Next Step in the Debate: Polyamorous, multiple-partner marriages?

Great Debates
1

Combining all the fun of a “homosexual marriage” debate with a “polyamory” debate, I now present “Legal Recognition for Polyamorous Marriages, yea or nay?” In light of the recent discussions here, and at least two personal accounts recently related that are germane to this topic, some people may have new perspectives on this issue. To be clear, I’m talking about the situation in which ALL individuals in the relationship have equal legal status in a marriage or union with ALL the other individuals. I’m speaking not of the religious type of polyamory, such as partriarchal polygamy still practiced in some parts of the west, rather as the type we occasionally hear of as “open marriages” and the sort. This is emphatically NOT about Mormons or other such sects, nor about what they may or may not have done or continue to do.

Basis: It seems the bulk of this board (myself included) has suggested they agree with acceptance of gay marriages by one of two methods. First, one might simply continue the present marriage system and eliminate any gender requirements of the two participants. The other would be to establish a two-tiered system in which “civil unions” replaced marriages as the government-recognized form, allowing those who also wish to be “married” by the tenets of their religion/ethics/etc to do so. Since most people feel that at least one of these two options is just, do we extend the rationale? If homosexuals have the right to be married despite not meeting the standard one-man-one-woman criteria, do we extend that right to those who exceed that criteria not by gender, but by numbers?

Problems: Prime problem here is where or if to set the limits, and how to keep marriage/union meaning anything in the modern world. If you allow 3, why not 4, or 5, or ad infinitum until we’re talking about marriage/unions of hundreds of people. Can the legal rights people enjoy as marital partners be effective in such a setting? Do they convey a meaningful benefit in this situation in any legal sense? Could those rights be effectively enforced? Could we adequately protect against the danger of fraud? (the tax fraud possibilities alone are mind-boggling.)

I assume those who opposed gay marriage would oppose this as well. So where do the rest of us draw the line? The common objections to religious polyamory, such as danger of exploitation to the women involved, don’t necessarily apply here, so it seems to me. If we would accept polyamorous marriage, under what terms and what system would we do so?

2

I’m having a Robert Heinlein moment here. :smiley:

Well, once you get beyond the usual man/woman “marriage” thing, then you’re just into general “contractual obligations”, and I suppose that theoretically you could have “contractual obligations” between as many people as you wanted.

But the paperwork…the paperwork would be crushing…

3

We need laws to govern polygamous unions. There will be polyamourous unions and the participants should have the benefits of the law and not need to fear the law. Society benefits from stable family groups, including multiple partner marriages. If you choose to make this illegal, all that means if the participants need to hide the situation from the law and that leads to the parties involved sacrificing theuir rights under law to keep their family together. It also makes it more difficult to enforce regulations we would choose to.

4

Well quite, especially if the relationship was not homogenous throughout the group but branched or something (person A is committed to persons B,C,D, and vice versa, but D enjoys additional commitment to persons E, F, G. Person G is happy to commit to D, C and G, but not B, E and F, person F, on the other hand…)

5

Well, that’s kinda the point. While a polyandrous group could attempt to establish a multiple-partner marriage by contract, (i) several key benefits of marriage (such as tenancy by the entireties, government benefits such as Social Security from the spouse’s account, etc.) are not able to be duplicated by contract and (ii) legal recognition of group marriages would eliminate almost all that paperwork by implying the element of the marriage contract in law.

As for my position, I’m in favor of the legalization of group marriages, but it’s not all that high on my list of priorities right now. I think, as a tactical matter, working for legalization of gay marriage should come first. Such legalization will benefit the fight for legal group marriages, by establishing a precedent.

Sua

6

Won’t somebodey please think of the children!

I mean, if dual parenthood is better than single parenthood, then three or four parents would be even better. Stands to reason, dunnit?

7

It takes a village, after all :slight_smile:

8

It’s tough enough that Prof. december has to put up with me. For her to have a second husband would impose cruel and unusual punishment. :slight_smile:

9

Right now, I want the laws that make my situation difficult to be repealed. That should not take much of a fight as most of them are considered outdated anyway. I worry about what will happen when I fill out the birth certificate with the correct information. I worry about what it will be like when the three of us go to the school open house. I worry that I might lose custody of my child simply because of my domestic situation.

I agree with SuaSponte that the legalization of gay marriage should be a higher priority than legalizing polyamourous unions. DOMA is a hideous law, and the prohibition on gay marriage is a great injustice, even more so than the prohibition on polygamous ones. But while we’re at it, we might as well go whole hog.

Latro, I sincerly hope you were not being facetious. In my situation, three parents is much better than two. Hubby is going to be a stay at home dad and KellyM and I are going to be breadwinners and milk makers. Without her contribution there would be no child and without her income, raising Loren would be much more difficult. I bring home enough to pay my and hubby’s basic bills, but meeting anything more than basic needs would be very difficult. We do not want our child to have to go to daycare and her income helps insure that Loren won’t have to. More important than purely economic contributions, is the emotion support of each parent having 2 others to depend on. I was scared of being pregnant. Hubby and KellyM have helped me face my fears and have supported me more completely than anyone person could. I can see no harm in a child having three parents to love and be loved by.

