Is it time to finally recognize polygamist marriages??

[aceplace57]

Gay marriage is now legal. We have gay rights, transgender rights. Can anyone honestly oppose polygamist marriages for consenting adults?

The recent Utah flooding deaths have brought this issue to the forefront. I see normal people dealing with a tragedy. Why must they be persecuted for their beliefs? Property seized, people jailed. For what? For living a lifestyle many don’t agree with? That can be said of Gay marriage too.

I don’t agree with their choices. But they have the right to marry and live however they want. Just so long as it is consenting adults that are getting married.
http://news.yahoo.com/fatal-floods-expose-delicate-balance-polygamous-towns-152410406.html

These days, other polygamists are turning to the courts to make the case that they should be free to marry who they choose. Kody Brown and his four wives, known for the TV show “Sister Wives,” won a landmark victory when a federal judge struck down key parts of Utah’s law banning plural marriage, removing the threat of arrest for those families.

Utah is appealing the ruling, but some advocates say de-criminalizing the practice could help bring more polygamists out of the shadows.

[aceplace57]

I know Warren Jeffs is still a concern. But it seems his influence is diminishing the longer he’s in prison. The article indicates many polygamists are free from his cult. Allowing polygamists access to society might allow more to lead normal lives.

Its an interesting question. I’m not sure there still is a reason to consider polygamists criminals.

[Claverhouse]

Why not ? It’s bound to come, no way of stopping it. May as well do it in an orderly fashion.

[aceplace57]

Polygamy was around long before Warren Jeffs. It goes back to the earliest days of Mormonism. I wonder how many polygamists are out there that aren’t associated with his cult? Just normal people that want more than one spouse?

[Aeschines]

One thing I know from reading comments on a news site recently is that there are some very vocal advocates for this already out there.

No, it’s a bad idea for several reasons:

• For gay marriage, the legal framework was already in place. Just apply the exact same laws for heterosexual marriage to gay marriage. Nothing had to be changed. For polygamy, the laws simply aren’t in place. There aren’t tax credits set up in federal law for multiple spouses. The laws aren’t in place to handle inheritance in the event of death or child custody in the event of divorce. Thus, if the Supreme Court were to order all US government entities to recognize polygamous marriage, a bunch of law would have to be created de novo, and no one would agree on what is fair, and it would be chaos.

• Society has no incentive to give extra money to some dude living with multiple chicks and making babies with them (which is what polygamy would be 98% of the time). Even most ancient society recognized polygamy as a bad idea, including the empires Rome and China. For every extra wife some guy gets, some other guy isn’t getting one. That leads to pissed off young males and social instability.

One should be able to form any type of household one wants, but society shouldn’t be obligated to pay for it in the form of tax credits or anything else.

---

Marriage recognition comes down to three things, in my view:

• Being “really” married. This is in the eye of the beholder, and, in my view, it’s stupid. The only reason to get married in 2015 is for the financial benefits provided by the tax code (and other money-related benefits). If you plan not to have kids, then it’s super-stupid: you’re just a glorified gf/bf (gf/gf, bf/bf) who has requested the state to regulate how you break up, in the event that happens (and guess what? There’s a good chance it will happen). If you have kids, it doesn’t matter much either, since the state is going to regulate how you break up anyway (child custody).

• Tax benefits and other money related benefits (including the ability to buy property as “spouse and spouse,” smoother inheritance, etc.). If this truly fits your needs, then go for it.

• Having the state regulate your breakup (divorce). The financially or socially weaker partner in a marriage may see this as a benefit.

Personally, I think the government should get out of the business of incentivizing marriage, home ownership, that kind of thing. Government should get out of the marriage business completely, and then all the arguments about what should or should not be recognized would be irrelevant.

[Boogly]

I don’t know why multiple partners are willingly in a relationship shouldn’t be allowed. That being said I’d be more worried about how the divorces, and all related subjects, would be handled by any government.

[DJ_Motorbike]

Single individuals should be allowed to be married.

[Claverhouse]

@aceplace57

Polygamy was around long before Warren Jeffs. It goes back to the earliest days of Mormonism.

There was a life before America. Polygamy was the norm for many thousands of years, with European conceptions of monogamy being the outlier.

In the Middle East, including the Hebrews ( from whence christianity derived ), Islam, India and the Far East, it was considered natural for the discriminating gentleman of wealth and power to acquire all the chicks he could handle.
And to paraphase the great PGW, like the father cod when one of his wives produces 7 million eggs, he vowed to love them all.

[marshmallow]

@Aeschines

For every extra wife some guy gets, some other guy isn’t getting one.

Low status men aren’t entitled to companionship.

That leads to pissed off young males and social instability.

The prison industry will love this.

[saje]

Only if one woman is also allowed to have multiple husbands.

[joyfool]

@saje

Only if one woman is also allowed to have multiple husbands.

Good Lord, no! One is more than enough to last a lifetime.

[GrumpyBunny]

@Aeschines

• Society has no incentive to give extra money to some dude living with multiple chicks and making babies with them (which is what polygamy would be 98% of the time).

Would the extra money be offset by the children of a polygamous marriage having a “real” father in the home and him supporting them officially?

IOW, wouldn’t the government save money by having fewer kids listed as not having a parent?

[ElderSign]

“Is it time to finally recognize polygamist marriages??”

A Gay Marriage Supporter's Case Against Polygamous Marriage

If you don’t want to click it, it is a somewhat balanced article asking:

Why must American society accommodate such a small minority interest?

