# Let's just call them all civil unions. If you want to get married, go to a church. **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [August 3, 2012, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-just-call-them-all-civil-unions-if-you-want-to-get-married-go-to-a-church/630326 "2012-08-03T17:58:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-just-call-them-all-civil-unions-if-you-want-to-get-married-go-to-a-church/630326/161 "2012-08-14T00:20:16Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > Of course there won’t be relevant case law, since this has never happened before. But if you want to argue the lack of relevant case law, then we should never pass any new laws. > > In principle, it works the same as with two people, except that everything has to be divided nine ways instead of two ways. Nine-way child custody? I’d like to see that. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-just-call-them-all-civil-unions-if-you-want-to-get-married-go-to-a-church/630326/162 "2012-08-14T00:23:59Z")
> [@suranyi](#): > > Nine-way child custody? I’d like to see that. In theory, it’s the same principle as dividing between two people. One main residence and visits with the other people. Think of the two divorced people that marry, both with kids from previous marriages. Then they have kids together and get a divorce. All of a sudden you have a whole bunch of people trying to split up kids. I’m not saying I would want to be the judge that has to go through the nine-person divorce case though. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-just-call-them-all-civil-unions-if-you-want-to-get-married-go-to-a-church/630326/163 "2012-08-14T01:51:32Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > Here’s how I would define plural marriage: any number of people can be married, but if two people are married, and a third person wants to get married to them, the new third person has to marry both people - i.e. you can’t have person A married to B and C without B and C being married to each other. Any one person can only be in one marriage at a time. Joe (a heterosexual man), Sally (a bisexual woman), and Anna (also a bisexual woman) all live together in a sort of “equilateral triangle” in a single household. Joe considers himself to be married to both Sally and Anna; Sally considers herself to be married to both Joe and Anna; and Anna considers herself to be married to both Joe and Sally. Emotionally and practically speaking, Sally really can’t split up with Joe without also splitting up with Anna. Any post-divorce custody arrangements would presumably be along the lines of Joe+Anna sharing custody with Sally. Bob (a heterosexual man) splits his time between two households, one with Susan (a heterosexual woman) and one with Mary (also a heterosexual woman). However well Susan and Mary get along, they are not each others’ wives; I suppose the relationship would be something more like “co-wives”. If Bob divorces Susan, it doesn’t necessarily affect his relationship with Mary at all. The thing is, the point of legalizing plural marriage would, I presume, be to accomodate more people with different wants and desires when it comes to their love lives. So…what basis is there for shoe-horning people all these people, with completely different lifestyles, into a one-sized-fits-all form of plural marriage? Of course, the fact that plural marriage in effect produces an essentially unlimited number of possibilties is a good practical argument (without even getting into questions of personal morality or religious taboos) against trying to give it the sort of official legal recognition we currently give to two-person marriages. ---
**Author:** ![Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hershele_Ostropoler)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-just-call-them-all-civil-unions-if-you-want-to-get-married-go-to-a-church/630326/164 "2012-08-14T15:27:23Z")
Since there are already people living in – and more relevantly, people who used to but no longer live in – polyamorous relationships and households, I imagine most of the issues have been worked out, multiple times. A court doing so changes the dynamic a bit, but it’s not like this is completely uncharted territory. Polyamorous marriages would create the need for separating the dissolution of the relationship from individual members leaving the relationship. When all (recognized) marriages are two people, those are in practical terms the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-just-call-them-all-civil-unions-if-you-want-to-get-married-go-to-a-church/630326/165 "2012-08-14T15:39:34Z")
> [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](#): > > Polyamorous marriages would create the need for separating the dissolution of the relationship from individual members leaving the relationship. When all (recognized) marriages are two people, those are in practical terms the same thing. There’s a thought. Keep marriage between two people, but allow multiple marriages per person. So if A, B, and C want to get into a three-way marriage, there’s three marriages: A-B, A-C, and B-C. If it’s a co-spouse scenario, there’s only two: A-B and A-C. That might help streamline some of the legal complexities, and would prevent the problem of shoehorning all the various combinations of plural marriage into a single umbrella. ---
**Author:** ![Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hershele_Ostropoler)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-just-call-them-all-civil-unions-if-you-want-to-get-married-go-to-a-church/630326/166 "2012-08-14T16:50:27Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > and would prevent the problem of shoehorning all the various combinations of plural marriage into a single umbrella. I’d think it would do the opposite of that. But it’s a useful umbrella, and I think this would work. It’s not necessarily the only thing that would work, but it’s a thing that would work. People who say “but I’m not married to each of them, I’m married to both of them!” are either nitpicking or in love with [Andrew Andrew](http://andrewandrew.tumblr.com/). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-just-call-them-all-civil-unions-if-you-want-to-get-married-go-to-a-church/630326.md?page=8)