Because in the case of the Mormon-like cults, the wives are not really “willing”. They have been brainwashed or forced.
I think you and MaxTheVool are talking past each other.
Joint filing only has to mean two people IF A CONSENSUS OF THE POPULATION (or a majority of the justices, if a constitutional right is implicated) wants it to. The people who actually write the tax code and determine the conditions under which some people get to choose a particular filing status and some don’t even have the option need to develop all the rules, which means having a discussion and coming to an agreement.
For example, the income level at which personal exemptions begin to phase out for married couples filing jointly is not twice the corresponding level for singles; it’s only about twenty percent higher. What should it be for married triples or quadruples? the same? proportionately higher? slightly higher? add an extra 10% per extra partner? something else?
That’s probably not an incredibly difficult decision to make, but the point is that somebody has to make it (and almost certainly the law will need to be changed to accommodate). With SSM, it was still only two people jointly filing that return, so tax law didn’t need to change, but a marriage with more than two does require at least thinking about the purpose of the law and how to accomplish the desired ends.
Consider a situation: John and Jane and Jill are all married. John and Jane have wage income, while Jill is a stay-at-home mom, and they have interest and capital gains on accounts owned in common. John owes past-due child support from another relationship, and Jill has unpaid student loans now in collection. The three file a joint tax return showing a substantial refund due, but the Treasury will be seizing some or all of the refund to offset those unpaid debts. They live in a community property state. Is Jane entitled to receive a share of the refund since she herself owes no money, and if so, what share? 50%, one-third, proportionate to her share of earned income, or something else? This isn’t a terribly difficult question to develop an answer for, but it does forge new ground, so somebody needs to develop the answer, and it would really be better if that happened before John and Jane and Jill file their return.
No; I think Max gets me pretty well.
Consensus of the population is actually an interesting thing to add to the discussion though. What percentage of the population is for SSM; actually in the fight for it? What percentage against? What percentage really doesn’t care as long as it doesn’t effect their lives? While the third number may be hard to honestly and fully develop my bet would be that the third number would outnumber the other two combined by quite a bit. What won the day for SSM was persistence over enough years, having the right people in the right places, along with influencing enough hearts and minds in Group Three to at least keep them from turning against us. I have no doubt that pluralism is going to have to follow the same model.
But the question Max and I have been debating is must we wait? Is there some huge difference between SSM and pluralism that makes it legally impossible or overwhelmingly complicated as we stand here today? No, there isn’t.
But we do have to get the best information possible to people who hold the same beliefs Max has expressed here so well. And get them past the same “yuck” factor we faced from them over SSM. But other than that? It really is as simple as throwing a switch. Way back when people tried to make SSM look more complicated than it is so I’m not surprised they are trying the same tactic here. I’m just a little disappointed at who, and how many, are buying it right now. Whats the tagline for the Straight Dope? It’s taking longer than we thought.
Tell me, are those percentages carved in stone or have they changed and been adjusted as society has changed? So again, real easy - start the same and then decide if it needs adjusted. Problem solved.
“But a marriage with more than two does require at least thinking about the purpose of the law and how to accomplish the desired ends.” Tell me, just what are the exact desired ends that determined the current percentages? How will adding more people to marriage destroy those desired ends? I would say, in some cases, the actual desired end is limiting equality to those who resemble us. And again, my apologies, but something in that just rubs me the wrong way. Is it really as simple as I say? Probably not. But it could be if we use the same mindset now that we did during the SSM battle.
Consider this; only Jill and Jane are married. Or only John and Jane are married. What percentage of the refund would Jane get? So again, we start where we are now and we can adjust things in the future if those adjustments are needed. Again, maybe its just my nature, but answer developed, time to move on.
We forget the laws we fought and the laws we passed to get where we are with SSM today. That was one heck of a battle. We act as if there aren’t going to be small adjustments made throughout society and the legal codes over the years as a result of SSM. I would like to think not and I doubt any will be that great but I have no doubt some will occur. Hell, we’re still adjusting things to get somewhere closer to racial equality and that has been around a whole lot longer.
