Would a signed, notarized End of Life type document be an easy workaround for that, or would a simple note work?
Every family with more than one child currently faces this problem after the first parent dies. There are multiple children who are next of kin for the surviving parent.
As it happens I am perfectly fine with green-card marriages, IFF the immigrating party is coming of their own free will (i.e. not being ‘sold’ or otherwise coerced).
Bigamy is fraud. Presumably both defrauded spouses and any children would have a financial claim on the bigamist when discovered.
Not sure how this is relevant to the overall question of polygamy?
Permitting polygamous marriage could impact two-person marriages in several ways: It could lead to the elimination of certain privileges which are based on or affordable solely because of exclusivity; it could lead to the elimination of default marital rules so that it requires individual contracting; and if retroactive to extant marriages, could change existing individual union rules in ways the couple may not have foreseen or wanted (such as opening that union to additional spouses).
If permitting polygamous marriages does none of these things, I’d like to see how that is done without making polygamous marriage quite dissimilar to two-person marriage, i.e. the separate but equal problem. It’s true that if you have two categories of marriage, couple and plural, then the couple marriages will never be impacted by the plural marriages. But if they are to operate in the same sphere, to be equal but not separate, couple marriages must be impacted.
Isn’t that pretty much what a medical power of attorney is?
Polygamy is not good for men.
Because of female hypergamy, women will happily accept 1/10 of a wealthy man over 100% of a poor one.
Society would wind up with a surplus of males with no hope of finding mates. Much like in China.
SSM is not good for women, since there are about twice as many gay men as women. Women will happily accept marriage to a gay man rather than marriage to no man (using your logic).
“SSM is not good for women”
Could be, but maybe
SS Polygamy might be good for lesbian women, or men who identify as lesbian women.
It seems that according to Obergefell, it does not matter whether legal polygamy would be good or bad for men or women, or that it would require writing different default rules for marriage. Because some people want it, and it demeans individuals who believe that their “throuple” or twenty-five some should be treated the same as traditional two person marriage, then that is enough under the Fourteenth Amendment to mandate that all fifty states recognize it.
What an…interesting interpretation of Obergefell.
So when polygamy is legalized, then rich men are going to marry a dozen women?
OK, I understand that a poor woman might be happy to be the 10th wife of a rich guy. Why does the rich guy want to add this woman to his harem? He needs to get laid? Are you telling me that no woman will have sex with him unless he agrees to marry her?
In real life rich men who want that sort of thing already have women they can have sex with, and they don’t have to marry them. Legalized polygamy won’t change that. High status men already get all the women, and loser men have to fight over the dregs. So no change.
Er, no they dont.
This is what I’ve wondered as well. The SCOTUS argument seems to be that if people want a certain type of marriage, then it is depriving them of Constitutional equality to not give it to them.
I think not. They have to want a form of marriage which is already extended to others.
And this is where the analogy between SSM and polygamous marriage falls down. A couple seeking to enter a same-sex marriage want the treatment which the law already affords to a couple in an opposite-sex marriage, which includes recognition of, and support for, the exclusive nature of the relationship. (While my marriage to A subsists, I am legally precluding from contracting a marriage to B.) Advocates for legal recognition of polygamous marriage have to devise a new framework that they want recognition for, and doing so involves (among other things) answering the questions raised by Strassia in post #31. And when you have answered those questions what you end up with is a framework which looks significantly different, in many respects, from mutually exclusive monogamous marriage.
And the very fact that they have to devise the framework tells you that the framework doesn’t already exist; that there’s nobody living in a relationship which corresponds to this framework who enjoys legal recognition and support. Consequently you can’t say that you are denied equal protection by not having this framework recognised; nobody has this framework recognised, so where is the inequality of treatment?
Same-sex couples were seeking access to an existing socially-established and legally recognised framework from which they were excluded on account of their sexual orientation. Polygamous partnerships are demanding legal recognition of a new framework which is not clearly socially established, and for which nobody, of any gender or orientation, currently enjoys recognition. There may be good arguments to be made in support of that demand, but trying to present the demand as analogous to the demand for SSM is not one of them.
Indeed. There are other non-analogous relationships out there that the Constitution, IMHO, does not require state and federal legislatures codify a framework for. Dom-sub come to mind. Or the more extreme Master-Slave. The Constitution does not require that we all get exactly what we want put into the law. It does require that what ever is provided in the law is offered to all equally, with the allowed caveats*.
*Various levels of scrutiny applied as appropriate. In this case, age discrimination is allowed (children cannot marry), but since Loving, racial discrimination is not, and since Obergefell, same for sex and orientation discrimination.
None of your questions are relevant to Saint Cad’s, unless you posit that the answers from the rest of the American legal system depends on the specific form of polygamy, in which case it would be you who needs to explain how.
The way that the rest of the American legal system would respond to a particular state making a new form of marriage available depends heavily on what that new form of marriage is, how it works, and how it differs from traditional marriage. For example, if Utah only allowed ‘one husband, many wives’ polygamy, it would get struck down on equal protection grounds since. It’s not really 'posit’ing to point that out, it’s a fact that’s really obvious to anyone who knows enough to answer the question.
What delicious irony it would be - for both sides of the issue - if Utah went from resisting gay marriage to leading the polygamy-rights movement.
This can happen within Islam, if a Muslim visits the USA with multiple wives that he has legally married in his own country you accept it. If a man takes a bride in a country where the age of consent is 13, What happens if they visit America as man and wife for the honeymoon. these are genuine situations that can happen so the Utah situation is not unsurmountable. A man living with three woman is not breaking the law unless he decides to marry the three of them. The law needs to be updated as morality has moved on
Incorrect.
Their marriage is not recognized in the United States.
There is a huge difference between Full Faith and Credit amongst US states and variance in laws between sovereign nations. The two situations are not even a little bit comparable.
Absolutely correct. And yet…
This does not follow logically from anything else you wrote.