Can you imagine the economic power of “Bob and Ted and Carol and Alice”? If they could get along?
Well, then the answer is simple. Restrict marriage licenses to those above the age of 21, graduated from at least high school, and there can not be more than a 10 year age difference. Limit it to no more than 4 people of whatever sex per marriage.
Believe me, with same sex marriage being legal, I know at least 4 gay male couples so that frees up 8 women for either lesbian same sex marriage or plural marriage.
keep in mind the current poly cultures are intensely male based homophobic traditional cultures. As I pointed out, freedom of sexuality changes the whole shebang. There would be a lot of women who would refuse to let their spouse marry another man or woman, just as in the poly cultures there were also a substantial number of men with only one spouse.
Because it would be LEGAL to have a poly marriage in the US, does not mean that everybody would immediately start randomly trying to marry off their daughters into a poly marriage, nor would most men go for another wife. Our culture has thoroughly ingrained freedom of choice into enough women that I doubt you could coerce the female population into voting in some amendment giving the males power to force women into unwilling marriages … and not every female in the country lives in one of those closed communities where they brainwash the girls into obedience.
Put it on tv and call it the New Playboy Mansion show …
There is no such thing as halfway. Either you get there all the way with homosexuals or all the way with polygamy or all the way with both issues.
Are you aware of the basic arguments of the debate?
No, it does not.
Let us change the way it is looked at.
Marriage is a contract between 2 people, currently 1 man 1 woman. Leave any possible or impossible progeny out of the deal, procreation has nothing to do whatsoever with the concept of marriage as a contract, UNLESS it is as a subclause [spousal unit shall provide offspring at a rate of 1 per 5 years of marriage naturallly or through invitero fertilization and surrogacy]
You have terms:
In general we consider the terms to be cohabitation, provision of sexual congress, monetary issues as agreed upon [traditionally the man goes out and works and pays for everything, nowdays we have both working, him working and her housekeeping and progeny keeping or her working and him providing progeny care and housekeeping] The spouses have other rights to legal consideration - the whole medical power of attorney, business power of attorney, various aspects of contract law that are traditional [such as teh husband being responsible for the debts of wife and kids, provision of medical care, education, food and clothing and so forth.]
So if we want to have 2 husbands and 1 wife, it is simply the same as drawing up a 3 way contract instead of a 2 way contract.
Breaking the contract, aka divorce is also a matter of contract law, JUST like it is now with 2 people. You have resources, some may be protected by a prenuptual agreement, you have real estate and durable good gained during the marriage, and perhaps even progeny that have to have their interests protected.
To simplify it, you would start with prenups all around defining what each person goes into the marriage with. You would put in place a contract defining what the living arrangements will be, and how the costs of maintaining the home will be covered, and how to determine identification and maintenance of progeny [ i would say to be fair that the mother and sperm doner are responsible for teh specific progeny, that way you dont have the nonsperm doner paying for a kid that is not theirs in case of divorce] You need to determine what is to happen in the case of different medical happenings [but i think everybody should actually have a living will, just to avoid a terry schiavo case and that was with only ONE husband … ]
**As I said, it is all contract law, you just have to get it through your mind that our current monogamy is also a case of contract law - just the parameters of said contract are based on tradition, not logic. **
Well said.
Sorry if I missed it upthread but…
If man A marries woman B and woman C, wouldn’t woman B and C also be allowed to marry man D? I mean, I’m going to suppose that two women can marry one man AND two men can marry one woman under this scenario. If man A can marry women ad infinitum, his extant wives should be able to marry again as well.
Man A goes to sue woman B for divorce on the grounds of adultery but wait: she was dating man D and considering making him her second husband. Only once the hot sex was over, they realized it “wasn’t going to work out.”
Sounds pretty complicated to me if there’s going to be division of property etc.
Yes, they do.
Abe marries Ben. Abe makes $50k per year, Ben makes $300 k per year. When they married they were broke. All money earned and property acquired since they wed is community property and in the event of a divorce will be dealt with as such- either an amicable split or worse-case-scenario a court ordered division. If it’s the latter, those can be quite grueling in and of themselves.