Why make new laws for insurance policies, divorce, SSN benefits after death, property after death allotment, etc.

There are social ramifications we could only guess at:

Super rich men (or women) may create harems with 10 partners thus taking people out of the mating population, etc.

The unequal treatment of spouses (let’s face it, most will be women).

[Aeschines]

@GrumpyBunny

Would the extra money be offset by the children of a polygamous marriage having a “real” father in the home and him supporting them officially?

IOW, wouldn’t the government save money by having fewer kids listed as not having a parent?

Do you mean they’d be on welfare otherwise?

[GrumpyBunny]

Yes, Aeschines. I’ve read that polygamous men will marry one wife, divorce her, and marry another, but continue to treat them all as wives from a religious perspective.

This leads to the “divorced” wives going on various welfare programs.

That loophole needs to go!

[Sam_Lowry]

@ElderSign

“Is it time to finally recognize polygamist marriages??”

The Case Against Encouraging Polygamy Is Strong - The Atlantic

If you don’t want to click it, it is a somewhat balanced article asking:

Why must American society accommodate such a small minority interest?

Why make new laws for insurance policies, divorce, SSN benefits after death, property after death allotment, etc.

There are social ramifications we could only guess at:

Super rich men (or women) may create harems with 10 partners thus taking people out of the mating population, etc.

The unequal treatment of spouses (let’s face it, most will be women).

Interesting article, and brought up one thing I hadn’t thought about:

Apart from any of these other objections, polygamist unions seem likely to prove less stable than two-person unions, which aren’t particularly stable themselves these days. If each individual in a polygamous union is no more or less likely to seek a divorce than a person in a monogamous union, the failure rate would still be at least a third higher, assuming a three-person grouping, and higher still for larger plural marriages. That isn’t sufficient reason to punish people for attempting polyamorous unions, but seems like a good reason to avoid encouraging them.

I’m not 100% against polygamist marriages being legalized, but there are a lot of things that would need to be ironed out first.

[TokyoBayer]

I come from polygamous Mormon ancestors on my mother’s side, including one g-g-g-greatfather (I hope I got that right) who had 30-odd kids. A girlfriend in college was a distant relative from that ancestor, as is OC Tanner, the founder of a well-known local jewelry chain.

I’ve heard estimates of current fundamentalist Mormon polygamy at 100,000, but really, it’s really hard to tell. Some belong to sects such as the FLDS, which has about 10,000 members, according to Wiki.

There are a wide range of Mormon polygamous groups as well as many independent families who don’t belong to any particular sect.

The limiting factor for Mormon polygamists has not been the law so much as society. These groups have depended on an influx from conservative LDS members, the very ones who have the most to lose by leaving their church. Many practice in secret rather than openly to keep from being ostracized from their LDS families and friends.

The largest problems with abuse and such are from the groups such as the FLDS rather than in non-affiliated independent families.

The question concerning legalizing polygamy is not simple, and affects such things areas as health insurance. Right now, only one wife and the children from that marriage are recognized so the other wives and children have to have other forms. If polygamy were legalized, they could potentially all be insured, but I can’t see employers being happy about that.

When the LDS church officially practiced polygamy in the 19th century, there was considerable poverty surrounding it. Many of Brigham Young’s wives, for example were impoverished while he enjoyed considerable wealth.

Issues such as these show why this is far more complex than SSM.

[Doctor_Jackson]

but there are a lot of things that would need to be ironed out first.

All that additional ironing is exactly why I need more wives…

[Claverhouse]

@TokyoBayer

I
When the LDS church officially practiced polygamy in the 19th century, there was considerable poverty surrounding it. Many of Brigham Young’s wives, for example were impoverished while he enjoyed considerable wealth.

There was enough poverty to go around in the 19th century with or without polygamy: that was one thing bestowed lavishly.
Anyway, old Brigham had a trick up his sleeve — one historian said John Hampden, the English traitor was slim, a South African coinage for someone as crooked as a corkscrew, and I rather think Young was that way — for all that:
*Divorce was possible in polygamous relationships. Brigham Young reportedly granted 1,645 divorces during his tenure as Prophet and leader of the church, including some of his own. Some were court-granted, but some were obtained in a more casual manner. Ann Eliza Webb Young, Brigham’s twenty-seventh wife (and probably the most famous) pursued divorce through the courts, even though the marriage had not been recorded civilly. The court ordered Brigham to pay her $500 a month for an allowance and $3,000 in court costs. Brigham refused, and was fined $25 and one day in jail—which he served. *
**Polygamy FAQ
**

The vested right to grant oneself a divorce is an enviable superpower.
Anyway:
Within some polygynous societies, multiple wives become a status symbol denoting wealth and power. Sometimes this is actually a by-product of how the women care for agriculture, as in the Siwai society in the South Pacific. There, social status depends on pigs and since women care for the pigs, having multiple wives increases a man’s the ability to have more pigs.

**
New World Encyclopedia**
The last sentence might be taken far too literally by David Cameron.

[LSLGuy]

ISTM in the immediate near term, say 10-15 years, the biggest arguments against trying to expand marriage further are these:

A large element of the more principled objections to SSM were of the slippery slope flavor.

Declaring the SSM battle won and launching immediately into farther, stranger, even more minority interests will prove the slippery slopers to have been right. Thereby doubling the ferocity of their reactions to any further cultural updating.

Not to mention placing SSM at an increased risk of being overturned. SCOTUS has spoken, but in the culture wars there’s no such thing as the last word; only the latest word.