Marriage as a social contract

[EchoKitty]

I looked for a thread like this (briefly). If one has been started, I apologize.

In another thread (which I can't link...sorry), Clairobscur was asking why we should afford the benefits of marriage to homosexuals, and not include polygamists or any other group that wants these benefits.

Then I started thinking about that big ol' dude who was adopted by the Presa Canario lawyers in San Francisco. I also thought that one answer to the legal aspects of marriage might be adoption of your lover/lovers. No, this doesn't account for our society's acknowlegement of love and romance between people in same-sex relationships, but would cover inheritance, hospital decisions, and some other legal issues.

So what are your thoughts? Should we give anyone the right to bond legally, regardless of numbers, sex or any other conceivable configuration? If not, where do we draw the line?

For the record, I'm undecided, but leaning toward giving that right to anyone.

[Dangerosa]

There are some older thread on this.

I like the idea of legal next of kin. You declare a single person your legal next of kin - they have to accept. Most of the rights and responsibilities of marriage would work - but only one way. To work the other way, that person would need to declare you their legal next of kin. This would allow for polygamy - it would also permit alternative households (a widow with children and her divorced best friend set up house together - with no hanky panky cause who cares about hanky panky.)

However, any change in marriage (with the exception of letting gays marry) would involve major rework of the individual laws involved and isn't really practical.

[Scylla]

Well there was what seemed to be a rather bigoted individual here recently who touched on a valid concern. Unfortunately, he used it as a shield for his beliefs rather than a problem to be understood and worked at.

The problem is;

What is the purpose of marriage under law?

Is it to raise kids? Is it to create some mini-corporation?

I think it's simply a way of coping with what has become a common phenomenom, which is that sometimes two people fall in love and make a bond to share their lives.

If we are to recognize and extend benefits to such an entity as a household: such as the unlimited marriage exemption, tax benefits (in some instances) health care coverage, various rights of survivorship and departure, and do this for heterosexual couples, than by what mechanism can we reasonably refuse to do this for homosexual couples?

Of course, religions are free to construe marriage as they will, and need not recognize anybody they don't wish to, but I can't think of any reasonable scenario for excluding gay couples who wish to share their lives from the legal benefits, conveniences, and protections that marriage provides.

The only argument that I hear that even approaches reasonable sense is the question of children.

Is it reasonable to assume that the main purpose of marriage is procreation, and since a gay couple is probably less likely to procreate (just a guess) they therefore should not receive the same benefits?

I don't think so. Times have changed. There's adoption and surrogates. There really is nothing stopping a gay couple from having and raising children if that's what they want.

And really, this doesn't matter, because heterosexual couples receive the benefits of marriage whether or not they procreate, and, they recieve additional benefits when they have a child.

An interesting conundrum is that if we are to exclude gays from the contract of marriage becuase of nonprocreation then wouldn't it be fair to also exempt them from school taxes and such?

If they are not getting the benefits, why should they foot the bill?

A gay couple getting married is simply an alternate way of doing things. It is no more beyond the natural order than a childless couple's adopting is.

Should we deny an adopted child status as heir, and the legal protections of having a responsible guardian simply because it is not that couple's genetic offspring?

The very same arguments apply towards denying rights to an adopted child as they do towards gay marriage yet you hear no one calling out to strip the rights of adopted children, and you hear nobody saying that under law it really shouldn't be their child.

Personally, I draw the marriage line at any couple of legal marriagable age.

There are serious problems with the ramifications of multi-partner marriages, which make such an arrangement a very different thing from the tradittional, and it would need to be treated differently is such a thing were ever to become legal.

But, there really is no reasonable objection to same sex marriage under law.

[EchoKitty]

Scylla said, "There are serious problems with the ramifications of multi-partner marriages, which make such an arrangement a very different thing from the tradittional, and it would need to be treated differently is such a thing were ever to become legal."

Well, the homosexual union is very different, too. But I don't think that should keep gay couples from marrying. I've never had a problem with polygamy, in itself. (The child-bride thing is an issue, but that's another thread). If a group of people want to sign into a contract that makes them financially and legally responsible for each other, it should be within the law to do so. We have families with natural children, adopted children, and foster children all under one roof. It doesn't seem like much of a stretch to create blended families that are legally bound to each other, regardless of how untraditional it may be.

