Is the argument that approving gay marriage opens the door to plural marriage illogical or not?

[astro]

I’m all for adults of any sexual persuasion being able to marry as they choose. One of the arguments opponents of gay marriage put forth against gay marriage is that it opens the door to plural marriage. While this argument may seem to be reactionary is it really illogical?

An example of this type of argument is here

Social commentator Stanley Kurtz argued that: "Among the likeliest effects of gay marriage is to take us down a slippery slope to legalized polygamy and ‘polyamory’ (group marriage). Marriage will be transformed into a variety of relationship contracts, linking two, three, or more individuals (however weakly and temporarily) in every conceivable combination of male and female.

From a purely objective point of view is this argument really entirely wrong? If the door is opened to gay marriage as an alternative relationship structure doesn’t this inherently (to some degree) empower the possibly of plural marriage being considered another equally valid relationship structure?

[Der_Trihs]

It’s illogical. Societies can and have had legal polygamy for millennia without legalizing SSM; they are separate issues. Keeping SSM illegal wouldn’t make it any harder to keep polygamy illegal.

[astro]

@Der_Trihs

It’s illogical. Societies can and have had legal polygamy for millennia without legalizing SSM; they are separate issues. Keeping SSM illegal wouldn’t make it any harder to keep polygamy illegal.

I see your point, but those societies were not based on a constitutional rule of law system where equality under the law is assumed. In modern democracies there is the general assumption equity in treatment under the law can be petitioned for and enforced.

In the US, operating under the constitutional rule of law, if gay people get to have legal validation of their relationship structures are plural marriage advocates not due the same consideration?

[BrightNShiny]

@astro

I see your point, but those societies were not based on a constitutional rule of law system where equality under the law is assumed. In modern democracies there is the general assumption equity in treatment under the law can be petitioned for and enforced.

In the US, operating under the constitutional rule of law, if gay people get to have legal validation of their relationship structures are plural marriage advocates not due the same consideration?

We already have all sorts of legal institutions with arbitrary* numerical restrictions. For example, S Corporations are limited to 100 shareholders. I don’t see any direct legal relationship between removing gender/sexual orientation restrictions on marriage and the numerical restriction.

*Arbitrary may not be the best word choice. There is some reasoning behind these various numerical restrictions.

[astro]

@BrightNShiny

We already have all sorts of legal institutions with arbitrary* numerical restrictions. For example, S Corporations are limited to 100 shareholders. I don’t see any direct legal relationship between removing gender/sexual orientation restrictions on marriage and the numerical restriction.

*Arbitrary may not be the best word choice. There is some reasoning behind these various numerical restrictions.

Well, that’s kind of the point. Plural marriage advocates would argue that the ban on plural marriage is devoid of reasoning and reasonableness. It’s banned simply because of western historical mores, not some compelling logic that says “2 and no more”.

[GIGObuster]

@astro

I see your point, but those societies were not based on a constitutional rule of law system where equality under the law is assumed. In modern democracies there is the general assumption equity in treatment under the law can be petitioned for and enforced.

In the US, operating under the constitutional rule of law, if gay people get to have legal validation of their relationship structures are plural marriage advocates not due the same consideration?

I would point out then that in a plural marriage there is no equality, specially when items like divorce are considered.

[astro]

@GIGObuster

I would point out then that in a plural marriage there is no equality, specially when items like divorce are considered.

I’m not quite getting your point, why would it be impossible to equitably divorce out of a plural marriage?

[yorick73]

I believe it does open the door to plural marriage. If you can redefine one aspect of marriage there is not logical reason that you cannot redefine other aspects. How can you rationalize changing the requirement that a couple be opposite sex but yet not allowing plural marriage? The only argument I’ve seen on these boards is that plural marriage is associated with abuse and lack of consent. I just don’t buy that argument as a valid excuse to ban plural marriage.

[Farmer_Jane]

If we made homosexuality illegal about the same time we did polygamy, calling them a bane on society and all that, I don’t see why not. The compelling state interest would be the children, of course, but it does take a village.

[GIGObuster]

@astro

I’m not quite getting your point, why would it be impossible to equitably divorce out of a plural marriage?

IIRC, the point goes like this: about the the only way it would be possible to make it equal is that all partners should have equal rights on deciding when to terminate the partnership of all involved, suppose a guy is married to wife A, B and C.

