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

[Der_Trihs]

@Captain_Amazing

So if I marry all my fellow gang members or Enron executives, spousal privilege attaches?

I have this image of a bunch of gang thugs sitting in a jail cell. One says to the other “Not only did he squeal to the cops, he got the house in the divorce settlement!”

[Strassia]

@The_Flying_Dutchman

All spouses get spousal privelege
Judges usually decide that don’t they ? Thats why we have divorce lawyers

The spousal committee.
The Family Court Judge decides just like always.
The Spousal committee of the family corporation, a legal entity.

Is that the case now? Well yes, for a price.

Why must assets be split. The marital assets belong to the marital corporation. If a bunch of wives want to dissolve or divorce from the marital corporation after the death of the patriarch, The can go to the family court judge if neccessary.

every baby has the right to a parent on family leave.
What is so difficult ? Now that we have same sex marriage, the sex of the partner or partners is simply irrelevant. All the laws applicable to marriage can be amended by replacing “spouse” with “spousal committee”

Just how hard is that.
And I could come up with answers, but I’ve given this issue enough of my attention.

It’s a start, but not much of one. If the spousal committee deadlocks, who decides? Do they have to go to court to decide if they risk the surgery? Do you have to have arbitrators on call for every hospital?

@CitizenPained

Zeriel, I really don’t care about your wife and her partners, but the question was in regards to legal spousal rights. I don’t mind or care who cohabitates with whom, but some states do and they can prosecute you for it.

As far as legalities go, the ‘square’ arrangement works best. As you pointed out, that, to you, is the most widely ‘abused’ form of marriage, so why not give those women some legal protections?

For decriminalization, your model works just fine.

So basically you both think limiting marriage to two people is unfair, ethnocentric and based on religious prejudice. But you turn around and say that only the kind of poly relationships you like should be sanctioned. Pot meet kettle.

And this address the point I made earlier. If you are proposing a marriage law that benefits only a small slice of the potentially polygamous, then it is pointless.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@Strassia

So basically you both think limiting marriage to two people is unfair, ethnocentric and based on religious prejudice. But you turn around and say that only the kind of poly relationships you like should be sanctioned. Pot meet kettle. And this address the point I made earlier. If you are proposing a marriage law that benefits only a small slice of the potentially polygamous, then it is pointless.

I never said its unfair and I’m fine with the status quo. I certainly have no preference for any kind of poly marriage which is why I simply refer to group marriage, given the fact that the sex of partners is now legally irrelevant. In countries that recognize SSM.

I’m not proposing a new marriage law either. I’m simply pointing out that the argument against a slippery slope from SSM to poly marriage based on legal technicalities is weak. All it takes is a legal challenge to the Supreme Court and I doubt they’d rule against it because of the difficulties in redrafting legislation.

[CurtC]

@The_Flying_Dutchman

You don’t have to change any laws except those that ban plural marriages.

Simple.

It’s not at all that simple. We can decriminalize the action of cohabitating with multiple people, but that is very different from plural marriage. The legal institution of marriage is a whole set of laws that specify how society interacts with the married couple. It is extremely simple to open these laws up to same-sex couples, because the structure stays the same.

But how does society interact with multiple married people? We haven’t defined that yet, and simply removing laws against multi-cohabitation does nothing to get you there. If you want plural marriage, you have to answer a bunch of questions.

@CitizenPained

If poly marriages were allowed, states would define terms (eg, number of wives) and the courts would have to figure out what happens if/when those marriages have problems.

That’s the whole issue - the states would have to define the terms. We’re not even close to starting this yet. You can’t have poly marriage until that’s done (and it’s very complex). Get that done, and all of us here will be with you. I’m OK with doing it, but don’t pretend that you can just wave a magic wand to open up marriages to multiple people.

Again, if you want to put children into the issue and then say it was no problem for ss couples, I’d suggest you pause and look at glbt family law.

Children used to go to the hetero partner. Now it is not always the case. Reproductive technology has also put forth questions regarding responsibility, child support, whatever.

Or how about men who care for children their whole lives only to find that they are not the biological fathers?

We have current laws that provide guidelines of how all of that stuff is supposed to work, without any dependence on whether the couple in question is of the opposite sex or the same sex. Again, SSM is trivially easy.

But we don’t have any guidelines of how poly marriage would work in these situations. Legislatures would have to address it. Propose some solutions and I’ll be supportive. Just don’t stick to this fantasy that you seem to have, where we just say “we’re going to allow poly marriages now” and it just happens. The question is, what, specifically, happens?