[lee]

So how about a hypothetical case: A married Heterosexual couple can't have children because a fertility issue. They invite someone to share their lives, they'd expand the marriage if allowed by law. The new partner gets the wife pregnant. All is happy and smiles, but legally all is a mess. If they were all married and then under law all equally parents, wouldn't the situation be clearer and wouldn't the child's interests be better protected?

[lee]

Bump, I suppose. I want to know what is so complicated that the law can't be bothered figuring out. I has laws for multiple heirs, why not for multipe spouses?

[Estilicon]

[quote]Originally posted by Scylla
[b]The problem is;

What is the purpose of marriage under law?

Is it to raise kids? Is it to create some mini-corporation?


I can answer this but only under canonic and argentinian law. The purpose of marriage according to canonic law is "the satisfaction of the mutual love and also the procreation and raising of children". ARgentinian doesn't state the purpose of marriage because to the civil law that is irrelevant. People marry for many reasons. That is why under argentinian law impotent or sterile people can marry.
But, you can guess, that in a catholic country like mine homosexuals don't have the right to marry. In fact a marriage between two person of the same sex is considered inexistant.

Now my opinion. I think that homosexuals should have a quasi marriage status in which the law grants them certain rights: inheritance, social security, assistance (I don´t know the legal term in english but a couple own each other all the necessary things for living like food, housing, etc.).
I don't think they should be allowed to adopt. My reasons are that, at least in my country, there are always more people willing to adopt than childrens for adopting. Therefore, in my opinion, a judge has to grant priority to heterosexual couples.

[KellyM]

Originally posted by Estilicon
I don't think [homosexuals] should be allowed to adopt. My reasons are that, at least in my country, there are always more people willing to adopt than childrens for adopting. Therefore, in my opinion, a judge has to grant priority to heterosexual couples.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise(s). You've given no reason why heterosexuals should have priority over homosexuals in adoption. Please give a reason other than "That's the way it should be", or withdraw the argument.

[KellyM]

Originally posted by Scylla
There are serious problems with the ramifications of multi-partner marriages, which make such an arrangement a very different thing from the tradittional, and it would need to be treated differently is such a thing were ever to become legal.

Please elaborate on what these "ramifications" are. I haven't been able to figure out what the "serious ramifications" of multipartner marriages are that aren't just consequences of the irrational insistence that a marriage can consist of only two partners.

[Dr. Lao]

Originally posted by lee
If they were all married and then under law all equally parents, wouldn't the situation be clearer and wouldn't the child's interests be better protected?

I guess the problem arises if the marriage breaks up. Should the non-biological parent(s) be given the same consideration as the biological parents?

[KellyM]

Originally posted by Dr. Lao
I guess the problem arises if the marriage breaks up. Should the non-biological parent(s) be given the same consideration as the biological parents?

My feeling is that the parents who actually raise the child should have the highest consideration, whether or not they are the "biological parents", and without regard to how many of them there might be.

[partly_warmer]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Scylla
There are serious problems with the ramifications of multi-partner marriages, which make such an arrangement a very different thing from the tradittional, and it would need to be treated differently is such a thing were ever to become legal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please elaborate on what these "ramifications" are. I haven't been able to figure out what the "serious ramifications" of multipartner marriages are that aren't just consequences of the irrational insistence that a marriage can consist of only two partners. [END KellyM QUOTE]

1) Who owns property when there's a "divorce" when only one person leaves?
2) Who's responsible for child support after a divorce? The natural parents only? All people in the marriage?
3) Since one can't be compelled to testify against one's spouse, does that mean that any arbitrary group of people who are "married" can't be forced to testify against one another?
4) What if person A wanted to seperate from person B, but not from person C? What if person A and person B wanted a divorce from each other, but person C didn't want either of them to leave?
5) What's the time limit for a marriage? Person A is 50, marries person B, who's 25, person B wants someone younger, and adds person C (who at the time of the original marriage would have been 15). Person C, 20 years later, marries person D, who is 10 years younger. When does the marriage property ever get distributed to the children? And to which children?

Saying that the "law can't be bothered to figure this out" as an earlier poster did misses the central issues: The law is enormously complex, and a change of this magnitude would take years, possibly decades, to work out. And it would cost a fortune. Talk "billions". Also, the law is a reflection of social values, and varies by community. There are plenty of communities which wouldn't want multiple marriages at all. How would their opinions be fit in?

