By Maria Padhila
“In sickness and in health.” The phrase from the traditional marriage vow is as comforting as a quilt. You say the words and sign the form, and you’ll have someone there who will hold you at your worst, the belief goes.
It’s nothing original of me to point out that marriage isn’t magic sparkle glue. Newt Gingrich and John Edwards are just famous examples of folks who step out when the staying in gets rough. There are likely many more less-public examples. As for myself, if I’m getting what I need in terms of healing or comfort, I just have one request: Please DO step out! Your sitting home isn’t doing anyone any good. I’ll feel bad if I can’t be with you, but I’ll feel a lot worse if you’re not really living and enjoying your life. That is what makes me happy. So go. Have. Fun.
The benefits of marriage as a legal and cultural institution are much on my mind, with the recent success of New York’s law allowing marriage regardless of sexual orientation. While I’m still ambivalent about said benefits, I can’t see the sense in denying access to a legal contract on the basis of sexual orientation. That’s just nonsense to me. Denying people health insurance, a say in end-of-life issues, and rights others have in raising children is too wrong to ignore, so I support gay marriage even though I’m not sure if I support marriage.
Do I think polyamorists should also get in on this marriage law thing? Do we ‘deserve’ the right to get married to more than one person? Well, it would be nice not to have to worry about losing your children, your home, your job. But I would like to have some lawyers I know and like work on the wording of that one. I’m also patient — I don’t mind if that battle isn’t fought, much less won, in my lifetime.
Equal marriage rights for polyamorists also might be based on whether poly is choice or orientation. Isaac is absolutely sure that being gay is biologically determined, but believes being poly is a choice. I have no idea. My sexuality is so fluid, so based on the individual person, that I can’t imagine how I was ‘born to be’, except perhaps mutable. One minute I think, well, if poly were inborn, you would have been surer of it sooner; the next, I think of a woman I know of who didn’t fall in love with another woman until she was 60 and is completely surprised at herself. It is a huge issue, and one debated a great deal; it’s one that could use more study.
One thing Isaac said when I first brought up my desire to open things up was that he would be the one who would be around when I was old and sick and disabled (why do we always assume all these things go together?), not some cupcake I’d picked up at a woowoo festival.
OK, not in so many words, but close enough. I think he understands now that my version of poly (which isn’t the same as his; having the option of short-term fun, i.e., cupcakes, is more to his taste) is more about true love. Chris speaks often about how he’s willing to stay with me and help me through anything. Naturally, I hope no one would have to.
Other people have put similar thoughts in. The fixed idea seems to be that the one who marries you legally will have your back forever, and anyone else is just for fun, only in it for the sex, etc. There doesn’t seem to be an opening in most minds to accept that more than one person could love or care that much.
So do polyamorists, in the refusal to “forsake all others,” forsake someone who will care for them forever, too? I’ve been reaching out to poly people to talk about sickness and aging, and I’ll have some stories to report as we work through them.
But that’s one of the most appealing aspects of polyamory to me — especially when one looks at illness and aging, and the way people in our world are doing both more often alone. There is no pain intrinsic to solitude — in fact, I think I will need more of it as I get older — and even people living together can allow one another space and privacy, through social compacts and mutual arrangements, even if the floor space is limited in a home. But there’s no denying that having several people live together is practical and beneficial when some or all are experiencing changes in their abilities. I look at the alternatives this society offers as I age, and I see: alone or warehoused. Some people live with their children or other relatives, which can be wonderful I’m sure, but can also be a place for unhappiness and even abuse. Fewer seem to find friends or groups of friends, which seems like the happiest solution; and a group of lovers would hit that sweet spot of stability, happiness, and safety.
Whether or not there’s that much sex going on among these older people — and there’s more than many people assume, based on what I’m hearing and reading so far — there’s love going on, and that makes the difference.
Both my loves are very fit; Isaac could be considered an athlete. Yet Isaac has a disability, and Chris has a chronic illness. You would not know this from seeing or even from hanging out with either of them. You might notice a few things eventually, but many people don’t. Either man might offer a quick explanation if doing a certain activity is difficult but usually don’t mention it. Isaac was raised not to consider himself as disabled, though I have met people at a similar level who do consider themselves disabled. It occasionally causes us some very minor inconvenience, but mostly it’s nothing. It’s likely to get more acute as he gets older. Chris actually worries me more. He could become very sick or even die suddenly without regular medication and careful self-attention to how he’s doing.
Well, lots of things can happen to anyone. There are no guarantees, even among young and healthy, whether they are swingers or ascetics. But should we work out what to do if one of us was sick and dying? Would I want both of them to be responsible for making sure my end-of-life wishes are carried out? Actually, I’d rather have one of my two best girlfriends make the call. They’ve known me longer than either guy. And I like the way they think and feel about life. But even if I asked and they agreed, our desire that friends be legal representatives could be undercut by my decision, 15 years ago, to marry under the system that exists here and now.
I’ve watched equal marriage for gay people with some amusement. As a cartoon in The New Yorker a few years ago said, “Haven’t they suffered enough?” But obviously equal protection is equal protection.
The Defense of Marriage people are way ahead of us, defining marriage as a union between “one man and one woman,” preemptively banning poly people from getting married in groups. I’m just left wondering why marriage or a certain kind of relationship is the reference standard.
That is the value that needs to be questioned more than any other, I think. We have this one kind of relationship that usually doesn’t work so well held up as the ideal of what we all should be. Usually that one kind of relationship is built almost entirely of obligation and expectation, to the point where it’s difficult to see there isn’t room for much of anything else in there.
It would be nice if we make a yoga out of trusting one another enough to show up; which of course would mean showing up when we want to — not making excuses to avoid the people we care about.
A very thought-provoking article for me, Maria. Thank you!