I support the ideas espoused by the OP. And I tend to use the term “polyamory” in the broader context that Lilairen describes.
For those putting forward the argument that the legal matters get so complicated as to be unworkable, please help me understand why a corporation in business law (versus a partnership) is able to accommodate unlimited stakeholders.
Sure, it is more complicated, but hardly unworkable.
I think it would be a shame if the gay population took on this issue and added reasons for “conservatives” to continue to deny them their rights. This would add years on to achieving a workable solution. Most of the committed gay couples I know, just want to be able to take care of their families.
I agree. Let’s be honest here, socially condoned polyamory (as opposed to cheating on your spouse) is somewhat alien to western society. Homosexuality, thanks to decades of work, is much less so. As noted above, granted the legal protections of marriage to group marriages would take some work. Same-sex monogamous marriages are thus a much easier sell.
I’d also argue that homosexual marriage is also a much more important issue. One does not chose to be homosexual. Whether one takes multiple spouses is a matter of choice and taste.
From a human rights perspective, I see no reason why not to legally define and protect group marriages, but it would be a terrible mistake for those asking for homosexual marriage to attatch there campaign to this one.
Personally, I am against legalising polyamory.
In terms of polygamy, mutliple marriages, divorces and alimony can work reasonably well under Islam because there is a well established tradition, and religious law, on both polygamy and divorce. Compared to Christianity, Islam was and still is centuries ahead in terms of divorce and marriage settlements. Possibly in a sexist way, because financially it favours the woman: the man must support her, she never has to support him. So as I understand it, a Muslim man could never sue his Muslim wife for alimony, even if she was a billionnairess businesswomen and he gave up his entire career to bring up their kids for twenty years. In fact, according to Sharia, he’d possibly still have to support her.
But Islamic polygamy is an enshrined tradition within particularly strict parameters. There is only ever one husband. There are no same sex, transgendered, or transgendering partners. It happens in a culture where it is expected that women will primarily bring up the family, even if she works. That said, custody laws in Islamic countries have a LONG way to go.
What sort of rights do you want for a group marriage? Which partner gets the “partner’s health insurance” or partner’s air flights in an employment contract? You can hardly expect an employer to dish out twice, or thrice, or quadruple. I also think there is a major difference between a strictly traditional polygamous situation in a Muslim or Mormon family, and a looser group of people in a polyamorous style situation.
istara brings up an excellent point–namely, that most health, etc., benefits today are based on two spouses. If polygamy became common, I think you’d find the spousal health insurance benefits we have today disappear. Of course, by the time something like this passed, the healthcare system could be radically different, with everyone receiving govt. healthcare individually, regardless of their marital status.
In general, I would not be opposed to polygamy, so long as:
1 - cohabitation were a requirement; I don’t think any marriage, straight, gay, multiple, etc., can be considered a marriage without cohabitation
2 - the contractual obligations/rights/property divisions/child custody/etc. were all exhaustively described in a prenuptial agreement; no one should be able to enter into a multiple marriage–something which our culture has zero experience in dealing with–without one
In this board, yes. But in the country at large, the discussion isn’t terribly civil. The actions of bodies like the Massachusetts Supreme Court, acting out of concert with established tradition, law and in opposition to popular opinion, is set on imposing its will, come what may.
Don’t kid yourself that this will settle things once and for all. Look at what a festering wound the abortion issue has been since Roe vs. Wade.
I didn’t mean to suggest that they were. I did mean to suggest, though, that the same arguments could be used to grant this right. Indeeed, if gay marriage is validated, we’d be hard pressed to deny polygamous marriage in America. Certainly it’s had a longer and more illustrious history.
Several polls have found that popular opinion in Massachusetts is with the SJC decision, you know.
The one I can find without going to more effort than I feel like at the moment was sponsored by GLAD, and so its biases should be taken into consideration. The results can be found at http://www.glad.org/marriage/Decision_Research_Poll_10.30.03.pdf. If you’re talking about public opinion outside Massachusetts, well, I don’t see the relevance to what is, after all, a Massachusetts decision.
Sheesh. The gay marriage threads get hijacked by people talking about polygamy, and now the polygamy threads are getting hijacked by people talking about gay marriage.
I don’t agree with this. The abortion issue carries with it a perception of continual harm being done. It’s hard to imagine what harm could be perceived from gay marriages, once they just become a regular fact of life.