[KellyM]

partlywarmer:

1) When one partner leaves the marriage, the property should be divided up and partitioned with the leaving partner receiving one share and the remaining partners receiving a number of shares equal to the number of remaining partners. Adjustment to this can be made when equity requires it. This is not a new concept; it's used in partnership law when a business partnership loses a partner. Changing existing property division laws for the multiple partner situation is not complex or even novel.

2) Each parent who does not remain in custody of the child is responsible for an pro rata (by income) share of the support. The current formulas for computing support can be used without much modification. The current approach is to compute the total financial support to which the child is entitled (based on total parental income), apportion this amount up amongst the parents pro rata by income, and require the noncustodial parent to transfer their obligation to the custodial parent. The modification for three or more parents is (to me) obvious and not difficult at all.

3) I see no reason why the spousal privilege should not be extended to all members of a registered multiple marriage, subject to the same limitations and exclusions the spousal privilege that currently exist. Since entering into a registered multiple marriage would run the risk of being held liable for the support of children of that multiple marriage, the benefit of the privilege is not an unreasonable tradeoff. Since I expect that the multiple marriage rate will be low, I do not expect that abuse of the spousal privilege will be a problem.

4) What about the case where person A wants a divorce from person B but person B doesn't want one from person A? The law, now, is that person A gets the divorce regardless as to what person B wants. In a multiple context, if someone wants out, they get out (subject to obligations of support and property distribution). If the others don't like it, tough. I think this resolves all of your hypotheticals.

5) Generally, when a person dies, his or her estate passes not merely to his or her spouse, but is partitioned (absent a will, of course) amongst his or her spouse and his or her children. Multiple marriage would not change this; while it might dilute the children's share of a decendent's estate, it would not eliminate them. And we are only talking intestate succession here; nothing in this would affect testate succession, which is at the will of the testator.

Again, I fail to see the difficulty. None of these issues raise novel questions of law. If it were not for the political issues that make it impossible to discuss multiple marriage, I suspect the committee that puts together uniform legal codes for states to use could put together something for this in a year or so and (again, assuming no opposition in principle to multiple marriage) get it adopted in most states within three. The most difficult aspect will be adjusting tax schemes that have variable rates based on marital status. Given that the "marriage penalty" is already under fire, this one can be resolved simply by abolishing the marriage penalty entirely.

[Estilicon]

Kellym, I thought it was obviuous. I think that being raised by a mother and a father is the ideal if they also meet every other requirement of the law.

[KellyM]

Estilicon: I'm sorry, but I don't see how your assertion is "obvious". Please provide evidence in support of it. Please avoid providing evidence that being raised a mother and father is better than being raised by a mother alone or a father alone as such evidence does not prove your position (and is frequently cited by people arguing in favor of heterodominance).

[Estilicon]

(Sorry) and since they are much more persons wanting to adpopt than children to adopt you should do the best for them.

[Dangerosa]

Estilicon,

I think you'll find that not everyone agrees that a hetero couple are BY DEFINITION better parents than a single person, a homosexual couple, or some other configuration of family. And, because most people believe what you believe to be a socieital "given" there isn't a lot of research one way or the other.

There are more babies than want to be adoptive parents (which is, in itself, not in the least bit correct if you consider older children, special needs kids, and international adoption). So:

Only rich people should adopt, its best for the children?
Only college educated people should adopt?
Only healthy people who lead active lifestyles should adopt?
Only white people should adopt?
Only parents under 35 should adopt?

[Estilicon]

Originally posted by Dangerosa
Estilicon,


Only rich people should adopt, its best for the children?
Only college educated people should adopt?
Only healthy people who lead active lifestyles should adopt?
Only white people should adopt?
Only parents under 35 should adopt?

I am answering as a future Argentinian Lawyer, remember cultural heritage is difficult to avoid. I'll try to be as objective as possible
First question, no. But you have to agree that the economic position of the parents has to be a major factor to make the decission.

Second question, no. But again persons without education shouldn't. It's another factor that has to be considered by the judge (or the person that has according to a given country,the final decission)

Third question, no. But again if the person that wants to adopt has severe health issues he shouldn't be allowed to adopt. The interest of the child come first.

Fourth. I can't answer that question, race is not and never was an issue in my country. Thank god we have, we have A LOT of other issues to solve, though.