While all partners can consent to the new wives, the husband can divorce wife B for example, but the others do not have a say on that decision, suppose B and C are the ones that want to push out A from the household (divorce from A).

In locations where polygamy is allowed or exists underground, wives B and C do not have that right, the husband is the one who decides so he has an unequal advantage on this.

[BrightNShiny]

@yorick73

I believe it does open the door to plural marriage. If you can redefine one aspect of marriage there is not logical reason that you cannot redefine other aspects.

I don’t see the logical connection, but the legal definition of marriage changes routinely, and none of those changes have led to polygyny, so I don’t see how this one has to.

How can you rationalize changing the requirement that a couple be opposite sex but yet not allowing plural marriage? The only argument I’ve seen on these boards is that plural marriage is associated with abuse and lack of consent. I just don’t buy that argument as a valid excuse to ban plural marriage.

[BrightNShiny]

@astro

Well, that’s kind of the point. Plural marriage advocates would argue that the ban on plural marriage is devoid of reasoning and reasonableness. It’s banned simply because of western historical mores, not some compelling logic that says “2 and no more”.

That may be the plural marriage argument, but I don’t see how it’s connected to SSM. I do think there is a logical reason to place an upper bound on the number of people who can form a marriage, but I haven’t really thought about the issues to much, so I’m not beholden to any particular number, including 2. My point here is that our legal system already deals with numerical restrictions in numerous areas, and those restrictions are independent of either gender or sexual orientation issues.

[astro]

@BrightNShiny

I don’t see the logical connection, but the legal definition of marriage changes routinely, and none of those changes have led to polygyny, so I don’t see how this one has to.

Routinely? Please give some examples of how the basic definition of marriage has changed “routinely” in the US over the past few hundred years. Other than some states being forced to abandon miscegnation laws, and anti-plural marriage legislation targeted at early Mormons I’m not seeing all that many fundamental changes.

[Captain_Amazing]

One of the big differences is that to allow plural marriage takes a much bigger change of the law than to allow same sex marriage. It redefines marriage in a much bigger way. In the marriage laws of most states, to allow same sex marriage pretty much just means crossing out “man and woman”, and replacing it with “two people”. Everything else, though, would work pretty much the same way. There isn’t very much in current marriage law that treats men and women differently.

With polygamy, though, the laws would have to change. For instance, right now, if somebody dies intestate (without a will), his or her spouse has an automatic right to part of the estate. With polygamy, what would happen? Would every one of the person’s surviving spouses be entitled to an equal part of the estate? If you’re a woman, for instance, and you marry a man who has another wife already, are you also considered married to his first wife, or just to him, for legal purposes? If the husband in our example dies, does the marriage automatically dissolve?

Right now, a spouse is entitled to death benefits from their spouse’s social security. How would that work in a plural marriage situation? How would divorce work? What happens if parts of the aforementioned couple want a divorce but the rest don’t? When you’re dealing with custody issues, what happens? Are the children only the children of their biological parents, or of the entire group? In a case where a woman has multiple husbands, will a paternity test need to be performed each time she has a baby to find out the biological father?

I’m not saying we can’t pass laws dealing with this. We certainly can. But doing so would require a total rewriting of our marriage laws in a way that allowing gay marriage wouldn’t.

[astro]

@BrightNShiny

That may be the plural marriage argument, but I don’t see how it’s connected to SSM. I do think there is a logical reason to place an upper bound on the number of people who can form a marriage, but I haven’t really thought about the issues to much, so I’m not beholden to any particular number, including 2. My point here is that our legal system already deals with numerical restrictions in numerous areas, and those restrictions are independent of either gender or sexual orientation issues.

It’s “connected” if the restriction is proven to be as legally arbitrary and unjust as the restrictions on marriage based sexual orientation.

[astro]

@Captain_Amazing

One of the big differences is that to allow plural marriage takes a much bigger change of the law than to allow same sex marriage. It redefines marriage in a much bigger way. In the marriage laws of most states, to allow same sex marriage pretty much just means crossing out “man and woman”, and replacing it with “two people”. Everything else, though, would work pretty much the same way. There isn’t very much in current marriage law that treats men and women differently.

With polygamy, though, the laws would have to change. For instance, right now, if somebody dies intestate (without a will), his or her spouse has an automatic right to part of the estate. With polygamy, what would happen? Would every one of the person’s surviving spouses be entitled to an equal part of the estate? If you’re a woman, for instance, and you marry a man who has another wife already, are you also considered married to his first wife, or just to him, for legal purposes? If the husband in our example dies, does the marriage automatically dissolve?