Allowing gays to marry is a natural progression, merely an addition to an existing institution. Polygamy is a radical change of this institution and doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the changes currently proposed. Being gay is normal, even if not the “norm”. Having multiple spouses would involve more of a cultural change. Polygamy’s long history has not typically included cultures that we particularly respect. That would be a tough road. I would not be in favor of it in part because of the economic problems involved. A family contract would not deal with things like social security and survivors benefits, etc. The federal government does not change very quickly. I would also have to see some perceived overall benefit to make the changes worthwhile.
And the gay marriage advocates can’t seem to support such tolerance, because, gee, they’ve made so much progress. :smack:
I mean, its the principle of thing, right?
As for healthcare, employers can certainly provide an equal subsidy for employees with one spouse or two. Anyone hear of a cafeteria plan? There is also supplemental insurance, other families need elderly care, extra dependent care, … need I go on?
Huh? Like Judeo-christian culture? Polygamy may feel distant time-wise, but it is clearly in our lineage.
I’m not sure what the principle of it is? Let’s legalize anything anyone could possibly want, no matter how few are involved? What really are the overall benefits? Gay marriage advocates shouldn’t support this, because their cause is more worthy and not worth compromising for a side issue. Sometimes you should put on your own oxygen mask first.
Incest used to be an acceptable practice, too. I don’t think the lineage angle is going to work that well. People believe we have progressed from many of these practices.
What are the overall benefits?
How about the standard parcel that one ought to know from listening to debates over gay marriage: the right to see one’s partners in the hospital. Having all a family’s parents be able to handle the family responsibilities for the children. Protection from being forced to testify against a spouse in court.
That’s ignoring the economic things, like intestate inheritance, the right to transfer property without incurring tax, and access to health care.
And also, that’s ignoring the social things, the fact that legal marriage is the societal rite of passage for acceptance of a relationship, and it’s really quite painful to have a spousal relationship that some people feel free to dismiss as irrelevant because it doesn’t come with paperwork. (One family I know handled this by having two weddings, I believe within a week of each other, and not telling anyone other than the people who keep track of the paperwork which one was the legal one.)
I’m not entirely gay, but I’d say I’m theoretically in favor of the proposal, with the caveat that the details would be significantly harder to work out then the gay case.
Ultimately, I think the government should completely butt out of the marriage game. Leave the ceremony to the churches, the benefits details to temployers, and the assignment of the other rights (e.g., hospital visitation, beneficiaries, etc.) to the individual or institution that it concerns.
Makes a lot of sense for a person who is not interested in a polywhatever relationship.
No matter what the legal status of these relationships or what you call them, I’m not the kind of person who would be happy in one. When I’m in a relationship it’s with one other person, who’s only in a relationship with me.
So that would pretty well eliminate from the market everybody who is in any kind of group relationship.
To be honest I was thinking about overall benefits for society in general. I would like to say I’m sympathetic to this cause, but I am not particularly. Perhaps if I knew people that this affected, it would be easier for me to consider it an issue large enough to take on. I have no doubt that it is a problem for some, but does it affect enough people for it to be worth considering? I guess I believe new laws should only be put into effect to right horrible wrongs or if they are necessary for at least a certain number of the population.
Several of these issues can be handled with notorized statements and power of attourny. As for protection against being forced to testify against a spouse, I can’t work up much sympathy for that dilemma.
The economic issues are probably the biggest reason I’m not in favor of this. Let’s say four adults enter into a “marriage union”. They receive all the tax breaks involved, so the taxes they pay for various things are reduced. The actual tax dollars needed to run our government do not go down. To make up the difference in your tax breaks, taxes will go up across the board. So while you will still be paying less, I will be paying more, to make up the deficit caused by the new marriage laws. Your lifestyle will actually cost me money in the long run. I’m not interested in making a sacrifice, so you can reap the benefits of your choice. Health benefits will not increase, so the only benefit to you will be flexibility on who you can have on your policy. This may give employers more of a reason to just stop including them as a benefit. Too complicated.
Even if this were made legal, I don’t believe with that would come any more acceptance than there would be now. I am willing to be proved wrong, but I just don’t see it happening. I still see this as a lifestyle choice and not something a person is compelled to do in any way. It is a choice to allow yourself to even be in a postition to love multiple partners and while I can agree that the choice is individual, I don’t feel like I should have to make any concessions for it. I also have doubts as to whether or not I would want to make this happen for my children or grandchildren. Wouldn’t this make life even more complicated?
I doubt it. I am not a lawyer, but from what I have seen, prenuptial agreements are sometimes or even commonly deemed invalid or unenforcable in courts.
For those who feel that plural marriage is necessary as a matter of principle -
Do you expect that whatever rules are applied to gay marriage/multiple marriage will be applied to traditional heterosexual one-man-and-one-woman marriage? Or do you think a different institution should be set up, with a different set of rules?