Last. No. In fact our adoption law requires the petitioner to be over thirty, unless he is married for at least 3 years (if they can't have children the judge can lower this requirement).

The short answer is that there are a lot of factors to be considered when making a decission of this importance. I honestly don't know the effects on the child for being raised by a homosexual couple. If you know any study I would like a reference. I do think, though, that the ideal is to be raised by "traditional family".

[partly_warmer]

KellyM,

I was trying to broadly suggest the sheer quantity of laws and problems that would be subject to revision and additional problems. You've made a valiant attempt to answer the questions more specifically.

Before tussling a bit with your examples (IANA lawyer, but I have studied law, somewhat), what struck me is the extraordinary complexity and cost that would be added to the law for probably the benefit of no more than a couple % of the people. Who wants to pay for that? Laws that benefit almost nobody?

In wills and living trusts I've heard tell about -- which must be common ones -- when a spouse dies, everything goes to the other spouse while they're alive. If the marriage never ends, then the children would never get anything. A marriage that never ended that *did* hand on its money indefinitely seems to violate the laws of perpetuity, and to avoid inheritance tax. Which the IRS wouldn't like. If one were to disallow long-term chains of marriage, it seems like the older people in the marriage would be left unprotected in their old age. Doesn't work for me, either way.

I note that at least in the UK, one of five things has to be true to allow a divorce, and that four of them could be tricky for multiple person relationships.

Then I was thinking about foreign travel. A, B and C go abroad, married. Every other country in the world doesn't accept such marriages. So what's their status abroad? Not married? Only the earliest marriage counts?

Again, it just seems like an incredible mess for little or no gain to society.

[Dr. Lao]

Originally posted by Estilicon
The short answer is that there are a lot of factors to be considered when making a decission of this importance. I honestly don't know the effects on the child for being raised by a homosexual couple. If you know any study I would like a reference.

Well, lets turn it around. What potential negative effects do you anticipate occurring in children raised by a homosexual couple? Do you have any studies to back them up?

I do think, though, that the ideal is to be raised by "traditional family".

On what basis? You must have a reason.

[KellyM]

partly_warmer: First, I don't see the complexity as all that complex. It's adaption of existing law, not entirely new law, so there will be plenty of landmarks to help navigate the terrain.

Second, I don't care if it adds complexity. The excuse "it would be too hard to write law to handle that" is a lame excuse. The rights of the citizenry should never be curtailed for the convenience of the government. The governments exists to serve the people, and when you start putting the government ahead of the people, you have lost your focus.

On your specific objection regarding wills and living trusts: these instruments can be used to transfer the estate to whoever the testator/grantor desires. While they commonly transfer to a spouse (in part because of the beneficial tax treatment of spousal transfers) this is not obligatory. Ultimately the testator/grantor makes this determination, and multiple marriage will not change it. (If anything, these approaches are used to prevent the marital estate from passing to the children, as it would otherwise under intestacy law.) The same thing can occur under current law through a series of monogamous marriages, although it rarely does. I think that this concern is unlikely to come to pass, is contrived, and can be legitimately dismissed as an invention concealing a substantive objection to the concept as a whole.

In the US, non-fault divorce is the standard: a divorce can be had upon request. No proof of "failure" is required. I approach these issues from the assumption of no-fault divorce.

It is not true that "every other country in the world" does not accept multiple marriages. Many nations (especially the Arab nations of the Middle East, as well as some other nations with traditions of polygamy) permit multiple marriage, with various rules and limits. This is not really an issue, either.

The gain to society is in allowing people to structure their lives in the manner that makes them happiest. Why is that a bad thing?

[Estilicon]

I´m sorry Dr. Lao but things work the other way around. You have to provide the evidence. After all if you try to change the system you should be ready to provided all the scientific arguments.
I can't find any study but I heard on tv that single mother kids tend to be more promiscuous (girls) and having more trouble with the law (boys). The source is 20 20.

[KellyM]

Originally posted by Estilicon
I can't find any study but I heard on tv that single mother kids tend to be more promiscuous (girls) and having more trouble with the law (boys). The source is 20 20.

Didn't I ask you earlier specifically not to post evidence suggesting that two parents are better than one? I recall doing that. And yet you go ahead and do it.

I'll repeat what I said earlier: evidence that having two parents is better than having only one parent is irrelevant to your argument in support of heterodominance.