Now imagine that instead Abe is married to Becky and Cindy. Abe makes $50,000 per year, Becky is a stay at home mom, Cindy earns $300,000 per year. What is considered community property in this situation? If Becky drops out of the marriage, well obviously she can expect child support from Abe, but how about Cindy? Does Becky have a legal relationship to Cindy? Does she have a legal right to spousal support from Cindy? Then further suppose that Cindy is also married to Don, who’s a college student, who’s also married to Edna, who’s a millionaire- is Edna related to Becky? Can they all file taxes together?
Abe and Ben- there’s not a single thing that’s more complicated about their relationship than there is if it was just Abe and Becky. Abe and Becky and Cindy and company is a LOT more complicated and divorce situations/custody issues/etc. would be incomparably more varied and complicated.
Of course this is not the case as a general rule, but in this specific case I believe the complications should be considered.
I wasn’t avoiding them, I didn’t see them as worth addressing. Since it doesn’t involve a significant amount of rewrites I don’t feel the need to address the issue. It’s rather like asking would I oppose gay marriage if it contributed to global warming: it doesn’t so why address it?
Nobody is arguing this in general. Necessity dictates all kinds of changes. This is not an argument for or against general changes to the law, it is an argument against a specific change- polygamy, which for many reasons-
-the complications of a polygamous household as addressed
-the fact that not 1 person in 500 consenting adults would likely enter into such a relationship anyway
-the fact that polygamy is a lifestyle choice rather than an orientation
-the fact that most people who practice polygamy in the U.S. actively *discourage
-the fact that polygamists are not persecuted as it is for their lifestyle (the raids on the YFZ ranch were borne of allegations of child abuse and forced marriages, not on their religious beliefs)
-the fact that the reasons gays want marriage is because their unions CAN be governed on a general basis by within the existing legal infrastructure while polyamorous unions are far too individualized to benefit from or even be apropos to existing legal infrastructure
They are simply different creatures.
This is an absurd question based on something completely not under discussion, roughly like asking how I feel about the reclassification of Pluto as a non-planet based upon the fact I support Obama. We are discussing a specific legal issue.
For the reasons already described. Same sex unions are nothing more than extending the exact same rights to a same sex couple that apply to opposite sex couples. Polygamy would create new rights: the right to have more than one person legally permitted not to testify against you, the right to have more than one person have spousal rights.
What special rights are they afforded? I have evidenced what special rights and complications are presented by polygamous unions. What exactly changes under the traditional rules of marriage by extending them to same sex couples?
In this specific case, and when combined with other considerations, yes.
The reasons most gay couples are seeking legal recognition is not for self esteem but for legal and financial rights that they are denied under the existing structure, essentially the right to name one person who is not a blood relation as your next of kin in all matters of property and visitation and kinship. These same rights ARE NOT APPLICABLE to polyamorous couples due to the extreme convolution and complications that are involved.
Nor does a question have validity or logical merit because you ask it. “If penguins could mate with humans should the offspring be regarded as subject to game laws or child abuse statutes?” is prima facie and upon other examination without merit: humans can’t mate with penguins.
The purpose of marriage in the legal sense is so that such contracts are not necessitated.
**As I said, it is all contract law, you just have to get it through your mind that our current monogamy is also a case of contract law - just the parameters of said contract are based on tradition, not logic. **
[/QUOTE]
As I have said, the complications by a polygamous union are too individualistic to benefit from the existing marital infrastructure. Whether the government should have a civil role in marriage is a moot point: it does and it always will.
Let’s omit mentionings of same sex unions. Do you believe that extending the rights of people of different races to marry (forbidden in most states within living memory) should be argued to validate any other type of marriage?
You know, I’m seeing a pretty big contradiction between the first sentence of your post, and everything else in your post.
For the people coming up with the Byzantine scenarios where one can be married to a person but not to his other spouses.
The law would have to be designed to create a wholistic partnership where the full corporate body is sovereign and cohesive. IE, all people married to Abe are also married to all of his other spouses. It couldn’t work any other way. A big massive Venn diagram of overlapping marriages wouldn’t work and would abrogate any possible reason to be married.
Of course most of the posts are not really answering the OPs question, which isn’t even about state recognition of polygamous unions but about the more basic question of “should polygamy be legalized”. Homosexuality is now decriminalized, and while polygamists are rarely prosecuted (almost never unless there are other issues such as child abuse or welfare fraud at the forefront) it is illegal.
