Nice to see we think vaguely alike, Cowboy.
A follow up with our unhappy ABC relationship (I feel sorry for the poor kids at this point.
A marries B (A is always my bad guy, here).
A then wants to marry C and does so without B’s consent.
If a marriage (as a legal contract) is about sharing resources then wouldn’t A be violating the first contract with B by now only being able to (theoretically) having to share resources equally with C as well?
Jonathan Chance, I would not imagine that it would make any sense at all to have plural marriages where partners could be added without consent of all existing partners, or where a person could be a member of more than one marriage simultaneously.
Jonathan Chance, I thought I cleared this up previously, but I guess not.
A could only marry C in one of two cases: B consents, or the marriage of A and B is first dissolved. In fact, this case is where I would continue to support the equivalent of a bigamy law (marrying another person, while still married, without the spouse(s) consent).
And I differ a bit with KellyM (and perhaps others) on this point, apparently. With consent, I would envision that A could marry C, but where C has no relationship to A whatsoever.
Aha!
Pardon me for posting out of line with the general gist section of the thread, but a few hours away from this board has given me perspective on the supposed logic behind this whole nonsense of pro-gay = pro-polygamy in this and other threads!
The religious are declaring that, sans religion, the agreement between marriage partners is indistingushable from a contract between business partners! And since any number of people may enter into a business contract, marriage in the absence of a religious (read “homophobic”) film coating it should be enterable by any number of people of any gender?
Where could such a deranged notion come from?
If civil marriage contracts were simply business contracts, we would not need to try to pass laws to recognize gay marriage and polygamy. I could simply sue in court to have a gay or multiple marriage recognized, and, if such an argument held water, I would prevail! You would not need courts specifically designed to handle divorce, it would all be covered in business law.
But this argument doesn’t hold water. When was the last time you heard of a business contract being nullified due to “alienation of affection”? Marriage contracts are a variety of contract, but not identical to business. Christians believe that without God in the picture, there is no true love, so I can see where everything gets simply clinical for them once the religious sheen is removed. To quote myself:
There is absolutely no reason to assume that the omission of any mention of religion in the laws governing marriage relegates marriage to some subsection of business contracts. Christianity has no monopoly on love, and leaving it out of civil marriage law is simply good American values.
Thanks, MintyGreen, I didn’t see the response in the other thread.
I don’t know that anyone has taken this actual position. Comparable, perhaps, but not indistinguishable. The position I have seen is much more consistent with the statement you made saying, “Marriage contracts are a variety of contract, but not identical to business,” with which I agree.
The fact is, contract law can already provide many of the legal protections for both gay and poly unions (the comparable part). There are two problems here, however. First, both gays and polys face criminal laws that restrict their behavior (sodomy, fornication, adultery, cohabitation, etc). Second, contract law is significantly more cumbersome than marriage law, and gays and polys should have equal access and protection, without discrimination.
Actually, I believe there are fair business practice and tort laws that do provide comparable protections.
Assuming that the emphasised “it” refers to Christianity, I couldn’t agree more strongly.
yay
…? Gadzooks! I think he’s talking about me!
By golly! He IS talking about me!
and I thought we were connecting too. 
I have yet to be given a real good non-religious reason why polygamy cannot be allowed. And why are the mormons the only people having polygamists? Havent you people heard of Harems? There is Islamic provision to allow a man many wives. One of the reasons offered was that polygamy was a misogynist union, so that is when I countered by having a varied combination of partners not just a man with multiple wives. It cant be misogynistic if the polygamists were gay.
I was about to counter that when I see you did it yourself below
Well, I never even for a moment implied that love be taken out of the union of 2 or more partners. Tort laws allow us to form a good enuf agreement so that the business portion of the marriage can be taken cared of for the most part. Unfortunately there is this thing about “an unenforceable contract is invalid”. Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states. A contract entered based on an illegal act is invalid. In essense, polygamy would be just be a business contract and no rights or privaleges are extended to it that it has no authority to enforce such as taxation, legal custody or even medical responsibility. Any detail left out of the contract is subject to challenge instead of being given the benefit of doubt. That is why legislation is needed to allow such a marriage.
You would have to go to my thread and list out the non-religious reasons why polygamy should be illegal. I’d love to see them.
Well, running scotandrsn’s arguement around in the hallow in my skull produced something!