Also, you're wrong; you have to prove your position because your position is the one asserting a reason for discrimination. It is the duty of those who seek to discriminate to prove that the discrimination they seek is necessary.

[partly_warmer]

Originally posted by KellyM
partly_warmer: First, I don't see the complexity as all that complex. It's adaption of existing law, not entirely new law, so there will be plenty of landmarks to help navigate the terrain.

Second, I don't care if it adds complexity. The excuse "it would be too hard to write law to handle that" is a lame excuse. ...

It is not true that "every other country in the world" does not accept multiple marriages. Many nations (especially the Arab nations of the Middle East, as well as some other nations with traditions of polygamy) permit multiple marriage, with various rules and limits. This is not really an issue, either.

The gain to society is in allowing people to structure their lives in the manner that makes them happiest. Why is that a bad thing?

Sigh. You wouldn't be a lawyer, by any chance, would you?

I realized after posting there was a loophole in the statement about all other countries not allowing multiple person marriages. What I was imagining (and *surely* you could have guessed) is the Arab states would take a look at a marriage with one woman married to several men, and laugh. Unless I'm mistaken. Perhaps they'd spit.

The idea of society is to make the greatest number of people happy. Multiple marriages may "please" 2% of the people, but if they displease 50% would you be willing to drop it? If not, you're arguing from a tenuous position. And if I presented the question to USA Today readers this way "How would you like the duration and cost of marriage litigation trials to be increased an average of 10% on account of additional laws and procedure to support multiple marriages?" There's not much doubt an overwhelming majority would say: forget it.

I don't see you answered the question of how to avoid perpetuities in multiple marriage. Saying there is a way to avoid it in some cases still leaves other common cases. I agree the problem could happen (as you say very rarely) in marriages today. Multiple marriages would change this to a common occurence. I can easily imagine couples whose children have left home deciding to "spice up their lives" by adding someone slightly younger to their "marriage". Surprise, kids! Suddenly, unexpectedly, there's no hope of inheritance from your parents to help you with retirement! Oh, and by the way, there's another "parent" for you to take care of in old age, who had nothing to do with raising you. We're thinking of adding a couple more in a few years, so start saving!

You seem to be ignoring every social cost. Divorces are enormously disruptive to children. Having to spend time with a father, stepfather, mother and stepmother causes divided loyalties and much friction. Add to that the complexity of things like visiting rights of a half dozen "parents" who are no longer a part of one several "marriages" a child might be involved with ... it produces a horribly uncomfortable situation for children, and an opportunity for endless bickering between not just a couple, but potentially a dozen spouses and ex-spouses.

Marriages are to support the community, not to increase the chances of litigation.

[MrVisible]

Estilicon,

I'd like to point out that there is hardly a shortage of children waiting for adoptive parents, at least in the U.S. There is a shortage of babies, especially white babies, but according to this page there are 131,000 children waiting to be adopted in the US as of the year 2000, and about 51,000 of them will be placed with adoptive families.

80,000 children, scattered throughout the foster care system, waiting for families. 24% of children waiting for adoption have been in foster care for five years or more.

There are a lot of kids out there in need of homes.

If, in your country, this is not the case, then congratulations. There are a lot of countries that are worse off than yours, though; international adoptions from China, from the states of the former USSR, and from various other countries are becoming commonplace. If you were to make adoption easier, you could not only be taking care of the children of your own country, but those of the world as well.

[Dangerosa]

And, in the US, laws vary state to state, but most states have no laws forbidding gay men or women adopting. Therefore, Estilicon, you are the one actually proposing the change to the status quo in the US.

Argentina may be different, but if its like the US, the thought that gay people might want to adopt was so ridiculous that the states that do have laws have had to pass them recently.

[KellyM]

partly_warmer: I think your inheritance argument is DOA. Under existing law, there are so many ways to keep your money from going to the kids that adding another is irrelevant. And, as I pointed out already, you can accomplish the same thing anyway through serial monogamy, or for that matter just by writing a will that gives all the money to the Universal Truth of Infinite Fluffiness.

We have the American With Disabilities Act, which benefits a minority, creates massive amounts of litigation, and annoys a lot of people, not because it makes a majority happy but because it is the right thing to do. I think going out of the way to increase the happiness of 2% of the population (that's 6 million people, by the way, or roughly the entire population of the state of Massachusetts) is worth it, and as far as I can tell your arguments at this point are merely histrionics lacking any substantial merit. You are fearmongering when you claim that permitting multiple marriage will prolong divorces and rob children of their inheritances (especially the last one).