10

No, no, I wasn’t.
I actually do believe that humans are group animals.
This isolating ourselves in two-somes, with one or two kids and locked up in our own little homes, is not the best way for people to live, I feel.

11

I am sure I am not alone in thinking that perhaps you could benefit from another prof. december. Perhaps it would at least make your wife’s life easier. :smiley:

12

Tenancy by the entireties? Do you live in the old French code states, like Louisiana, Sua? IIRC, tenancy in common and joint tenancy are far more common, as tenancy by the entireties is peculiar to common law marriage states. Any group of people could form a joint tenancy or tenancy in common by deeding it to themselves that way. I suppose tenancy by the entireties is unavailable by contract, but it’s also unavailable to most people around the nation under their states’ common law.

Social Security is an interesting question too (along with it’s old parallels, like the Miner’s Acts.) If there were 4 or 5 people in a polyamorous marriage, how would the social security benefits get divided? Would it be divided between the remaining living spouses, or would the government have to dip into its (our) pockets to shell out the pension to each spouse separately?

I think I’d agree with lee to the extent that no unnatural barriers should be put in the way of people who attempt to live that way, nor adverse child custody consequences. Keep in mind, though, that the present child support system is inexorably tied to the concept of two parents, the biological ones. Disrupting that system could really throw a wrench into ensuring kids receive adequate support. Since birth certificates create rebuttable presumptions in most states of biological parentage, that aspect of the system probably should not be altered.

13

RexDart, I disagree as to child support. Every child should be entitled to two parents, but I see no reason why they need to be the biological parents. We already have procedures under law to relieve a biological parent of the obligation of child support (voluntary surrender in the form of adoption, and involuntary termination in the case of neglect), so it is simply false that support is “inexorably” tied to the biological parents.

I see no reason why an adult should not be allowed to make a voluntary agreement with the state to support a given child. I would not allow termination of such agreements without judicial review, and would grant termination sparingly (such as when the child already has at more than two parents and the removal of one would not impair the ability of the child to be supported). Substitutions would be allowed under a mechanism similiar to that currently utilized for adoption. I would require the biological parents, and all marital partners thereof, to be considered mandatory parents except where sperm or ova have been donated through an approved mechanism, or where a lack of consent to the acts leading to the creation of a child can be proven. (Note that this also means that rape victims–but not rapists–are not necssarily obliged to support the offspring of a rape. I consider this a good idea.) This could result in any one child having a large number of “parents”, but this too I consider a good thing: if a child has six or seven parents supporting it, then the failure of one or even two of them to do so will not seriously endanger the child’s welfare.

The current child support regime frequently wreaks considerable injustice. I think it would not be unwise to consider ways to make it less unjust, especially if doing so helps to relieve other forms of injustice in our family legal system.

14

Not all together a bad idea aslong as all parties are happy, but I can see bad things happening… kids are evil and smart, surely 1 out of the miriad of parents will allow them what ever forbiden item they want. “But Daddy #3 said I could…” :smiley:

In my family experience it has always been the aunts, uncles, and grand parents that have been that vilage that is required for raising a child. They seem to have done a somewhat decent job with me and all of my cousins. But as I said aslong as everyone in the marriage contract abides by the contract then I’m cool with it.

As for child support, I could care less who supports the child, as long as it is supported and cared for.

I do have one question… would these unions start off as more of a traditional one on one and then bring in more people, or would it be a massive group wedding? Who needs bride’s maids and groom’s men when you can have more grooms and brides… :smiley:

15

A line has to be drawn somewhere, and it’s drawn between what you’re free to do and what has societal sanction.

Do you want to live in a house with 14 adults and a few kids? Nobody is stopping you. Nobody is stopping gay shacking up, or straight shacking up for that matter. If you want to share your paychecks and property any number of legal arrangements can be made.

You can buy insurance policies to cover anyone you want for life and medical coverage. Most hospitals will ask you to identify the next of kin that can visit, living wills and powers of attorney can designate who gets to make decisions on your behalf if you’re incapacitated.

Americans have considerable freedom as to how they want to lead their lives and set up their households. Yet this freedom isn’t enough for some. They demand financial benefits for any choice they make.

To these people, I have some advice. Make your own way, and get over it.

Any choice that is made involves economic factors. We choose for my wife not to work; for this choice I have to pay for her health coverage. If we could not afford to do so, I would have to find a better paying job, a second job, or my wife would have to work.

These are considerations people make routinely. Yet some people see discrimination where their choices would entail some cost to them.