But to deny basic recognition because of some possible thing that may happen? It’s a stupid idea. And equally stupid when we apply it to pluralism.
My thanks to you and Max both. I don’t know if I’ve ever made this many posts in a serious discussion before and I have learned from it. And in the end, that isn’t ever a bad thing.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but they can’t “stay the same”, because they don’t exist at all currently.
Here’s an analogy: Suppose we decide to lower the drinking age to 20. That’s pretty easy. We can pass a law, and basically, once the law is passed, it’s entirely clear what has changed everywhere. Sure there’s a bit of bookkeeping… replacing a bunch of signage and stuff, and we need to make sure it’s clear when precisely the law goes into effect. But basically, all you need to understand to fully grok the law and all of its implications is, “the drinking age will be lowered to 20”.
On the other hand, suppose we decide to pass a law requiring equal pay for men and women, to finally get rid of that of that 83% figure (or whatever it is). So… we pass that law. Then what happens? How is this enforced? How is it measured? What agency does what? What are the penalties? Etc.
The first law could be about 12 words long. The second law, to be really meaningful, would need to be about 100 pages long.
Legalizing SSM is like the first law. Legalizing polygamous marriage would be like the second. Now, that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done… plenty of very good and important laws are complicated and intricate. When they passed the Americans with Disabilities act they couldn’t just say “ok, you have to make accommodations for people with disabilities. Agreed? Ok, law written”. But you seem just bizarrely fixated on the idea that legalizing poly marriage is not only a just and fair idea (which I’m generally in agreement with), but is also trivial. OK, we pass a law, “marriage is now between any number of people”. And then everyone understands exactly what’s going on, right? No confusion? No complications?
I mean, we’re just going around in circles here, but you keep just saying “oh, you just do it the simple way” or “oh, you just let each tuple decide for themselves”. Which just isn’t how things work.
It’s true that polygamists are denied allowance to practice the full extent of their religion, but an argument would that be there is no such thing as a polygamous sexual orientation, where your happiness depends solely on being with multiple women. (that’s just being a man).
There is, however, a homosexual orientation, where they’re happiness does depend on being with someone of their same sex, so opposite gender requirements in marriage is a complete denial of participation for them. Whereas, limitations of number in marriage is a restriction, but not the same as the complete denial that gender requirements have on gays.
Also, marriage laws are about social good. There’s more of an argument for the social good of allowing gays to marry. Less of an argument for the social good of allowing multiple participants in a marriage.
Can you expand on that please?
I’m also not sure that it’s settled and agreed upon that polyamory isn’t inborn in the same way that homosexuality is. Does anyone know if there’s any research on that question?
Imagine a gay who was attracted to a number of men.
If a group of gays, or [ separately ] a group of lesbians, wanted to join together in a polygamous arrangement of marriage why should they be forbidden ? Maybe their happiness does depend on being with multiple partners.
A gay? What if he were the only gay in the village?
I hear some synagogues are to recognize plural SSM. They need to keep the attendance of 2010’s-style Beth Gays.
“For example, the income level at which personal exemptions begin to phase out for married couples filing jointly is not twice the corresponding level for singles; it’s only about twenty percent higher. What should it be for married triples or quadruples? the same? proportionately higher? slightly higher? add an extra 10% per extra partner? something else?”
Tell me Max – in addition to sensitivity training do we need to put you down for remedial reading as well? 
You have hit the end of your rope in terms of objections and hung yourself from it. You may not have caught any of the press about it but equal pay for equal work is already basically the law of the land. Didn’t take any drastic changes; just 5 simple little words. In some places the enforcement and measurement gets overly complicated but not everywhere. Of course there are variations from place to place - your mileage may vary depending on where you live - and some places have more litigation over the subject than others. But for a starting place it really was just that simple. There is no reason we couldn’t handle pluralism just as simply. OK – one reason; you.
But using your argument against pluralism - are you actually telling me equal pay for equal work SHOULDN’T be the law of the land because its just too damn complicated to consider? I suspected you were a pluralphobe but I never would have guessed you as one of those male chauvinists types as well.
