway on behalf of 54 States (UN 2011).

Besides, in 2011, joint statements were delivered by Colombia on behalf of eighty five States (UN 2012).

The breakthrough, however, came in June 2011, when South Africa delivered a statement resulting in HRC/RES/17/19, adopted by a recorded vote of twenty three to nineteen, with three abstentions (UN 2011).

Somehow, the statement delivered by South Africa resulted in first United Nations resolution on sexual orientation and gender identity.

The resolution sought to register “grave concern” at violence and discrimination against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity.

More importantly, the adoption of the resolution prepared the grounds for the first official United Nations report on the issue produced by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The report’s findings formed the basis of panel discussion that took place at the Council in March 2012, the first time a United Nations intergovernmental body had held a formal debate on the subject (UN 2012).

Since then, many countries have been making a determined effort to fortify human rights protection for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, according to the United Nations 2012 report.

The report stressed that a slew of new laws have been adopted – including laws banning discrimination, penalizing homophobic hate crimes, granting recognition of same-sex relationships, and making it easier for transgender people to secure official documents that represent their preferred gender (UN2012).

Based on the above exegesis, I would like to submit that since homosexuals have inalienable rights under the international law, the international community must, as a matter of equality, show fairness to polygamists across the world by acknowledging and documenting plural marriage in the international law.

K. Badu, UK.

k.badu2011@gmail.com

Kwaku Badu, © 2021

The author has 1074 publications published on ModernGhana.Column: KwakuBadu

[Maestrophil]

I have been saying this for years too - slopes can be slippery

[JLHPROF]

It'll happen, give it time.  The push for freedom makes it inevitable.  If one form of marriage can become acceptable, so can another.

Utah reduced the penalty to a misdemeanor infraction (same as a parking ticket).  More liberal minded states will likely lead off too.

[blueglass]

Certainly possible, but a court would only take the case if it had a queer component to the case such as a bisexual female seeking to marry both a man and woman she loves and has created a family with.  Personally I think Utah should lead the way but they should regulate to marriages comprising a maximum of 3 or 4 people. 

 

[OGHoosier]

18 minutes ago, blueglass said:

a court would only take the case if it had a queer component to the case such as a bisexual female seeking to marry both a man and woman she loves and has created a family with.

Why would they feel obligated to address only situations with queer components? Your stipulation seems awfully specific.

[blueglass]

18 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Why would they feel obligated to address only situations with queer components? Your stipulation seems awfully specific.

As soon as the marriage looks patriarchal and mormon or Islamic in any way the judges will smell inequality and not go forward with it.  For example in Canada the polygamy case was turned down because, "Courts have decided that the right to manifest one's religion can be limited for legitimate purposes including the protection of health, the promotion of secularism and the protection of gender equality."  https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/poly/chap1.html

The courts have to see that archaic quantitative laws are limiting the queer bisexual the opportunity to enjoy and solemnize her fundamental rights to love more than one gender and person.  Then they can break the quantitative limitation. 

Edited August 31, 2021 by blueglass

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, blueglass said:

As soon as the marriage looks patriarchal and mormon or Islamic in any way the judges will smell inequality and not go forward with it.  For example in Canada the polygamy case was turned down because, "Courts have decided that the right to manifest one's religion can be limited for legitimate purposes including the protection of health, the promotion of secularism and the protection of gender equality."  https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/poly/chap1.html

The courts have to see that archaic quantitative laws are limiting the queer bisexual the opportunity to enjoy and solemnize her fundamental rights to love more than one gender and person.  Then they can break the quantitative limitation. 

So marriage arguments based on liberty and freedom work but not based on freedom of religion?
Sounds about right for society today.

[blueglass]

27 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So marriage arguments based on liberty and freedom work but not based on freedom of religion?
Sounds about right for society today.

i think so as the courts will see any male trying to marry more than one woman as coercive no matter the religion or ages of the consenting parties involved.  From the notes on the canadian case polyandry may have more standing. 

[carbon dioxide]

52 minutes ago, blueglass said:

i think so as the courts will see any male trying to marry more than one woman as coercive no matter the religion or ages of the consenting parties involved.  From the notes on the canadian case polyandry may have more standing. 

Monogamy can be called coercive as well.

[2BizE]

My answer is yes…eventually.

[nuclearfuels]

On 8/30/2021 at 5:47 PM, Maestrophil said:

I have been saying this for years too - slopes can be slippery

'bout time, right?

[nuclearfuels]

12 hours ago, 2BizE said:

My answer is yes…eventually.

I agree

[nuclearfuels]

On 8/30/2021 at 10:30 PM, blueglass said:

a court would only take the case if it had a queer component to the case such as a bisexual female seeking to marry both a man and woman she loves and has created a family with. 

True but that will ally New England states and CA, OR, WA. 

If you'll pardon the pun, politics makes strange bed fellows.

[nuclearfuels]

On 8/30/2021 at 10:49 PM, OGHoosier said:

Why would they feel obligated to address only situations with queer components?

Because Patriarchy, the greatest evil ever known to humankind. 

[nuclearfuels]

16 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Monogamy can be called coercive as well.

Very true. 

I wonder though, who is it who's coercing us into monogamy?

Social conditioning? Yes, but from what groups and people?

[mfbukowski]

This is news?

"Rights" are ethical human constructs to which we give special status.   "God Given" ?

Sure, if you believe that.

Before the concept of inalienable human rights were invented in the 17 hundreds, there weren't any!

Kind of like "death before the fall".  Or a tree falling in the wilderness making a "sound". 

For that matter, anything created by humans, including God if you want to see it that way.  

 

[Chum]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

"Rights" are ethical human constructs to which we give special status. 

I disagree. I see rights are behaviors that aren't constrained by law. Some rights are so inherent to our humanity that we preemptively write core laws (eg: constitutional amendments) to provide buffers, to protect them from future, restrictive laws.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Very true. 

I wonder though, who is it who's coercing us into monogamy?

Social conditioning? Yes, but from what groups and people?

If you believe the early Church leaders, we can blame the corrupt Pagans and Ancient Romans.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Chum said:

I disagree. I see rights are behaviors that aren't constrained by law. Some rights are so inherent to our humanity that we preemptively write core laws (eg: constitutional amendments) to provide buffers, to protect them from future, restrictive laws.

Yes, as I said. Human constructs.

Were there no humans, rights would not "exist"

They are not constrained by law, but protected by law.

No law, no rights. That's why we have and need, the constitution and bill of rights 

Edited September 1, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Chum]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes, as I said. Human constructs.

Were there no humans, rights would not "exist"

I wasn't disagreeing with the human construct part. I disagree with your assertion that they exist as a special status. I assert that rights are what exist by default not by special status.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

If you believe the early Church leaders, we can blame the corrupt Pagans and Ancient Romans.

Far more likely would be Protestant morals. Puritans and the Mayflower?

All the founding Fathers were Protestants, except for one Catholic 

[pogi]

On 8/30/2021 at 5:35 PM, JLHPROF said:

More liberal minded states will likely lead off too.

Or libertarian minded...

[mfbukowski]

Just now, Chum said:

I wasn't disagreeing with the human construct part. I disagree with your assertion that they exist as a special status. I assert that rights are what exist by default not by special status.

No, I said we GIVE them special status. See the difference? 

[Chum]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

No, I said we GIVE them special status. See the difference? 

I think so. I still disagree for the same reason.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Far more likely would be Protestant morals. Puritans and the Mayflower?

All the founding Fathers were Protestants, except for one Catholic 

Protestants came from Catholics who came from Rome.  All the Romans fault.