I am thinking of inheritance or medical power of attorney as examples. Is there going to be one primary spouse, who makes treatment decisions and otherwise acts as next of kin, or what kind of decision-making structure is expected?
Or, supposing in some multiple marriage, one partner leaves. Is he expected to pay child support for all the children of the marriage, including those for whom he is not the biological father? What if nobody knows?
Regards,
Shodan
Is there some reason to presume that the majority of people “off the market” by this standard are going to be of a particular sex?
My experience is that people who value monogamy can be of whatever sex, and I have no evidence to suggest that there are more men or women or whatever who do. Given that none of the people to whom it matters are likely to accept a poly marital arrangement in the first place, they’re not off your market because of it.
. . .
It’s good to know that I’m a member of a minority that isn’t large enough to be worthy of consideration. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
Familiar with the marriage penalty? That thing that kicks in when you have more than one person in a household earning a significant amount of money? I’m not certain that the numbers work out the way you believe they do.
Personally, even without marriage rights for my family, I think the Federal tax code is broken; it presumes that the default standard family is two-parent n-children one-income. This doesn’t work for a large number of people – multiple-income families, families caring for elderly relatives, extended households, and all of that. My feeling is that taxation should be handled by household, not anything else, including marriage, because people arrange by households.
I’m just as thrilled about having my orientation and family trivialised as a “lifestyle” as the queer folk. You’re not compelled to have a partner or marry in any way either, but people don’t sneer at your “lifestyle” if you do.
People who feel a need for a multiple-adult partnership family will have one whether you make “concessions” for it or not, like people who feel a need for a same-sex partnership family will have one whether you make “concessions” for it or not. Your children and grandchildren will face the same choices whether you dismiss polyfolks as too small a minority to be worth considering or not – they’ll just face them with greater or lesser ability to protect themselves.
When my family is no longer divided by such a long distance, I’m going to be filing a medical power of attorney giving both my partners equal right to make care decisions for me in the event of an emergency. The concept of giving one of my partners higher status than the other feels about as icky to me as the concept of declaring one child the important kid.
I don’t support multiple marriage/polygamy/polyamory/whatever you want to call it, but I do want to point out that monogamous gay marriages can be treated the same as monogmous straight marriages in terms of things like power of attorney and inheritance. So, you really shouldn’t say “gay marriage/multiple marriage” as distinct from “traditional marriage”.
That’s a fair point.
But the question remains if you can advocate for gay marriage because forming relationships amidst consenting adults is a basic human right, and still exclude multiple marriage. Why, in other words, is it OK for two gays to be married, but not three?
“Hard cases make bad law”, they say. I don’t mean to involve your personal life in this discussion, but what about cases where partners disagree about important decisions? I have seen it happen even in cases where there is supposed to be one decision-maker, as in the executor of a will.
I expect that most of the issues will arise in situations where people got “married” without any pre-nuptial agreements. Then the union breaks up, or some crisis occurs, and there is no clear path of decision or of responsibility. Family law is messy, even for heterosexuals.
Regards,
Shodan
Okay, it won’t mean much, but I am sorry for offending you. I just couldn’t come up with a better way of saying it. Again, I apologize. Since this is your cause, I do think it’s up to you to provide some sort of validation, facts, numbers to show that there is a reason, beyond your own wishes for changing the law. You need to realize that this is actually a foreign concept for many of us, so your reasoning may not be immediately clear.
I am familiar with it. My assumption was that a married couple was adding other adults to their family and in all honesty it seems like the entire tax structure would need to be changed for this anyway. I will plead ignorance on this. I was only suggesting possible scenarios. I’m sure I’m not alone in considering the different ways this would affect us as a whole. It’s up to those in favor of the change to research and come up with this type of information.
I agree with that.
I am not sneering at your lifestyle and I’m sorry if the word has a negative conotation for you. I’m just not familar with all of the PC verbage involved in polyamory, polygamy or whatever term is right for you. Gay marriage is about being included in the existing marriage laws and I still believe what you’re asking for is a lot more complicated. I wasn’t trying to trivialize it, but still see it as a choice and completely different from the gender issue.
You’re obviously going to have to make “concessions” for me. The only way for me to learn whether or not what I’m thinking might be wrong in this setting is to just say it. I can keep quiet and stay uninformed and close-minded or I can put my foot in my mouth and let you convince me that what I’m saying is wrong; while I’m chewing on my shoe.
It makes more sense to fight ignorance than resent it.
I can understand that. Again, I’m sorry I offended you.