And if you want to debate how complicated (or not in your opinion) drinking and liquor laws can be, don’t do it with a Pennsylvanian. Our liquor laws are well known for being some of the most convoluted and archaic in the country. In this state you could change the codes to accept pluralism easier than you could to make changes in alcohol and consumption.
Ah, that mythical “everyone”; it’s like a slow pitch right across the plate.
And you are telling me some people aren’t confused about SSM or feel their lives have been complicated because the law was passed? Tell me, are a few narrow-minded bakers and county clerks reason enough to cancel the change and go back to where we were until all these issues and problems are worked out in advance to their satisfaction? And those are just a couple of the fast and easy examples. God forbid some of the challenges that may come along over the next few years. Be very careful what you say; like with equality between the sexes you may show something you don’t intend.
Again, don’t get me wrong. I don’t think getting the nation to the point of accepting pluralism is trivial. Getting most people to that point on SSM wasn’t trivial by a long shot. Again, it took a lot of laws, a lot of legal battles, and a lot of work to get to the point where we could just throw that switch and sort out the rest after the fact.
But pluralism could be, and your reasons why it can’t are getting worse as you go along. In the end it isn’t about words or changes that may, or may not, be required. Its all about the “yuck” factor and what we Lutherans call the Seven Deadly Words - we’ve never done it that way before. Once we get past that, we may find that I’m right – it really was as easy as throwing a switch all along. To borrow and paraphrase the Dope once more, we fought ignorance before so we should be able to do it again.
Are you saying that bisexuals are more likely to be polygamous? That’s something I have never heard. They might or might not be more likely to be non-monogamous, where they have an open relationship, but in those cases they still have one primary partner they are married to. Or just aren’t married at all and have multiple significant others. If there are bisexuals who are trying to get polygamous marriage legalized I would sincerely love to read about it, but I don’t think that’s the case. Just because someone is attracted to men and women doesn’t mean that they want to marry one of each. I’ve heard the opposite come up more often, that a bisexual is married to a straight person, and has to reassure the straight person that they are happy being in a monogamous marriage and that they won’t go out and cheat on them. Possibly the same thing happens with a bisexual person and a gay person.
Thank you so much for this post, I’m glad someone has real life experience.
It sounds like the laws would be less complicated than I thought. And even with current monogamous marriage it can be complicated with divorce and other issues. So if there was a groundswell of people moving to get laws changed, that shouldn’t be a hurdle. But there isn’t that groundswell happening. It only comes up when people either want to have an internet discussion, or want to make some point about gay marriage.
Just a quick point here:
If you are married and file jointly, you and your spouse each can only have an average of 60% of the income of somebody who files individually before you start losing the exemption. If there are three of you and that same 120% income level applies, each of your incomes must be no greater than about 40% to enjoy the same tax benefits. If there are ten of you in the marriage, you start losing out when each of your incomes hits 12% of the income of somebody who files individually.
Therefore, is leaving the income level at which exemptions start phasing out the same for multi-marriage as for marriage-of-two really “the same”? I would argue it is not–the members of the marriage would not enjoy anything close to the same level of tax benefits. (Whether that is fair or reasonable is quite another question.) I think Max is correct: they don’t exist now.
How is allowing a tax break for a plural marriage any different from allowing a tax for a couple? Is there any necessity to change this at all?
Not true. I’m married to a Japanese woman. I’ve looked into it.
If I wanted to move back to the US, I’d need about a year of lead time to get her green card, maybe more. During that time she would not be able travel to the US unless we applied for and received permission, which is usually not granted when someone is under review for a green card. I could bring my kids, because they’re citizens, but she would have to stay in Japan until she got approved. Or, we’d have to wait indefinitely to go to the US until she is approved. Going to the US on a visitor or spouse visa and then applying for a green card is generally frowned on pretty heavily.
It’s true that there’s no cap on spouse visas, and she wouldn’t have to enter the annual lottery, but it’s sure as hell not automatic. A combination of conservatives losing their shit over the generally determined, smart, hard-working “brown” people coming to the US, and some relatively rare abuses have led to an immigration situation that is absolutely fucked for normal people.
