This it to move an interesting hijack from this thread.
No state in the union grants marriage licenses for more than two people. I contend that this is a rational position.
First, I see nothing inherently morally wrong with polygamy. Fraud and coercion can occur, but that is true of other marriages as well. I know that as a practical matter most communities that practice polygamy in the U.S. have serious issues, but those mostly happen because it is an underground institution. I should note that while I was raised a mainstream Mormon, I never met a polygamous family growing up.
That said, I can see that codifying polygamy is much more complex than the existing marriage laws. Every aspect of marriage laws would need massive overhaul. These are not insurmountable obstacles. But they are real obstacles.
Based on that my position is that the few remaining laws punishing those living in informed consensual poly situations should be removed, but the government is under no Constitutional obligation to recognize the multi party marriages.
I think the discussion from Walker’s potential bias that shifted towards, “Well, who cares cause it’s morally right” was the hijack.
If we just removed government from marriage and started recognizing family contracts, that would be good. And overhaul the tax code.
*edit: I don’t think we’ll recognize multi party marriages, but I wonder if we’ll stop granting privileges to married people. That would be nice. Single men are probably the most discriminated group here.
I don’t have a moral problem with polygamy, but I figure it shouldn’t try to follow a two-person marriage model, but be a form of legal partnership which is reorganized when a new partner enters or leaves, and which follows certain rules about decision-making and individual “equity”.
In practice, though, I figure that vast majority of such marriages are going to end up following the patriarchal one-man-many-women model, anyway.
I wonder if there is any way to legally circumvent polygamy laws. I mean, can four people create enough legal documents for such an arrangement to exist? Same-sex couples can, sort of, but they fall short of legal benefits.
It doesn’t require a rational basis because it does not involve any unequal protection or discrimination. It does not treat any class differently than any other class.
Polygamy is certainly accepted in other parts of the world and I have no moral objection to it. It should be a legal contract where people of a certain minimum age can enter and leave the contract at will. I agree with **Bryan Ekers **that most would stay in a one-to-one relationship–just as it is in the rest of the world. For most people, one spouse is enough!
What is this “marriage contract” of which you speak and how does it work?
There are 1138 rights granted to a couple as soon as they say “I do”. (cite)
The rights cover a spectrum of things such as spousal privileged communication, making health care decisions for their partner, inheritance rights and so on.
I am willing to bet if you start doing self-written “marriage contracts” (if I am following what you are thinking) you will find a quick return to lopsided agreements where one side gets screwed (figuratively) in favor of the other side. Mostly this will be men screwing over women.
It’s silly that the government gives rights to two-partner couples but not to multiple partner couples. Other countries do it.
Society favors men, with or without marriage. Polygamy is more of a communal marriage, not one where men can just enjoy multiple sex partners without repercussion.
Also, women wouldn’t be restricted from having more than one husband.
You cannot legally be “married” to more than one person at a time.
However, if you and your husband agree to allow another two men into your relationship and live with you the law has nothing to say about that. You cannot legally marry the other men (if you try you are breaking the law) but you can have them live with you if you want.
You could, if you wanted, draw up legal documents spelling out what obligations exist if, say, one of the men wants to leave the relationship.
Many same-sex couples do something similar. They cannot get married but they can live together and draw up legal documents which mimic a married relationship (e.g. medical power of attorney, their Will and so on).
Of course some things they cannot get no matter what such as privileged spousal communication, rights to adopt, tax benefits and so on).
Note: The UK recognizes polygamy while outlawing it. Israel doesn’t explicitly, but it allows it for the Bedouin. The PA and Hamas allow it as well. Myanmar allows it. So do many African and non-secular Arab countries.
Most other countries where it is allowed women are distinctly at a disadvantage to men.
In the US we strive for equitable splits of marriage assets and debts and custody and so on when a man and woman divorce. I doubt women fair as well in those countries (but I could be wrong…if you want to show that it works out fine for the women please do).
It is silly to legislate to prevent discrimination. We legislate to punish discrimination.
Marriage is an economic benefit for women. We know that. Just because polygamy exists in Muslim countries where women are at a disadvantage does not mean it will translate here.
edit: I’m for polyamory or marriage contacts where ALL parties consent.
Well, consider a basic example - one member of the multiple marriage becomes gravely ill. Who is the legal “next of kin” for the purposes of making medical decisions? With binary marriage, this is obvious, but what happens when the members of a multiparty marriage are in disagreement?
Nonsense. There is no argument that can made about gays that cannot be made about anyone who is naturally inclined to love more than one person at a time. Change “gay” to “polyamorous” and all the arguments are the same.
Consenting adults, not a “lifestyle choice”, doesn’t harm anyone else, etc.
Sure, it’s more complicated, but so what? If it’s what people are inclined to do, they should be able to do it.
You said get the government out of it and move to a “marriage contract”. I guess you need to tell me what you are talking about and how that works before I can answer further.
If instead you still want the government involved akin to how it is with a two-person marriage you need to tell me how the government decides to divide assets/debts equitably in a multi-spouse household.
I have seen how crazy the process is when it is just two people. I have a hard time imagining how it gets done in anything like a reasonable and equitable manner when there are more than two spouses involved. In other countries I think they manage it mostly by fucking over the woman (if indeed she is even allowed to divorce which may not be the case).
If you want to solve the problem by telling the divorcing spouse to just fuck-off because it is “silly to legislate to prevent discrimination” then I have to say I completely disagree.
You do not need to look too far back in US history to find when women got the short-end of the stick in a divorce. That was not a good thing.
Nickpick, or maybe not. Rational Basis is the lowest standard, and applies to laws that do not impact protected or quasi protected classes. Those cases talk about “strict scrutiny.” But, even without an equal protection or discrimination issue, I think the courts would find that a law that regulated a fundamental personal right like marriage must have some “rational basis.” A state couldn’t, for example, say, “you can only marry people who were born in the same month as you.” Once a state puts limits on a person’s choice of marriage partner, you’ve got to have a rational reason for it. You can’t marry a 5 year old, check. You can’t marry your first cousin, check. You can’t marry someone of the same sex, no check. You can’t marry more than one person at a time, rational or not? That is the question.
Not a “lifestyle choice”: Wrong…multiple partners in a marriage is distinctly a “choice”. I personally have never met or heard of anyone, ever, who around puberty sat in their room and “decided” whether they want to be gay or straight.
Doesn’t harm anyone else: Unclear. Tell me how a spouse who wants to leave is treated fairly and equitably so as to be “unharmed”. Include the children of that spouse as well. What if it is a man who leaves his three wives? Does he get all ten kids? Are the kids divvied up to each mom? How does it work?
In short, distinctly not the same.
ETA: Personally I agree (and have said so around here before) that on the face of it I have no problems with a polyamrous marriage as long as all adults are on the same page with it. As a legal matter though I cannot see it working in this country…not with out some decidedly bad results.