Right now, a spouse is entitled to death benefits from their spouse’s social security. How would that work in a plural marriage situation? How would divorce work? What happens if parts of the aforementioned couple want a divorce but the rest don’t? When you’re dealing with custody issues, what happens? Are the children only the children of their biological parents, or of the entire group? In a case where a woman has multiple husbands, will a paternity test need to be performed each time she has a baby to find out the biological father?

I’m not saying we can’t pass laws dealing with this. We certainly can. But doing so would require a total rewriting of our marriage laws in a way that allowing gay marriage wouldn’t.

This is the most powerful “why they aren’t really the same” argument I’ve seen here so far.

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

well, the argument appears to have no basis in historical fact.

There are 10 countries and 6 US states (soon 7 (NY) and maybe 8 (CA) which have same sex marriage. As well as 23 countries, parts of 3 countries, and 11 US states that have it under a different name (Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships, etc.).

And none of them has gone on to legalize polygamy or polyamory, in the 10 or 11 years that they have had same sex marriage. So thus far, this prediction has not come true.

[BrightNShiny]

@astro

Routinely? Please give some examples of how the basic definition of marriage has changed “routinely” in the US over the past few hundred years. Other than some states being forced to abandon miscegnation laws I’m not seeing all that many fundamental changes.

I’ve got a 400 page book here outlining all the changes to the definition in California since statehood, and that’s just one state over a 161-year period. Here are some highlights:

1849: Separate property for wives.

1850: Spanish-law community property system adopted.

1860: Wife has real, active interest in community property (Van Maren v. Johnson)

1860: Separate property rents and profits are ruled not community property (Goerge v. Rauson)

1866: Husband’s consent to make a will no longer required.

1872: Wife now allowed to manage her separate property.

1889: Married Woman’s Special Presumption Doctrine appears.

1891: Restrictions on Husband’s power to make gifts on community property without wife’s consent.

1901: Restrictions on husband’s power to convey/encumber home furnishings or apparel without wife’s consent.

1917: Limits on husband’s exclusive power to manage community property.

1923: Wife has testamentary power over her share of community property.

1927: Wife now has equal interest in community property.

1970: No-fault divorce.

1975: Equal management of community property.

This is just some of the stuff. If I were to list everything, I’d be here all day. There have been numerous changes in property rights, who can enter a marriage (based on age, race, religion, disability, etc.), how marriages can form, how they can end, what types of prenuptial or post-nuptial agreements can be signed, how marriages interact with creditors. It’s way too many to list. And many of these issues, particular the no-fault divorce issues and the property management issues, were fought tooth and nail be people claiming that all sorts of calamity and ruin would result from the change.

Hell, when California first adopted the community property system at statehood, people were arguing against it using many arguments similar to anti-SSM arguments (I posted excerpts of the transcripts once in a BBQ pit thread. I’ll see if I can find it). No matter what the change is, there’s always a group of people predicting that we’ve completely destroyed traditional marriage and everything is now on the table. But it just never turns out that way.

[BrightNShiny]

@astro

It’s “connected” if the restriction is proven to be as legally arbitrary and unjust as the restrictions on marriage based sexual orientation.

You keep using the term “legally.” If you are going to use that term, then you have to make some legal argument as to how they are connected. Just stating that they may one day proven to be legally connected isn’t going to convince me. And I’m not asking for court cites here or anything. Just any kind of legal connection.

The court rulings in favor of SSM are either based in gender or sexual orientation discrimination issues. And the rulings based on sexual orientation generally view sexual orientation as an inherent characteristic, similar to race or gender. None of that has anything to do with a numerical restriction.

[BrightNShiny]

Maybe I can give an example to clarify my point:

Let’s say, tomorrow, Congress decided to start a new type of corporation called an M-Corporation. It’s an S-Corporation, so it’s limited to one-hundred shareholders. But they all have to be men.

Would any court uphold that? Clearly not. The court is going to say that Congress cannot prevent women from joining an M-Corporation. But the numerical restriction would still be in place. And I don’t see how you would be able to go to court and say that now because women are allowed in the M-Corporation, you should be able to allow 101 people in the M-Corporation. I just don’t see how the issues are related.