Nothing. However we can’t really leave aside the substance. Fair enough it’s a contract and legally everything was handled justly. That doesn’t make this hang up on purity any less loathsome to enlightened people in the 21st century.

The outrage was at the stupidity of the man in thinking this was a big deal. It is a huge bummer that people feel the need to force people not to be stupid and often cry out that there “outta be a law” every time something lame like this happens but that doesn’t take away from the fact that this was a lame thing to do. It shows that the Man is an unenlightened and ungentlemanly clot without a shred of compassion.

Sarkozy is a populist tool for suggesting a change of the law. Why lumber her with this man for life? Sure the instinct to coerce, to ban is awful but I find the sentiment behind it to be spot on.

As for recognizing polygamy in Australia; it is not going to happen unless one recognizes polyandry. Not only polyandry but group marriage and partner swapping. This is best thought of as the Bob&Carol&Ted&Alice option. From an Islamic point of view of course it does not work. From an equal protection view it follows necessarily if you allow non-monogamous marriage.

From a human sexuality point of reference polyandry make much more sense than polygamy. From a public health point of reference neither Polygamy nor Polyandry make much sense. Each partner one adds to the equation increases ones risk from a STD point of reference. Only abstinence is fool-proof from a public health point of view. Faithful monogamy with condom use is the next best default. Monogamy without condoms is barely acceptable and least safe is multiple partners without using condoms. Having multiple wives does not decrease the odds of straying but does increase the odds of getting and spreading fungal based STDs. So even if you are faithful to your four wives the odds of catching a NSU (non specific urethritis) increase. Of course if you or your wife strays then the Typhoid Mary option comes into play.

Finally let us be real. Except in extraordinary circumstances polygamy has always ended up being misogynistic and patriarchal. That is the norm. The man lords over the woman in a cruel, despotic, and arbitrary manner. Young frightened girls barely into puberty (and sometimes not even in puberty) are handed over to much older men for their sexual debaucheries. Polygamy without fail reduces women (as an aggregate) to chattel. Only the best and most saintly of men can avoid becoming petty tyrants in their own home. Only the best and most saintly of men can treat multiple wives with the equanimity and respect due to each of them. The Islamic rules for multiple marriage are of very limited value; the law can only do so much to regulate the human heart. Even in the best of worlds polygamy without polyandry is at base unfair and places women at a disadvantage. In the world we live in polygamy is always a male power play over women. It is always a way to suppress women and degrade them. It is not a sign of holiness, it is actually often a sign of being out of god’s good graces. Just ask the original Suleiman (Solomon) of the bible ; multiple marriages can only cause you grief no matter how rich or wise you are. Remember Allah/God made Adam and Eve not Adam, Eve, Mary, Joan, & Britney.

“The problem is that it can leave the women without legal protections, because these marriages are not recognised as existing (even though they do in reality).”

Not legally recognised in the sense of a marriage, but is there anything that a good contract wouldn’t solve? I suppose that if the father and mother both died, a child of a multi-partner relationship might not automatically remain in its custody, but you could put a pretty good case.

IM, is that correct? I know that it would be easy to cheat the social security system if you were in a multi-partner ‘marriage’, but wouldn’t still be against the law to not declare the income and support-in-kind you were receiving, whether married or not?

And anyway, plenty of homophobes would prefer that gay couples still had the opportunity to milk social security rather than have their ‘marriages’ recognised and lose that loophole. And there are a lot more gays in Australia than (straight) Muslims.

The problem is that it can leave the women without legal protections, because these marriages are not recognised as existing (even though they do in reality). It is not unknown for a man to seek the rights and privileges of polygyny without sticking around for the burdens and responsibilities of multiple marriages. At least with a recognised shari’a system in play these men would be held accountable.

Polygyny won’t work for everyone, but it does work for some. (I’ve got about half a dozen friends who are co-wives and none of them to each other.) Like any form of marriage, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. Having said that, polygyny would probably highlight the difficulties in a bad marriage much quicker.

Problems with polyandry (as I see them, but hey whatever floats your boat): the fact that it takes nine-months to gestate a baby makes polyandry awkward and tiring for the woman if all the husbands want kids.

Polygyny is still a closed system, but if you allow polyandry too, then there is nothing to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (theoretically each man could have four wives, and each woman four husbands and so on and so on and so on).