It may not be necessary to change it, but for financial benefits it will be necessary to A)decide whether to change it , B) to decide what “the same” is and possibly C) how to fund it. There’s the exemption thing mentioned already ( Is exemptions fading out at 120% of the single income level “the same” or is the fade-out at 60% times the number of people in the marriage “the same”?), social security survivor/spousal benefits ( is one spousal/survivor benefit split among the the eligible parties “the same” or must each spouse/survivor get a full survivor benefit to be “the same”?). If it’s each gets a full benefit, how will it be funded - will social security taxes get raised or will a minimum length of marriage be required for eligibility? (as there currently is for ex-spouses). Do students applying for financial aid have to report only their biological parents’ incomes or the incomes of all of those in the group marriage? (currently, a stepparent’s income must be reported for Federal aid, but a non-custodial parent’s income need not - but if my I live with my parents and their three other spouses , those other three aren’t really stepparents nor are they really non-custodial parents)
I don’t think that solving the practical structural issues would be that hard. We already have families with more than two ‘parents’ involved - divorce and remarriage and divorce and ‘living together but not officially married,’ are pretty common, as are families with godparents, grandparents, siblings, etc. involved enough in raising kids that it makes a decision of a court is involved. Courts already settle complicated custody and complex multi-owner property cases without too much trouble. “Who to include on financial aid” already has to take into account step parents who don’t officially marry, other family members as possible sources of income, and so on. This kind of stuff gets sorted out for lots of other laws, and while it’s never perfect, it ends up working.
I also don’t think that laws forbidding poly marriage will stand up to court challenges in today’s world. The family featured on “Sister Wives” has been in a long-running lawsuit with Utah, and Federal courts have ruled that calling yourself married is exercising your right to free speech and free religion. It hasn’t made it’s way to the supreme court, but I think that the logic behind the decision will hold up as any similar statutes get challenged.
I also think that the idea of rich guys marrying huge bunches of women and destroying the dating market is pretty laughable in the modern world. Why would a rich guy feel the desire to marry multiple women, when he can just act as sugar daddy to as many as he wants right now? Openly marrying multiple people opens up legal risks (courts can and do overturn pre-nups), kills a chance at a political career, and will likely alienate family members. And why wouldn’t rich women also marry up a bunch of guys? If we go by stereotypes of what people want, it’s the rich guys that want a bunch of no strings girls and rich women that would want a bunch of long-term sexy pool boys.
One thing no one’s even touched on, what marriage structures would be OK if you did make a law? The highly-religious polygamists tend to favor a model where one man is married to n women and the women aren’t married to each other. Other people would prefer a model where if you have n people get married, they’re all married to each other. Still more would like the ability to define who is married to who, so that you could have Fred married to Jill and Jane, and Jane also married to Sam but no other cross connections. I think that settling what would be acceptable configurations actually would be trickier than things like custody and taxes.
On the other hand, I doubt that poly marriage will be legally recognized like conventional marriage any time soon. With SSM, courts pretty much just had to remove ‘opposite sex’ requirements and swap ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ to spouse on some forms. For any kind of poly marriage, you’d need someone to champion new laws to define it and how it interacts with existing laws, and I don’t see where you’d get enough support to overcome the vocal opposition it would stir up. You start off with a lot of people opposed to the idea - non-poly highly religious types, people who just like ‘traditional’ monogamy, people who think polygamy will lead to bad things, and so on. Whatever configurations you decide on is going to piss some people off. The ‘highly religious’ types would probably not get behind an egalitarian poly marriage law. People who practice network poly would not want to be stuck with ‘everyone is married to each other’ as the only option.
I’ve been for polygamist marriage for awhile now, for essentially the same reasons I’m for homosexual marriage.
You start of saying “it’s not that hard” but your last paragraph explains exactly why it is very hard.
Before you can legalise Poly marriage - you have to define what it is - One is to many or network? That’s the first hurdle.
The second hurdle you will have (and this one is relatively easy to update, but does require an update) - in a MMF marriage - who is assumed to be the father of any children? Remember under current law that
You start of saying “it’s not that hard” but your last paragraph explains exactly why it is very hard.
