NICK Jensen, from the Australian Christian Lobby, argued on these pages that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, we must extend the same privilege to polygamous and polyamorous (multi-partner) relationships (CN, August 23). I suspect Mr Jensen may be engaging in some mischief-making, but it nevertheless deserves a response. 

First, some facts. None of the 14 countries that allow same-sex couples to marry have subsequently legalised multiple-partner marriages – even those that have had gay equality for over a decade. There is no “slippery slope” from one to the other, so it seems like Mr Jensen’s fears (or hopes) are without foundation.

Secondly, none of the groups leading the same-sex marriage campaign have been calling for polygamy or polyamory. Australian Marriage Equality, for instance, was established purely to seek inclusion in marriage for same-sex couples – that is all. Since the marriage equality movement began, we have seen no movement in Australia for multiple-partner recognition, let alone marriage. And the Senator who introduced the first marriage equality bill, Sarah Hanson-Young, has said even she does not support multiple-partner marriage.

Culturally speaking, polygamy and same-sex marriage are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Countries that do allow polygamy generally do not take kindly to gays – in fact, they execute them. And women’s rights in such places are non-existent. So it is hard to claim that a culture that promotes polygamy would coexist with one that allows gays to marry.

And let’s imagine, for a moment, how multiple-partner marriage would look if it ever came to pass in Australia. How would the law deal with issues of group consent? How would we administer issues like property division, child custody or data collection? The family tax benefits system would have to be re-written, for a start. Polygamy and polyamory raise a minefield of new issues that simply aren’t raised by same-sex marriage.

Let’s think logically for a moment. Will denying gay couples the right to marry actually ensure that multiple-partner relationships never gain legal recognition in Australia? No, because same-sex marriage is not a pre-condition for this recognition. In fact, countries that allow polygamy arrived there via heterosexual marriage, not via same-sex marriage. Does Mr Jensen support banning heterosexual marriage, then?

In truth, the multiple-partner claim is a red herring. Having failed to persuade anyone of what’s wrong with same-sex marriage, opponents of the reform now seek to link it to something else we find objectionable.

My response is, don’t change the subject. Parliament is debating the issue of same-sex couples’ inclusion in marriage, not polygamy or polyamory – this is clear in each of the Bills currently before parliament.

When Melbourne columnist Andrew Bolt argued that same-sex marriage would lead to polygamy, the response from Liberal MP Malcolm Turnbull was swift. He said the slippery slope was the “weakest and worst sort of argument used against any (social) change”. The real threat to marriage, Turnbull said, is not gay couples – it is a lack of commitment between heterosexuals.

Inclusion in marriage is about valuing and protecting the commitment between two consenting adults. Let’s consider same-sex marriage on its merits, not muddy the waters with things entirely unrelated like polygamy and polyamory.

John Kloprogge is the ACT convener of Australian Marriage Equality. john@australianmarriageequality.com