# Rational basis for not recognizing polygamy **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 16, 2011, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741 "2011-06-16T20:52:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/21 "2011-06-16T21:43:54Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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. What does “polyamourous” mean? What is it other than behavior? What is innate about it? What makes it a “class?” ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/22 "2011-06-16T21:45:11Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > 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. Federal marriage benefits are not a fundamental right. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/23 "2011-06-16T21:54:05Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > 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. The same arguments were made for anti-gay marriage. I mean, “Adam & Steve want to get married — what about the children!!!” If two (or more) **consenting** adults enter into a contract, seriously? Who are we to say that’s ‘not right’? How about we go and legislate against misogyny? Shall we ban religion? ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/24 "2011-06-16T21:55:24Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Federal marriage benefits are not a fundamental right. Tell that to the Human Rights Campaign. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/25 "2011-06-16T21:57:10Z")
Where do you believe the US Constitution says that federal marriage benefits are a right? The rights in question have to do with equal protection and due proces, not marriage _per se_. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/26 "2011-06-16T21:57:58Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Consenting Adults: Check That’s the major requirement. > [@](#): > > 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. No, but they decide what they want to do about it. And have we not decided for all teens that monogamy is how they’ll live their lives? > [@](#): > > 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”. All divorce results in some harm. This premise is silly. > [@](#): > > 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? This is the exact same shit I hear from people who want to make it harder for people to get divorced!! ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/27 "2011-06-16T21:58:52Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > 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. > [@CitizenPained](#): > > 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. All the legally recognized polygamy I know of is polygyny of the specific type that one single man may enter into multiple distinct marriages with different women. The women have no direct relationship to each other, just to their husband. Each wife is part of separate marriage. The husband also has extremely disproportionate power over the relationships. Both of these simplify the legal aspects dramatically. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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. Technically, it discriminates against married people. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/28 "2011-06-16T22:03:11Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Where do you believe the US Constitution says that marrigae is a right? Thank you for echoing the Conservative Right. Unfortunately for you, the law is making it clear that _marriage is a civil right_, and the government has the duty to _not_ interfere in such things. > [@](#): > > No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. As you pointed out in another thread, _Loving v. Virginia_ said that the right to marry is indeed a civil right, as it is essential to the ‘pursuit of happiness’. This extends to the mentally retarded as well. edit: What I cited was part of the 14th Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/29 "2011-06-16T22:05:07Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > All the legally recognized polygamy I know of is polygyny of the specific type that one single man may enter into multiple distinct marriages with different women. The women have no direct relationship to each other, just to their husband. Each wife is part of separate marriage. The husband also has extremely disproportionate power over the relationships. Both of these simplify the legal aspects dramatically. That doesn’t mean it has to happen here. Proponents are talking about a marriage in which ALL partners are in agreement. That is the fundamental difference between proposed polygamy here and the kind practiced in inherently misogynist societies. Somehow we manage with two-person marriages, even though men are favored and women disadvantaged in the same arrangement elsewhere. India comes to mind. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/30 "2011-06-16T22:08:16Z")
I have no strong views on polygamy one way or the other. The US is in the business of offering a 2 person marriages. Excluding people from being able to participate in that offer based on their sex is discriminatory. I think it is the correct role of the Judiciary to demand we be non-discriminatory in how those contracts are issued. If people want gay marriages to be excluded I feel they need to pass a constitutional amendment specifying that kind of discrimination will be allowed. I’d oppose such a law. The US does not offer marriages for multiple people. No one is being excluded from polygamous marriages because they do not exist. I think the courts can fairly determine no discrimination is taking place. If people want the state to offer polygamous marriages I feel the Judiciary is the wrong place. I feel the legislature needs to pass a law to create a polygamous marriage category. I’m not opposed to them doing so. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/31 "2011-06-16T22:08:36Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > The same arguments were made for anti-gay marriage. I mean, “Adam & Steve want to get married — what about the children!!!” What about the children? We already deal with custody in two-parent marriages all the time. If a woman leaves a polygamous relationship and wants to take her two kids can the rest of the family gang up on her to fight her? Say she should not take the kids from their brothers and sisters (or half-brothers and sisters)? Also, the woman almost certainly cannot get half the marital assets. If there are three women and one man she gets 25% and in many cases that is not enough to live. What about child support? Since there are eight kids staying the woman gets a fraction of what ordinarily would be possible again making it difficult to impossible for her. Yes kids in divorce are hurt. Here you are adding a whole new raft of problems and, frankly, arranging things such that the woman choosing to leave becomes much more difficult. She is more stuck than she would be in a two-person marriage. Back in the 50’s women were stuck in bad marriages because they could be kicked-to-the-curb easily without sufficient portions of the marital assets. This is a good thing in your view? I thought a return to those days would be a bad thing. (And yes it can be one woman and multiple men but let’s face it…the majority will be one man with multiple women.) > [@](#): > > If two (or more) **consenting** adults enter into a contract, seriously? Who are we to say that’s ‘not right’? How about we go and legislate against misogyny? Shall we ban religion? We do legislate against misogyny. Discrimination on the basis of sex is rarely allowed. A man may personally hate women but he cannot discriminate on that basis legally. ---
**Author:** ![Severian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/49beb7/32.png) [@Severian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Severian)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/32 "2011-06-16T22:24:47Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Thank you for echoing the Conservative Right. > > Unfortunately for you, the law is making it clear that _marriage is a civil right_, and the government has the duty to _not_ interfere in such things. I disagree. It’s a civil right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sex. That alone should be sufficient to allow same sex marriages since there are benefits to being married. The government provides benefits to heterosexual couples that it does not to homosexual couples, thereby discriminating against the members of the homosexual couple. If the state just decided to say “Screw it, there’s no such thing as marriage any more in the eyes of the government.”, then same sex couples and heterosexual couples would be treated equally by the law and we’d be having different arguments. Everyone could call themselves married to whomever they wanted. Churches and social organizations and random strangers could hold marriage ceremonies for whatever group makeups they so desired. It wouldn’t matter. There’s no civil right to be married. There’s a civil right to not be denied benefits based on your sex. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/33 "2011-06-16T22:52:55Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > What does “polyamourous” mean? People who love more than one person at a time. > [@](#): > > What is it other than behavior? What is innate about it? What makes it a “class?” This is exactly what people said about homosexuality (and some still do). Any objective anthropologist will tell you that there is nothing innate about monogamy. That polyamorous relationships are just as “natural”. In fact, most societies that have existed have been polygamous. Monogamy is a recent invention in the history of our species. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/34 "2011-06-16T23:14:35Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > That doesn’t mean it has to happen here. Proponents are talking about a marriage in which ALL partners are in agreement. That is the fundamental difference between proposed polygamy here and the kind practiced in inherently misogynist societies. > > Somehow we manage with two-person marriages, even though men are favored and women disadvantaged in the same arrangement elsewhere. India comes to mind. In theory I agree with you. But it will make things much more complicated. In those other countries divorce is easy because the man can just tell any of his wives they are divorced, give her the mandated payment, and decide who gets the kids. He doesn’t even need a court, just say it publicly three times. Suppose here we do it so anybody can marry and consensual adult in any arrangement. You could end up with a five person group (gender doesn’t matter) with A married to B and C, B married to A, C, D, and E, D married to B and C, and E married only to B. Now what happens to assets when D wants to divorce B and marry F? What happens if E gets sued? Can the court take assets that A brought into the marriage, even though A is not married to E? After all, if E is married to B than their assets are joint, and so are A and B’s. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/35 "2011-06-16T23:17:09Z")
Egypt is still secular (as of this writing) and allows polygamy, though of the one man many women variety. Divorce is legal and not hard to get. However, if the man initiates the divorce the wife get some of the assets, while if the woman does she gets nothing. In this model polygamy is bad for women since husband get the benefits of marriage from the other wife or wives, and thus a now undesired wife is frozen out. However it would not be hard to make this more equitable here. The only good argument against I can come up with is an economic one. Relatively rich people (men and women) would accumulate spouses, freezing out relatively less wealthy people. If men and women had equal wealth this might not be a problem, but we know that isn’t true. (And I’m talking wealth, not just income.) We have an age problem also, in that older men would accumulate many young wives. Today there is serial polygamy, but the abandoned spouses (many of them named Gingrich 🙂 ) are back on the market. Writing this, I’m surprised Republicans are not in favor - it is in the Bible and and it is good for the rich. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/36 "2011-06-17T00:18:17Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > 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](http://www.marriageequality.org/1-138-federal-rights)) > > 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. I don’t really care one way or the other. If they are consenting adults, then so be it. How the “rights” would work is another headache entirely. With 1138 rights, I’m not sure how such a marriage could be constructed. If a bunch of people want to try to figure it out, I say go for it, make it legal. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/37 "2011-06-17T00:48:43Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Egypt is still secular (as of this writing) and allows polygamy, though of the one man many women variety. Divorce is legal and not hard to get. However, if the man initiates the divorce the wife get some of the assets, while if the woman does she gets nothing. In this model polygamy is bad for women since husband get the benefits of marriage from the other wife or wives, and thus a now undesired wife is frozen out. However it would not be hard to make this more equitable here. > > The only good argument against I can come up with is an economic one. Relatively rich people (men and women) would accumulate spouses, freezing out relatively less wealthy people. If men and women had equal wealth this might not be a problem, but we know that isn’t true. (And I’m talking wealth, not just income.) We have an age problem also, in that older men would accumulate many young wives. Today there is serial polygamy, but the abandoned spouses (many of them named Gingrich 🙂 ) are back on the market. > > Writing this, I’m surprised Republicans are not in favor - it is in the Bible and and it is good for the rich. They could couple it with support for flogging (see the recent thread) and make it a two-fer! ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/38 "2011-06-17T01:02:06Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > I have no strong views on polygamy one way or the other. > > The US is in the business of offering a 2 person marriages. Excluding people from being able to participate in that offer based on their sex is discriminatory. I think it is the correct role of the Judiciary to demand we be non-discriminatory in how those contracts are issued. If people want gay marriages to be excluded I feel they need to pass a constitutional amendment specifying that kind of discrimination will be allowed. I’d oppose such a law. > > The US does not offer marriages for multiple people. No one is being excluded from polygamous marriages because they do not exist. I think the courts can fairly determine no discrimination is taking place. If people want the state to offer polygamous marriages I feel the Judiciary is the wrong place. I feel the legislature needs to pass a law to create a polygamous marriage category. I’m not opposed to them doing so. Same sex marriages also don’t exist in most states. Are you saying that those people aren’t being discriminated against? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/39 "2011-06-17T01:03:36Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > In theory I agree with you. But it will make things much more complicated. In those other countries divorce is easy because the man can just tell any of his wives they are divorced, give her the mandated payment, and decide who gets the kids. He doesn’t even need a court, just say it publicly three times. > > Suppose here we do it so anybody can marry and consensual adult in any arrangement. You could end up with a five person group (gender doesn’t matter) with A married to B and C, B married to A, C, D, and E, D married to B and C, and E married only to B. Now what happens to assets when D wants to divorce B and marry F? What happens if E gets sued? Can the court take assets that A brought into the marriage, even though A is not married to E? After all, if E is married to B than their assets are joint, and so are A and B’s. No, you could have it in such a way that person A and B get married, but B can’t get married to another without A’s consent. That’s the fundamental difference that (most) Western polygamists want to see. It’s a marriage in which all partners are equal. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/40 "2011-06-17T01:06:29Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Egypt is still secular (as of this writing) and allows polygamy, though of the one man many women variety. Divorce is legal and not hard to get. However, if the man initiates the divorce the wife get some of the assets, while if the woman does she gets nothing. In this model polygamy is bad for women since husband get the benefits of marriage from the other wife or wives, and thus a now undesired wife is frozen out. However it would not be hard to make this more equitable here. > > The only good argument against I can come up with is an economic one. Relatively rich people (men and women) would accumulate spouses, freezing out relatively less wealthy people. If men and women had equal wealth this might not be a problem, but we know that isn’t true. (And I’m talking wealth, not just income.) We have an age problem also, in that older men would accumulate many young wives. Today there is serial polygamy, but the abandoned spouses (many of them named Gingrich 🙂 ) are back on the market. > > Writing this, I’m surprised Republicans are not in favor - it is in the Bible and and it is good for the rich. Well, that’s no different than a dowry. Arguably, rich man have an easier time finding a wife. Who cares? If you can afford 'em, marry 'em. 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741.md?page=3)