Before you can legalise Poly marriage - you have to define what it is - One is to many or network? That’s the first hurdle.
The second hurdle you will have (and this one is relatively easy to update, but does require an update) - in a MMF marriage - who is assumed to be the father of any children? Remember under current law that the husband is assumed to be dad - does this still apply?
Tax benefits certainly need to be worked out, as does insurance law (one man with 16 wives, yeah, I’m sure the insurance payment won’t be an issue for any employer),
Also what constitutes agreement to bring additional spouses into the relationship? How is it recorded?
Divorce laws certainly need to be updated - let’s say there are 5 parties in a marriage - one wants to leave, what sort of divorce settlement is the default? You say the courts sort this out all the time - and they do, BUT they are working from a legal default and guideline right?
Furthermore - you also note that “courts sort out complex custody etc” - and yes they do, but how many such cases never make it to a judge to have to sort out? Do you really think that every case needs (deserves) its own hearing? That would be a step backwards - the default situation needs to be legislated, and there is currently no format for such legislation - which wasn’t the case for Gay Marriage. The guiding principles were already there.
I don’t care what people do in their own bedroom, or with their own sexual relationships.
Where I have a problem with poly marriage is that traditionally it was used with the idea of “women as property” and “one MAN multiple women” - both of these ideas would need careful legal structuring to overcome to remove any such bias problems. It’s harder than just saying “ok - now as many people as wish can be married to one another”
I said that I don’t think solving the practical structural issues that have been raised are hard, and later that I thought that getting support for legalization would be hard, they’re two different things. “Structural” was probably not the right word to use, I was thinking more of ‘procedural’.
Your examples of ‘hurdles’ are things that are currently handled differently in different states and that only have a ‘practical’ answer, not really a right answer. For example, it’s already common to have situations where there’s no presumed father (unmarried mother, for example) and those situations are not hard for the courts to handle if need be. Tax breaks could just be fixed by making dual marriage a special case with the option to file jointly, and any other marriage arrangement requires filing singly - which is exactly the way things work today with slightly different wording. Sure, people would argue over them, and different states would have different answers, but that’s true of pretty much any law - I don’t see how it’s a fundamental barrier, rather than business as usual.
Also, I don’t get what you’re saying about having a ‘default’ for divorces and custody. My understanding is that if a divorce or custody is contested then it goes to a hearing before a judge, if the parties can come to an agreement then it doesn’t go to a hearing and orders get signed off on by a judge. Every case where the people can’t agree directly or through their lawyers on an arrangement ends up before a judge AFAIK. If people in a poly marriage can agree on how to deal with a split or custody themselves, then there’s no need for the court to step in regardless of whether the marriage is recognized or not, and if they can’t then I don’t see how having a ‘default’ would help, because even without a recognized poly marriage they’d be in a situation that wouldn’t fit the ‘default’. I also don’t think the stuff that qualifies as a ‘default’ for divorce and custody is settled by statute now, but by court precedent and practice.
If there is no presumed father, then there is no male who has an automatic right to custody anyway, so what are the courts going to handle?
That’s not “exactly the way things work today” because married filing jointly, right now, confers tax advantages and tax treatments that are not what you get filing singly or even married filing separately. If dual marriage gives you extra tax advantages that simply don’t exist for marriage-of-three, then how is this equal treatment? Aren’t we right back to the difference between marriage and civil union vis-a-vis SSM?
Actually, in many places there are some pretty well-defined “default” conditions. They may not be statutes, but they are firmly fixed in writing as court rules, statewide administrative orders, regulations, and so forth. Here in my home jurisdiction, e.g., there is a standardized holiday schedule for custody; if the parents can’t agree, it takes a remarkable showing of special circumstances (such as abuse) for the district court to deviate from the rule that school-aged kids spend from 7:00 p.m. on July 3rd until 7:00 p.m. on July 5th with parent A during even-numbered years and with parent B during odd-numbered years (and yes, the standard is that specific). Child support is determined in accordance with an administrative order that applies to all state courts in Kansas: if there is one child aged 7 and the two parents have a combined gross income of $6000/month, the combined child support obligation is $916 precisely.