You’d think so; you’d be wrong though. Girls as young as 12 have been married in the US this millennium. Judges can not care, or even be asshole friends of the family, it turns out.
Personally, I think that -unlike for same sex marriage- there is a claim for a ‘marriage-like’ status for poly relationships, because there is going to be no one-size-fits-all version. As it currently stands, someone in a poly relationship has no protection if it breaks down; no right to visit the kids they may have been primary carers for until then (which is probably not the best thing for the kids either), and no financial recompense for taking on that role. No rights for their partners in medical emergencies. Having some simplified form of partnership that can be applied to multiple partners, where all these decisions can be made in advance as part of the process seems like a good idea to me. It’s complicated, and maybe there won’t be a variant that suits every possible combo, but that doesn’t seem like a good reason not to just declare the whole thing impossible.
If the minimum age is 18 and part of the application involves individual interviews, it doesn’t seem to me that adding a legal, somewhat controlled, option increases the risk of exploitation.
Suppose legalising polygamy did lead to enough rich men marrying multiple women that it adversely affected the sex ratio of ‘available’ partners. Would this adverse effect on society be enough reason to ban it, in the same way we don’t allow people to eg pollute the ocean because it affects other people?
The article says that many us states have no lower age limit.
But while judges can be assholes, of course, it doesn’t give evidence of that. In fact, it especially decries the states where girls can be married without judicial approval. Which… Seem to be numerous.
It also calls out other problems with marriage. The woman who gets the most inches was married at 19, but her Orthodox Jewish community colluded to trap her in an abusive marriage.
Regardless of how society defines marriage, there’s nothing preventing a man from taking a number of women out of the dating pool just by pure cohabitation, encouraged by religious belief and ritual, and maybe some non-matrimonial legal contracts. Society has exactly zero ways to stop this unless it wants to regulate male-female cohabitation.
And regardless of how society defines marriage, nobody should ever have to explain why they need a domestic arrangement that they simply prefer.
True, and to some extent serial monogamy has the same effect. I do wonder what effect legal blessing would have on the attitude of the mainstream Mormon church, however.
Even when there are children involved? I think when it come to things like tax breaks, society should at least consider what kind of arrangements we’re incentivising.
Again, regardless of what society chooses to regulate, I’ll never support any policy where someone must go contritely to the government to justify their consensual living arrangements.
You have to go beg the government for permission if you want to add an extension to your house or put in a new window. In my view the government can get involved if you are doing something that may adversely affect other people.
A lot rests on the supposition that living arrangements “may adversely affect other people.”
I’m aware that some evopsych proponents like Steven Pinker have proposed that human monogamy exists in order to equalize mating opportunities, but it’s little more than a just-so story that’s flawed in so many ways that I can’t give it any credence at all (and I won’t be hijacking this thread to review them).
It’s simple arithmetic that extensive polygyny will lead to lopsided mating opportunities. And we can see the consequences of that in China and India today. The only question is whether we would get such an imbalance in a modern wealthy society, or whether we’d see a more even split of relationships, or maybe the numbers would be so small as to be insignificant.
And that’s besides the question of how it would affect young women (and young men) in the religions that traditionally practice polygamy but are held back from it now by the law.
There is more to consider than psychological harm. Even if a given arrangement is a positive for those inside it, it effects others in various ways.
Taxes, welfare and other means tested benefits. We tax married couples at a different rate than single people. Tax laws would need to be adjusted to take into account more than two people. Means testing for tax breaks or government benefits would also need to be adjusted, somehow.
Hospitals would need to change the some rules on how to deal with incapacitated persons. If there is no signed medical power of attorney, which spouse can make decisions?
Divorce and family courts would need to new guidelines and rules to cover these cases.
None of this is an insurmountable barrier, but changes to the laws would have to take these into account. And if not done properly, could adversely effect certain institutions and society at large in various ways. Remember that Terri Schiavo debacle a couple of decades ago? That went on for 7 years even though the parents really had no standing. Now image if instead of her parents fighting her husband, it was a third spouse.
Day to day, the type of between consenting, independent, adults arrangements we are discussing are probably not going to be an issue, but just like current marriage, most of the legal ramifications come from when things start going wrong. Divorces, deaths, bankruptcies, filling for government aid. Those are the situations that the law needs to focus on.
And there is push back from those that think that it would be used fraudulently. If there are marked benefits to being married, then some would marry for those benefits. It is rare, but it happens today. I knew one couple in the Navy that married for better housing. They were at most friends with benefits, but in the military, marriage brings better living conditions and higher pay.
Of course. Totally. Child brides have to end period.
But before we allow Polygamous marriage we gotta fix the child bride laws, and not only due to polygamy, but due to the fact it is the Right Thing To Do.
India and China? I don’t think it really makes sense to compare a plural-society marriage to one where the women are disappeared by erasing the fetuses. I also dispute that any kind of important mating imbalance would be caused by polygyny, especially now that so few people are participating in monogamous heterosexuality.
The whole anti-polyamory thing is just a scam for moral scolds. There’s no real reason for it except that some folks decided it was against their magic book, and we’re stuck with all their BS rationalizations.
And I have already explained about the weird poly pedo cult compounds. Do I need to explain about those again, and why it would be a bad idea to legalize their pedo cult?
you have not in any way addressed the actual point I am making. Child marriage is bad whether you have 10 child brides or just one. So ban child marriage. That has nothing whatsoever to do with polygamy.
you have not in any way addressed the actual point I am making. Child marriage is bad whether you have 10 child brides or just one. So ban child marriage. That has nothing whatsoever to do with polygamy.