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

Great Debates
41

We’ve done this debate recently around here.

SSM hinges on the Equal Protection clause of the US Constitution. Currently homosexual people, as a group, do not enjoy “protected” status under EP jurisprudence. However, when you look at it, they almost certainly should be given the tests the courts have used to decide if a group requires protection. You can argue it of course. Justice Scalia thinks they fail the test because they are politically powerful as a group (which is one of several criteria that all have to be met).

Polygamists can never make the case that as a group they require “protected” status anymore than skate boarders can claim protected status. As such they would get nowhere in the courts with this argument where SSM couples certainly can make a case for themselves. This leaves the door wide open to the government to continue to ban polygamy.

Additionally, even if you want to suppose polygamists deserve EP protection same as SS-couples, the government has an out when they have a “compelling interest” at stake. This goes to the harm that polygamy can bring about which is far more than a, “We think it is icky” argument.

Polygamy is fraught with problems. As it has been and is practiced it is distinctly not equitable. One would assume that in the US we’d allow it to work both ways (one woman, multiple men/one man, multiple women or even multiple women/multiple men). The problems become hugely difficult mainly when someone wants to leave the relationship.

Lets say woman #2 want to divorce. Can she force the sale of the house to get her share of the equity out? How much equity does she have? If there are three wives and one man does she get 1/4? That would leave the whole rest of the family and kids without a home. What if she came along 5 years after wife #1. Does that diminish her equity in the house? What about the kids? If the man wants to retain custody can he now argue wife #2 would be taking the kids away from their brothers and sisters? Can wives 1, 3 & 4 team up to say what a bad mom #2 is? Would you trust their testimony? Does spousal privilege obtain to everyone in the house or just between the woman and the man?

The list goes on. It’d be a mess. What if you had one woman and multiple husbands and the woman dies (accident, sickness, whatever). Do the husbands now have to do paternity tests to see which kid is theirs and then they scatter? Do they have to stay together for the kids? If one wants to go but the others want to stay can they override the one? If they stay together do they have to jointly find a single woman they all want to marry or can they marry individually? If they can mary individually and they are still living together do the other men have a veto on the marriage?

The possible troubles boggle the mind.

SSM requires no change in the law. So no, SSM does not come close to opening the door for plural marriages.

42

The possible troubles only boggle the mind if your mind isn’t big enough to think about it or you’re just biased against it. shrugs We’ll check in with Canada in a few years.

43

The point of that example was to show that numerical restrictions do not have a direct legal connection to gender or sexual orientation restrictions. Again, you’re the one missing the point.

Man, this is some misinformation here. There is no legal form of polygamy in any US state. You’re mistress does not have marriage rights to your property or your kids (although she may be entitled to compensation through other legal doctrines). This is nonsense.

Nonsense. There are plenty of prosecutions for bigamy or polygamy involving non-Mormons.

False. Many states criminalized private homosexual behavior until Lawrence. You really have no idea what you are talking about. If homosexuality had been decriminalized in Texas, the parties wouldn’t have had any standing to go to court.

44

The restriction against polygamy has to do with religion and Europeanism. That’s it.

I meant according to legal definition.

Can you cite some, please?

[/QUOTE]

Re-read what I said. I know exactly what I am talking about. Even if there were laws on the books, they were not enforced.

Lawrence surprised people.

And having those laws on the books is DANGEROUS. Btw, do you have any idea how many polygamous marriages are going on in the US and people aren’t even aware of it? Yeah.

You don’t know what you’re talking about.

45

A man has an existing right to marry a woman and a woman has an existing right to marry a man. So giving a man a right to marry a man and a woman a right to marry a woman is just extending existing rights to everyone equally.

There’s no analogous situation with plural marriage. Nobody has an existing right to marry more than one person. So legalizing plural marriage would be creating a new right not equalizing an existing right.

46

I asked you in another thread on this around here to spell out how an equitable arrangement would work for this. You suggest I have a small mind and cannot grasp what is apparently obvious to your big mind. So far though it is only assertions on your part with no detail at all. It’ll all just work…somehow, magically.

So, enlighten me/us.

47

Again, nobody’s saying it can’t be done, and few folks around here are even saying it shouldn’t be done. It’s just a lot of work. You know that list of over a thousand aspects of marriage which homosexuals are currently denied in most of the country? Well, every single element of that list would have to be re-examined and modified for poly marriages, too. Some of those changes would be pretty easy to make, I’m sure. Others would be more difficult, and for many of them, even those actively campaigning for poly marriage wouldn’t agree on what the proper resolution is. Just to take one example, is marriage transitive? I can imagine good arguments either way. Should we choose one answer, and just leave those who want the other out in the cold? Or should we support both types? If the latter, then we’ve just introduced not one new sort of marriage, but two, and now we’ve got to go over that list of 1000+ twice.

48

Which has nothing to do with my point.

Cite? Which state legally allows polygamy? And don’t come back with mistress, because we are talking about legal marriages here. I’m quite well aware of what the legal definition of bigamy is.

Here’s one. I’m guessing this doesn’t involve a Mormon, since Mormon’s don’t allow polyandry.

Have you actually read the case? Two gay men were arrested on sodomy charges and duly convicted. That is enforcement of the law. You have no idea what the term “legal” means and I doubt you have any legal background whatsoever.

Hysterical. Keep posting your nonsense. It’s quite clear to anyone with even a basic grasp of the law that you are just posting nonsense at this point.