Is the insurance industry fair? The tax code? Adoption agencies? Hardly. Yet they cannot be so, for many reasons. The insurance agencies and laws and the tax code are geared toward the needs of the majority of customers and the political strengths of the majority. Adoption agencies are geared towerd making decisions based on the best interests of children. All of these entities, it is true, do not favor nontraditional living arrangements. (For that matter, many are hostile toward traditional families as well.) Expecting fairness from them is futile.

American society favors married couples with children. Since I believe that this is the best environment for children and adults both, I support this bias, so long as the basic rights of those who choose a different path are not violated. Getting a break on an insurance premium is not, by the way, a basic human right.

16

This is false. Such an arrangement would be illegal in many – if not most – places unless everyone involved was “related” to one another by blood or marraige.

17

MrMoto, what KellyM may be referring to are situations in which certain environments would be considered bad for the children, and social services gets involved. Other than the local housing codes that might determine the maximum number of occupants for safety reasons, I’m not aware of any law that would prohibit any living arrangement between adults. If I’m wrong about that, I’d like to see a cite on the law in question, being an inquisitive law student.

KellyM, there are some states that allow voluntary abdication and reassignment of child support obligations. Some, not all. (See my “Male Abortion” thread in GD from a few months ago for a lengthier discussion of that.) All states allow the obligation to be shifted through adoption. For instance, my mother’s biological father abandoned my grandmother while my mother was still young. When my grandmother remarried, my mother was adopted and thus the grandfather I knew took responsibility financially.

Although I can see how having an extended “family” all supporting a child could be beneficial, I also see some pitfalls there for the people in the proposed polyamorous marriage. Would accepting legal financial responsibility for the child be a prerequisite for entering the marriage legally? If not, would it nonetheless become a sticking point with the partners in the relationship, in the context of:

A: “Oh, you want to be with us but you don’t want to support the child?”

B: “I will help support the family, I just don’t want to be legally obligated.”

A: “Oh, so you’re already planning for the time you want to leave us and you want to be free to ditch out on the family? Then we don’t want to marry you anyway!”

Kind of like prenuptual agreements. Everybody ought to have one before they marry, they simplify the divorce and protect both parties’ legitimate interests. People are often afraid to be pragmatic in the days before a marriage, since the modern view of marriage sees it as solely founded upon some enigmatic confluence of emotions. The problem is that people do have pragmatic concerns about protecting financial interests, they’re just too often afraid to broach the subject. It could be even worse if we’re talking about allocating child support responsibilities. Those continue until the child is 18 (perhaps as long as 22 if the kid goes to college), and should not be taken on lightly, nor in a situation in which one is afraid to decline the burden for fear of ruining a romantic relationship.

18

RexDart, I am referring to (a) housing codes, which are frequently used to discriminate against gay couples and other forms of nontraditional cohabitation, and (b) specific state laws against cohabitation (e.g. Illinois’).

I’m undecided on the issue of support of children. I think in general the entire marriage ought to have the obligation to support children of the marraige, but exceptions should probably exist to protect partners who do not consent to or participate in the production of a child (“consent” and “participate” need definition obviously), as well as the situation of children from outside the marraige. The possibility donation of genetic material makes writing simple definitions harder, too, as we probably want to consider a child born of a woman in the marrage by the means of donated sperm a “child of the marriage”, while at the same time treating a a child born of a woman outside the marriage fathered by a man within the marriage as not being a “child of the marraige”. The biological test fails here, and I don’t have a clear test that does not fail.

19

So I assume that, if the relevant research could be produced that showed the superiority of multiple-partner marriages for children and adults, you would support multiple-partner marriages and the repeal of two-party marriage. It would be in the best interest of everyone involved, after all.

Granted, two-person marriages would lose some of their privileged status, as well as financial benefits. Fortunately, we can tell these people

20

KellyM, there may indeed be some sort of cohabitation laws in Illinois with which I’m not familiar. Still, I’ve never heard of nor seen any housing code that would prevent two adults from living together. If maximum occupancy is exceeded, that affects everyone equally. Otherwise, everyone is still equally able to form their living arrangements. If three people move into an apartment, and do not exceed the maximum occupancy by doing so, then it doesn’t matter whether those three are all men, all women, a married couple and a friend, two lovely ladies and John Ritter posing as a gay man, or a 3-person relationship. Anything else would be unconstitutional and struck down easily if challenged, because it would necessarily entail gender discrimination and as such would not survive the SCOTUS application of “strict scrutiny”.

There are antiquated laws limited the number of women in a single house, under the auspices of preventing formation of a house of prostitution. Those laws are either repealed or would suffer the same fate as described above if ever challenged.

I realize you may have some personal experience here, but your description does not match any sort of law with which I am familiar, and thus I would be highly curious to see a cite on these laws and an explanation of how they are affecting you. Then I could determine if these are the sort that specifically hamper a multiple-partner relationship, or the type that limit everyone equally, and thus whether or not they have a nondiscriminatory policy justification.