Homosexuality was illegal in most of the nation (the exception being those areas that had no laws about it one way or the other) for most of the history of the United States. This was based largely of course in religious and social prejudices against the institution, some of which (certainly not all) are relevant to polygamy today. The reason, however, that homosexuality has become more tolerated and mainstream to the extent that it has is not because suddenly and without provocation tens of millions of people suddenly simultaneously rethought the matter on their own, nor is it because they were so swept away by Torch Song Trilogy, but because of a long drawn out process that involved all of the following:
-increasing visibility as more people came out of the closet
-increasing number of psychological and sociological studies of it prompting…
-its removal from the roster of mental illnesses
-a continuing visibility
-its decriminalization through Supreme Court cases based on right to privacy issues and new information
To date there is not a single respected scientific study that indicates homosexuals are as individuals or as a group more likely to be criminals, child abusers/pedophiles, or psychologically unbalanced than heterosexuals. (There are many studies that contradict this but none are respected and most were authored by or cite studies authored by the vile and repeatedly debunked Paul Cameron.) We have paid our dues in other words and we have been objectively found not wanting, and social prejudice is not a valid reason for legal status.
To my knowledge there have been no major scholarly studies on the workings of polyamorous unions. Whether or not they are psychologically healthy or a social good is an area on which there is not enough data to make an informed judgment. In the USA most ‘official’ and visible polyamorous unions are of course related to Fundamentalist Mormonism and other cults and religious movements, and so it is almost impossible to divorce the mechanics of the union itself from the baggage of the subculture that spawned it. Be that as it may, the majority of the literature written by investigations into polygamous unions and the memoirs written by people who have lived in such unions is generally unfavorable.
Some of the less horrific accounts of polyamorous relationships in today’s culture include:
=Dorothy Allred Solomon, one of the most objective chroniclers of life in a polygamous family: she was a middle child among the 48 children of Dr. Rulon Allred, a Utah chiropracter and religious schism leader and a man she still regards (she is now mainstream Mormon) as highly moral and sincere in his devotions and a man who did not molest or abuse his children, but even he could not make it work. She’s written 3 very good books and several articles on the topic.
=Chroniclers of the Oneida Communitywhere group marriage was practiced.
=Accounts of various 1960s/1970s communes, some by people still living in the commune.
=The wives of Alex Joseph, a Greek Orthodox convert to and then apostate from Mormonism who lived on a commune with about 20 wives over the years (7 were still with him when he died- most left) and who unlike most fundamentalist Mormons (he was neither a Fundie or a Mormon but essentially his own sect) he only married women of consenting age and he encouraged their higher education (most of his wives had college degrees, some of them postgraduate degrees)
Taking away things that are bound irrevocably to religion or the secrecy aspect, the most common criticisms are:
—Jealousy and rivalry among partners
—Poverty or extreme financial problems due to the high number of offspring and partners
—A lack of parental (especially paternal) bonding or guidance due to the high demands of partners and other issue
—The lack of intimacy due to competition
—Emotional breakdowns due to the above items
Though rarely enforced polygamy is currently illegal. Before it should be decriminalized it should be examined, as homosexuality has been, to determine whether the reasons as to whether it could and should be legally encouraged or discouraged. Therefore I think a necessary step before considering polygamy as a viable alternate form of marriage (which I still believe for many reasons has no kinship or inherent similarity to same sex unions/unions of different races, etc.) is to study the psychological healthiness of such a lifestyle.
Which one–the OP’s polygamy debate, or the same-sex marriage debate? It would be hard to not know the arguments on both sides of the latter. I was just taking your point to an absurdity. You know, for humor. Of course, the ability to grow a family the old fashioned way is one of the main arguments against same-sex marriage, at least according to Rick Santorum (whom I met just a couple weeks ago).
Exactly, since women are modernly considered equal partners in marriage.
I’ve suggested this before - forget about adapting marriage law to cover this kind of “full corporate” polygamy (although it’s worth asking just how common this form of polygamy actually is, or ever would be), but instead try to adapt existing partnership law and model the group marriage on, say, a law firm or other professional business arangement. Individual partners can come and go under well-defined rules, yet the partnership itself lives on until formally dissolved.