[Essured]

Originally posted by partly_warmer
Surprise, kids! Suddenly, unexpectedly, there's no hope of inheritance from your parents to help you with retirement!

I wasn't aware that kids were 'owed' an inheritance. I hope I receive nothing when my parents finally pass on. They earnt and saved it, I want them to enjoy it. I should earn my own money for retirement, not rely on my parents saving their's and giving it to me.

Oh, and by the way, there's another "parent" for you to take care of in old age, who had nothing to do with raising you. We're thinking of adding a couple more in a few years, so start saving!

I also wasn't aware that kids were 'required' to take care of their parents in old age, even if they single-handedly raised you, let alone if they had nothing to do with you.

Nice strawmen.

As to everything else, I agree with what KellyM has been saying.

[JocoseBanter]

I'm curious how a marriage among multiple people would be run. For example what would be required to admit another party to the marriage or eject (divorce) them. Would it have to be unanimous or would a simple majority rule? Could I be stuck married to someone I didn't want simply because I lack the voting power to stop it?

I'm not really arguing against the idea. I'm just unclear on how people believe a multi-partner marriage should be conducted and recognized by the law.

[JocoseBanter]

On re-reading the post by KellyM I see she already partially answered my divorce question. So I retract my question pending further consideration.

[KellyM]

Vodkahead: I think it is very reasonable to require unianimous consent of the participants of the existing marriage to admit an additional partner.

What you have for ejecting a partner is the remaining partners all agreeing to terminate the marriage and immediately remarry sans the ejected partner. Obviously, if anyone fails to agree, they can continue on with the rejected partner, or leave the marriage entirely. Since individual freedom is key here, no person whatsoever would ever be required to remain in a marriage against his or her will.

[partly_warmer]

Originally posted by KellyM
partly_warmer: I think your inheritance argument is DOA. Under existing law, there are so many ways to keep your money from going to the kids that adding another is irrelevant.

We have the American With Disabilities Act, which benefits a minority, creates massive amounts of litigation, and annoys a lot of people, not because it makes a majority happy but because it is the right thing to do...

No, no, no.

Most parents want their children to benefit by the fruit of their (the parent's). When parents are gone, and don't need the money, they WANT their children to have it. Creating marriages which much more frequently would effectively freeze the money (in an honest attempt to protect the surviving member of the marriage) could freeze the money indefinitely. In fact if a *dishonest* multi-marriage group were *trying* to avoid inheritance tax, it would be the perfect method.

It isn't only children who'd suffer. I was trying to suggest just how *extremely* complicated this situation is. And how much it would change society. Answering Goo, the problem is indefinitely tying up the money, not that children necessarily deserve anything. Charities and churches are critically dependent on gifts made by people after they die, and no longer need the money. The laws against perpetuity (in America) are designed to stop someone who's long dead from controlling money that needs to be used. It ties up assets and hurts the economy. That's what indefinitely prolonged marriages would do. I'm talking here about a 200-year marriage, not a limited time from now until your great Aunt drops off watching World Federation Wrestling.

The Disabilities Act is entirely different. Anybody *could* become disabled. So society as a whole benefits. It's a form of insurance, which this idea most certainly is not. Only a *few* people would choose multiple marriages, and everybody else -- with no expectation of gain, and no prospect of ever being personally involved -- would be stuck with the cost.

[KellyM]

partly_warmer, the estate and trust instruments you're talking about are used by people who do not want their money going to their children. These people are going to withhold their inheritance from their children by whatever means the law allows. Multiple marriage isn't going to change that.

You also clearly do not understand the rule against perpetuities and its purpose, or you wouldn't make the argument you do. The rule against perpetuities is not intended to prevent "dead-head" control of property; it is intended to avoid the situation where it is unclear or uncertain who owns a certain hunk of property. Note especially that the rule against perpetuities does not void a conditional grant where the reversion is to the grantor, no matter how distant the executory condition might be.

