This is another special guest post by Beverly Diehl. A writer, practitioner of solo poly, and breast cancer ass-kicker, Beverly is actively involved in Sex-Positive World. She blogs about all these topics and more at http://blog.writinginflow.com.

In the wake of Gene Wilder’s death this week, an interesting thing is happening on the Interwebs. 

Most of us were aware of Mr. Wilder’s marriage to brilliant, beautiful comedian Gilda Radner, cut short by her death of ovarian cancer. Less aware of his two previous marriages, to Mary Mercier and Mary Joan Schutz. Or of the love he left upon his death, Karen Webb Boyer, to whom he’d been married for 25 years.

People wrote and talked of how he and Gilda could “be together again” now. Others talked about how hurtful and disrespectful such an expression could be to his widow, Karen. As if we all had to choose teams, Team Gilda, or Team Karen, because in the afterlife, There Can Be Only One (Love).

Why? Why isn’t it entirely possible, that even as Gene found new love with Karen, he continued to love and mourn Gilda? And perhaps even his previous two wives? Why do we assume the heart – or the afterlife equivalent thereof – is only big enough for one romantic love at a time?

We don’t assume this about any other relationship. Beloved pets, grandparents, siblings, parents, children, dear friends… When we imagine Heaven, don’t we imagine all our loved ones will be there? Would it even be Heaven if we had to choose: one child, one pet, one parent, one romantic love? One musician or rock band? And only one?

I know many who still love Elvis, even though he left the building a long time ago. And they went on to love other musical acts.

As someone who practices polyamory, the idea of Only One – even in this life – seems silly. There have been times in my life when I’ve had no current loves. Other times, several simultaneously. Yes, it’s more complicated. Of course, time and financial resources are a finite commodity, whether we are talking about children or romantic interests or cats.

But love? Does anyone truly believe that Gene’s love for Gilda cut off like a spigot when he met Karen? Or did she accommodate and make room for it (as perhaps he did for her past loves), secure in the knowledge he loved her just as much, if differently? They moved into the house he shared with Gilda, she must have come to some peace with that very public relationship.

I’ve found my love doesn’t shut off like a spigot, even when I was trying and failing at monogamy. I could make myself conform to society’s norms – only one penis granted access to my genitals for a set period of time. But my heart loves who it loves, when it chooses to love them, regardless of sexual activity. I’ve continued to have feels for men with whom I am no longer sexually involved, sometimes for decades.

I think, I hope, that this sad event [full disclosure, I had a huge ladyboner for Gene Wilder before I even knew what a ladyboner was] will spur people to contemplating more about the limitless nature of love. Perhaps to understand those of us who identify as polyamorous a little better.

We’re not so different from Gene & Gilda, or Gene & Karen. We simply don’t require our loves to be divorced from us or dead, before acknowledging that a new love has entered our loves. Without taking anything away from the love that already existed. We have learned, are still learning, to share heart space.

Living a polyamorous life can be challenging. There can be jealousy to be worked through (please note, there’s plenty of evidence that monogamy does not magically cure jealousy), conflicting desires, and complicated schedules.

But life is short. Let’s all acknowledge the love we have in our lives.

Marriage is a sacrament.  A holy union.  The basis of the nuclear family…

…to the church.

But strip away the religious trappings, and what is marriage? It is an agreement made between people to provide benefits, designate succession and legal powers, and declare responsibility for offspring. So, to government and civil authorities, marriage is, quite simply, a contract.

But in law, marriage is rarely treated like other contracts. It is generally considered as part of “family law” rather than contract law, not only written into different code sections but often with different courts to decide on its implementation.

What would happen if marriage contracts were considered like other contracts?  Simply, it would solve a lot of problems with the institution of marriage.

As long as the parties to a contract are of legal age, there is no restriction on which

• genders
• ages
• orientations
• religions
• or races

of people can enter into a contract.

There is also no restriction on how many parties may be part of a contract.

Contracts can be revised over time to take into account new circumstances, which could help address and streamline divorce – or in some cases even avoid it entirely.

In this construct, government doesn’t have to jump (or be dragged) through hoops deciding who is eligible to marry; all you have to be is of legal age and mentally competent to enter into a contract. So a lot of perceived or real “moral crises” about who can marry just fall away.

And this view of marriage is an adjunct to, not a replacement for, the traditional kind. If you want to acknowledge certain religious strictures or practices, they can be written into the contract for your marriage — without becoming part of the contract of everyone’s.

So long as we think of contracts as “family law,” marriage contracts will be burdened with requirements, restrictions, and expectations that do not adhere to any other contract. Seeing marriage as what it actually is, however, can result in a simpler system for everyone.  It’s not the end — but it might be a pretty good beginning.