The one study I’ve read of children of polyamorous relationships, it concluded that outside of a more conforming and communal spirit than the norm, they all seemed normal and healthy. Essentially they’re more liable to be Democrats.
https://culsnet.law.capital.edu/LawReview/BackIssues/31-3/Strassberg14.pdf (PDF)
Missed the edit window. I forgot to point out, in regards to the link in my last post, that they specifically say at the end that while they would recommend a larger sample size of subjects and a longer time frame before saying anything is conclusively conclusive.
I keep going back and forth on this one, but I keep arriving at the conclusion that legal recognition of multiple marriage couldn’t work, because A) it’s too complicated, which means B) you’ll never write the laws in a way that makes everyone happy.
So, odds are you’re smarter than me, so let’s work through this. Let’s say we’re going to legalize multiple marriage. What form does it take? A couple of possibilities I can envision:[ol]
[li]Anyone can marry anyone, without the consent of their previous spouses. This has the potential to get really ugly, really fast. For example: Spouse A marries Spouse B. Spouse A marries Spouse C. Spouse C marries Spouse D. What is the relationship/legal obligation between A and D, or B and D? Let’s say that A is originally fine with C and D’s marriage, but later on A comes to dislike D. What say, if any, does A have? Is A stuck as some sort of “co-spouse” with someone A hates? Does D get a portion of A’s income? Does B get a portion of D’s? If C dies, are A and B still related to D? If A bought a house for C to live in before C married D, does A get it back when C dies, or does D get to keep it? And how in the hell do they do their taxes?[/li]
[li]Spouse A marries Spouse B. Spouse A may then marry Spouses C, D, and so on, so long as the original spouses consent. In short, one “prime” partner may marry multiple partners, but the multiple partners may not marry anyone else thereafter; essentially, the “harem” setup. This is more workable, but has problems of its own; for one, you’re playing right into the “polygamy subjugates women” thing, and for another, is it really in the spirit of “consenting adults can do whatever they want” if one set of spouses can keep on marrying whoever they want while another cannot?[/li][/ol]
People are crowing in here, “Well, that’s why we can make contracts!” But that’s the thing about marriage: most people aren’t bright enough to make up such detailed contracts for themselves, and for those people, we have the laws of marriage, providing a pre-existing set of rules to follow for things such as property succession, homestead rights, the right to make medical decisions in event of incapacity, and so forth. The laws set the rules so that people don’t have to make up their own. You can’t just say “multiple marriage is legal!” and expect people, most of whom are frankly pretty dumb, to take care of all potential future snags with carefully crafted personal contracts. It’ll be an absolute nightmare. And I just can’t see a way to craft the law to cover all the bases.
On the one hand, I think, “there’s nothing preventing you from ‘living in sin’; you can screw whoever you want for your whole life, why do you need to call it ‘marriage’?” I then realize that that’s pretty much what the religious right has been saying to gay couples for years. On the other hand, the restriction on gay marriage means that homosexuals can never marry anyone they love, while polyamorous types can still marry at least one person legally.
In the end: sorry, I’m against multiple marriage, because I simply can’t see how the legal relationship would work, and I see great potential for abuse. Shack up all you want, make contracts if you can, but one legal spouse is all the system can recognize.
So…because it would be difficult to come up with a legal contract that would be “perfect”, it shouldn’t be allowed at all?
Why do you care? There’s whole swaths of people who get paid to come up with clever laws and contracts, who would just love the chance. There’s not even any reason for there to just be one sort of marriage. Look at businesses, there’s S corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships, not-for-profits, etc. I’m sure I could come up with 3-10 different models that would be a full and satisfying menu and all it would take is sitting down a few modern day polygamists/polyamorists with some lawyers to hash out the sort of setups that they’d envision.
See there’s this whole thing called “speach” that humankind invented. Instead of having to guess what people would expect tax-wise, inheritance-wise, etc. given the makeup of their family unit, you can actually ask them. Obviously the totals need to basically match up with a two-partner marriage’s tax deductions and so on, but that’s part of that other human invention known as “compromise.”
That’s not marriage. Why bother with changing any of the rules? Why not simply form an LLC to manage communal property?