Combining all the fun of a “homosexual marriage” debate with a “polyamory” debate, I now present “Legal Recognition for Polyamorous Marriages, yea or nay?” In light of the recent discussions here, and at least two personal accounts recently related that are germane to this topic, some people may have new perspectives on this issue. To be clear, I’m talking about the situation in which ALL individuals in the relationship have equal legal status in a marriage or union with ALL the other individuals. I’m speaking not of the religious type of polyamory, such as partriarchal polygamy still practiced in some parts of the west, rather as the type we occasionally hear of as “open marriages” and the sort. This is emphatically NOT about Mormons or other such sects, nor about what they may or may not have done or continue to do.
Basis: It seems the bulk of this board (myself included) has suggested they agree with acceptance of gay marriages by one of two methods. First, one might simply continue the present marriage system and eliminate any gender requirements of the two participants. The other would be to establish a two-tiered system in which “civil unions” replaced marriages as the government-recognized form, allowing those who also wish to be “married” by the tenets of their religion/ethics/etc to do so. Since most people feel that at least one of these two options is just, do we extend the rationale? If homosexuals have the right to be married despite not meeting the standard one-man-one-woman criteria, do we extend that right to those who exceed that criteria not by gender, but by numbers?
Problems: Prime problem here is where or if to set the limits, and how to keep marriage/union meaning anything in the modern world. If you allow 3, why not 4, or 5, or ad infinitum until we’re talking about marriage/unions of hundreds of people. Can the legal rights people enjoy as marital partners be effective in such a setting? Do they convey a meaningful benefit in this situation in any legal sense? Could those rights be effectively enforced? Could we adequately protect against the danger of fraud? (the tax fraud possibilities alone are mind-boggling.)
I assume those who opposed gay marriage would oppose this as well. So where do the rest of us draw the line? The common objections to religious polyamory, such as danger of exploitation to the women involved, don’t necessarily apply here, so it seems to me. If we would accept polyamorous marriage, under what terms and what system would we do so?