49

When you make all partners equal, that stuff gets a lot less complicated.

Poly marriages exist right now - illegally. Some are in Utah and some are in Berkeley.

50

There’s the rub.

The law WANTS to treat everyone involved equitably. This is a good thing.

How do you do that in a poly marriage? Specifically when one (or more) people want out of the marriage which is where the real problems begin?

51

First, we have this:

[QUOTE=CitizenPained]
Polygamy in its legal form (according to US Moral Penal Code and several state laws) is practiced all over the US.
[/QUOTE]

Then we get this:

[QUOTE=CitizenPained]
Poly marriages exist right now - illegally.
[/QUOTE]

So, polygamy is practiced in its legal form, but it’s illegal. That is some grade-A gibberish right there.

52

All states outlaw bigamy. Some have specific anti-polygamy laws on the books so that they follow the definition of the US Moral Penal Code. This way, if a man is legally married to one woman and is practicing plural marriage outside of a license, he can still be prosecuted. This happened a few years ago in Utah.

Religious polygamists are prosecuted here.

Secular ones are not.

Um, that’s not what I’m talking about. You cited a woman allegedly defrauding several men. I’m talking about a secular group marriage.

Well, I do, but it was ADA and workers comp. Anywho. Since you can’t seem to grasp the basics, I’ll type extra slow for you.

Lawrence was a SURPRISE…because…SODOMY LAWS…(you know, where a pee pee goes into a butthole?) were rarely enforced anymore…okay…?

53

I see you’re having more troubles.

The legal definition of polygamy in many states is basically a man cohabitating with more than one woman (or vice versa). So you can be in a polygamous marriage without having more than one marriage license. You meet the legal definitions of polygamy. Therefore, you are breaking the law.

I’m not your Google or your Wiki. If you don’t know, go learn.

54

Cite? Show me which law allows secular polygamists not to be prosecuted. Post the legal definition that exempts secular group marriages.

Show me one state where secular group marriage is allowed.

Maybe you should read extra slow too.

Do you even know what the legal term decriminalization means? At the very least, it requires that legal penalties be removed for the particular crime. Since the sodomy law still had legal penalties attached, sodomy was not decriminalized.

And I’ve noticed you shifted the goalpost here. First it was decriminalization, and now you’re claiming rare enforcement. However, rare enforcement is not decriminalization. It’s still enforcement. You don’t even understand the terms you are using.

Also, just to make sure you aren’t making stuff up, why don’t you post some stats about not just sodomy prosecutions and convictions, but plea bargains resulting from sodomy charges as well?

55

I do know, since I took a few classes related to marriage law in law school, and I also have to deal with numerous marriage issues indirectly because of the type of law I practice. I’ll take my own research over yours any day, since you don’t even understand the terms you are using.

56

It may surprise you to know (given this post) that “sodomy” also includes “oral copulation”.

So, if you have given your boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife head you are guilty of sodomy.

(I think…hope…we can leave sex with animals out of this particular discussion.)

57

Oh, and here’s section 230.1(2) of the MPC. It explicitly criminalizes Polygamy:

58

You are a lawyer? And this is how you practice? You twist words to mean something they are not?

Ah, of course you would.

I’ve partaken in these polygamy discussions many times over the last week. You can’t possibly infer that I believe polygamy to be legal, or that sodomy wasn’t illegal in Texas at the time of Lawrence. So either you are twisting the things that I say on purpose or you don’t understand things.

Polygamy was outlawed in the U.S. for religious and racist reasons. If two people in Vermont can have a civil arrangement, whyever not three?*

  • In case you aren’t privy to these kinds of rhetorical questions, I’ll give you a hint: You don’t answer them.
59

You are getting to be like a broken record on this subject. Religious and racist reasons may have been part of the laws. Polygamy is still outlawed and people may or may not have racist and religious reasons for keeping it that way.

However, reasons that are not racist or religious for maintaining the ban on polygamous marriages have been presented.

As presented now it is now legally simplistic to adopt polygamous marriages to our code of laws.

More at issue is the existing collection of polygamous marriages viewable to the public are unpalatable due to their inherent sexism in the patriarchal set up.

If you would like to make a compelling case for polygamy, you need to start with swaying a reasonable portion of the public to your cause. Frankly as it is now you’d be better off remaining quiet as I think so far you’ve turned more people away then you have brought to your side.

You might want to start with presenting the non-sexist, equality driven, polygamous marriages that exist now and how our current set of laws effects their lives. After the courts have had the opportunity to poke and prod them and listen to the issues the face they can come to a reasonable conclusion.

This is very much how gay marriage has played out. In order to have any chance in the courts they couldn’t have gone with a vague gay marriage should be legal challenge. They presented actual couples and demonstrated how they are negatively impacted.

Absent an actual polygamous grouping for the straight dope to poke and prod to alleviate our concerns about inequality and sexism, how about you come up with some articles featuring polygamous groupings that are equality driven.

If you can’t present any it makes your whole argument kinda moot. We could just as easily argue the laws unfairly discriminate against elves and leprechauns.

60

To sum up my earlier comments, I looked at the New York marriage bill that just passed, and here’s the changed law (leaving out the longer second section that protects religious groups that refuse to marry gay people from being sued…)

Except for the provisions protecting clergymen and things, that’s it. Changing the law to accommodate gay marriage was possible in four sentences. It would take a lot more than four sentences to change the law to permit plural marriages.