Allowing same sex marriages will not necesarily allow polygamy. I’ve said as much further up this thread. However, I failed to consider the reverse. Allowing polygamy would de facto allow same sex marriages! If polygamy were legally allowed but not same marriages, gay people would find a willing opposite sex partner and enter a polygamist union. If 2 lesbians wanted to marry, they would find a male and they all get married. OR if 2 gay men wanted to get married, they can find a female to enter a polygamist marriage with. OR if 2 gay men and 2 gay women wanted to marry each other, they would all just join in one big group.
Of course those who object to gay marriages can use that as a good reason to object to polygamist marriages. Its still tainted by religious (and homophobic) undertones tho.
Perhaps my intention was obvious, since no one pointed out my error, but the sentence should have read:
With consent, I would envision that A could marry C, but where C has no relationship to B whatsoever.
Sorry 'bout that.
a bit of a bump
I was going to start a new thread, but I remembered this thread and decided to add to it.
I thought I was joking when in this thread about gay marriage I said:
As I was on the way to the big parade in Toronto today, I opened my copy of the Toronto Star, and among the editorials found the following by Richard Gwyn: Hello! Let me introduce you to my three wives…". He starts off:
and goes on to ponder the state of marriage. He ends with:
I’m not certain I agree with all of the piece.
Gwyn raises the idea that the word ‘marriage’ will be confined to church (and presumably mosque/temple/etc) unions, while civil unions will be known as, uh, ‘civil unions’. AFAICT, so far the word ‘marriage’ seems to be winning out for all unions that have the full set of benefits* accorded to traditional marriages.
[sub]*I’m not totally certain what these benefits are. But then I’ve never been married.[/sub]
That’s hard to argue against.
My problem with poly marriage is that I have yet to see good empirical evidence showing that it works well for large numbers of people. (Yes, I saw all the cites posted, and I’ve seen plenty more. Good empirical evidence, no. Sorry.) However, perhaps there isn’t good empirical evidence that this works well for meaningful number of people because it hasn’t had time. Maybe because it’s not something that many people want or can maintain. I don’t know – how could I? Nonetheless, I see no reason to offer legal benefits for poly situations at this point.
Same-sex couples have a proven track record of maintaining life-long commitments. At this point, the same cannot be said for poly relationships.
I don’t give a darn what people do in their own homes, but this thread is about legal issues.
On a side note, I am disturbed when a woman in a poly marriage seek the dole as a single women. If you, as a family, can’t make what you need to pay the basic bills, then by all means get WIC or Food Stamps or whatever you need. But, when you are living in a perfectly nice home with five TVs and cable and TiVo, paid for by several breadwinners, and you take advantage of the system to get extra cash, that’s just no good.
Why should the quantity of people for whom it works well matter?
j.c., it’s rather disingenious to say “prove that X works and then we’ll make X legal” when the study of whether X works or not would require that respondents go on record as having broken the law. (I made this point earlier in this thread, I believe.)
One of the legal issues regarding polyamory is that many states make it illegal to be polyamorous, in some way, even if you do not seek the full indicia of marriage. Some states have laws against multiple cohabitation. Others (Utah) will impute a “common law” marriage even when the state has otherwise abrogated common law marriage.
Before you go demanding proof that polygamy “works”, first kindly take away the laws that make it illegal to be polygamous. (It’s possible that Lawrence v. Texas has already done so, but that remains to be seen.)
In addition, as Lilairen points out, there is no general requirement under the Constitution that a civil liberty has to be proven to be “beneficial” before it shall be preserved. Civil liberties are preserved except when the government has a compelling interesting not to. We let people do all sorts of things that are not proven to “work” because the government has no good reason not to. What good reason does the government have to criminalize polyamorous relationships?
You know, not all that long ago many people viewed gays as universally promiscuious. Public perception has changed; people now seem to acknowledge that gays can have stable long term relationships and often do.
Polyamourous unions are now seen as unstable, exploitive, abusive etc. But trying to change public perception is very dangerous and can result in families being broken up and some members jailed. How can anyone prove it works when as soon as it is proven to exists arrests ensue?
At least with gays there was a chance to work on the public perception of gays before they tackled gay marriage.
My relationship has lasted longer than many 2 person marriages. It works for us. What kind of proof that polyamory works do you want?