I also think you misunderstand the handling of the marital estate in probate in the United States today. The archaic form of marital property ownership called "tenancy by the entireties" (in which the husband held all the property of the marriage until either spouse died, and then the survivor became sole owner) has been all but abolished in the United States. Property and marriage interact in complicated ways in the United States, and the details vary from state to state, but in no state do they behave by default in the manner that you describe. To get the effect you are pretending is the "most common" behavior requires an affirmative act on the part of the cotenant spouses to create a joint tenancy. The default treatment, absent express intent to the contrary, is common tenancy, which at the death of each individual cotenant transfers to that cotenant's heirs without affecting the interests of the other cotenants.

Disallowing multiple marriages in no way prevents three people who would otherwise be multiply married from titling all of their property into a three-way joint tenancy with right of survivorship. And, allowing multiple marriage does not necessarily require that, by default, all marital assets will be titled into an n-way joint tenancy with right of survivorship. In short, multiple marriage does not create the evil you seek to avoid, and abolishing it does not prevent it.

You also seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that a marriage is a "person" with existence independent of its members. There is no legal basis to that position now and I see no reason why such a position would come into being were multiple marriage made legal. There is no "infinitely prolonged marriage." If Dick and Jane marry Julie, and Dick dies leaving his estate to Jane and Julie, then Dick's no longer in the marriage and no longer in control of the money. (And if Dick didn't explicitly leave a will disinheriting his children, the portion of his estate not held in JTWRS would pass by shares to his children anyway.) Dick gains no enhanced control over his estate by having been in a multiple marriage that he couldn't get already get through existing property law.

Please stop beating this dead straw horse. And can't we get off the relatively uninteresting property issues and deal with the far more interesting questions of parentage and childrearing instead? Why shouldn't a child be allowed to have three or more parents?

[musteion]

I think that it depends. The State's interest in marriage is primarily to promote the genesis of upstanding and stable children, since marriages provide a more stable economic base for child rearing.

Whether or not the bias against polygamous or homosexual marriages is the result of mere folkways, rather than a genuine interest in child welfare is another matter. That the laws enforce a status quo irrespective of actual State interest is hardly suprising. =}

[KellyM]

Originally posted by musteion
I think that it depends. The State's interest in marriage is primarily to promote the genesis of upstanding and stable children, since marriages provide a more stable economic base for child rearing.

Wouldn't a three (or more) parent household at least give the potential for a more stable economic base? With a three-parent household two parents could work and still have one to stay with the child.

[chula]

Let's see... Estilicon believes that wealth, education, health, and age should be factors in deciding who is able to adopt children. How about the location where the children will be raised? Won't they be better off in a country that is economically and politically stable than in Argentina?

[hijack]

Originally posted by Estilicon
Fourth. I can't answer that question, race is not and never was an issue in my country. Thank god we have, we have A LOT of other issues to solve, though.

I suppose genocide does result in a decrease in racial tensions. I doubt any of the handful of indigenous people who survived, or any non-white person you has visited Argentina for that matter, would agree with you.

[partly_warmer]

Originally posted by KellyM
You also seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that a marriage is a "person" with existence independent of its members. There is no legal basis to that position now and I see no reason why such a position would come into being were multiple marriage made legal. There is no "infinitely prolonged marriage."
Please stop beating this dead straw horse. And can't we get off the relatively uninteresting property issues and deal with the far more interesting questions of parentage and childrearing instead? Why shouldn't a child be allowed to have three or more parents?

You're right, I was talking about a living trust, which is an entity dependent on the people in it being alive.

I've made my points that this ridiculously complicates the law for the benefit of basically a few people who want to "do their own thing". And I agree, let's drop it.

I feel the natural mother and father of a child have a moral obligation to their child that other people do not. But I suspect you don't agree with that either. I can't convince you, but I suspect you are in a very small minority. Not just now, but throughout the world and throughout the history of humankind.

If there are laws that desperately need changing right now, they are international laws about keeping peace. Not ones to protect people who want to live in interesting types of new relationships and be given tax credits.

[KellyM]

partly_warmer, I too believe that the natural mother and father have a special obligation to discharge toward their children, but that this should not preclude fulfilling it by willing substitution (adoption), nor should it preclude other individuals volunteering to join the effort. People should be allowed, I think, to take on additional voluntary obligations, and then be held to them later. Such a choice is one not made lightly, to be sure, but I think allowing people to make such a commitment will, overall, benefit society. (It also takes away the power of an absent biological parent who refuses to surrender his or her rights to prevent a willing nonbiological parent from becoming a legal parent.)