# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![sundog66](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@sundog66](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sundog66)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/61 "2011-06-17T05:08:39Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Yes, you are being treated unequally from women who want to marry a man, Wannabe polygamists are not being denied anything available to anybody else. First you imply: “A **woman** may marry a man, therefore it is discriminatory to disallow a **man** from marrying a man.” But then you deny: “An **unmarried** man may marry a woman, therefore it is discriminatory to disallow a **married** man from marrying a woman.” Am I right that the crucial difference, for you, is that one’s sex is innate but one’s marital status is not? ---
**Author:** ![sundog66](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@sundog66](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sundog66)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/62 "2011-06-17T05:11:26Z")
Also, what if it were discovered that “polyamory” is a natural sexual orientation, along side hetero- and homosexuality? Would that sway anyone toward recognizing polygamy? ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/63 "2011-06-17T05:11:39Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It’s completely circular to call that discriminatory. By that definition, anyone who disagrees with any law is being discriminated against by that law. Am I being treated unequally if I want to smoke pot, but I can’t because it’s illegal? Yes you are. You are being treating differently than someone who just wants to consume alcohol or smoke cigarettes. But that is not a constitutional issue because that discrimination passes the rational basis test and people who want to smoke pot is not a protected or suspect class. Discrimination is not inherently illegal. I practiced legal discrimination when I decided to go to a deli instead of eat Mexican. Even the government is allowed to discriminate. They can keep felons from owning fire arms and ten year olds from drinking. If challenged in court the have to meet the scrutiny requirements, depending who they are discriminating against, but they can still do it. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/64 "2011-06-17T05:22:00Z")
> [@sundog66](#): > > Couldn’t we just as easily say “The US is in the business of offering marriages. Excluding people from being able to participate in that offer based on their \* n \> 2\* cardinality is discriminatory”? You could but that doesn’t change the fact the existing system isn’t made to accommodate n\>2. The court can’t simply create that system. In order to make that happen the legislature needs to be involved. In the case of n=2 the system already exists no changes in law are necessary other than the esthetic male and female now = person. We’ve already established in the law man and woman are equal so the court doesn’t need to create anything new they just have to apply it where needed. If a restaurant offers a lovers meal deal that includes meals for 2 people for 20 bucks I’d find it discriminatory for them to only offer it to opposite sex lovers. However I think it would be absurd to require they offer 3 meals to a love triangle for 20 bucks. The first 2 get the deal anyone after that the restaurant has no obligation to off that discount too. If they wanted to they could offer a different way to offer that special like 10 bucks for each additional person but then you are creating something new. ---
**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, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/65 "2011-06-17T06:38:55Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > You could but that doesn’t change the fact the existing system isn’t made to accommodate n\>2. The court can’t simply create that system. In order to make that happen the legislature needs to be involved. > > In the case of n=2 the system already exists no changes in law are necessary other than the esthetic male and female now = person. We’ve already established in the law man and woman are equal so the court doesn’t need to create anything new they just have to apply it where needed. > > If a restaurant offers a lovers meal deal that includes meals for 2 people for 20 bucks I’d find it discriminatory for them to only offer it to opposite sex lovers. However I think it would be absurd to require they offer 3 meals to a love triangle for 20 bucks. The first 2 get the deal anyone after that the restaurant has no obligation to off that discount too. > > If they wanted to they could offer a different way to offer that special like 10 bucks for each additional person but then you are creating something new. Sorry, but saying that male-female marriage laws are sexist is just wrong. You’re implying that, for you as a gay man, marrying a _man_ is better than marrying a _woman_ because there’s something inherently _better_ in men and you are denied this ‘right’ that women have. It’s the same kind of thinking that makes lesbians appear to be man-haters. ---
**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 17, 2011, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/66 "2011-06-17T07:00:53Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Sorry, but saying that male-female marriage laws are sexist is just wrong. You’re implying that, for you as a gay man, marrying a _man_ is better than marrying a _woman_ because there’s something inherently _better_ in men and you are denied this ‘right’ that women have. Not seeing it from what he wrote. Can you explain the logic here? ---
**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 17, 2011, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/67 "2011-06-17T07:07:05Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > They could couple it with support for flogging (see the recent thread) and make it a two-fer! Didn’t see the recent thread, but I wouldn’t expect them to support flogging. They get caught too often. ---
**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 17, 2011, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/68 "2011-06-17T07:08:42Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > 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. 😉 But it can be argued that there is a social good in as much genetic diversity as possible, and polygamy would tend to eliminate the genes of the poor from the genome. ---
**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, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/69 "2011-06-17T07:12:33Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > But it can be argued that there is a social good in as much genetic diversity as possible, and **polygamy would tend to eliminate the genes of the poor** from the genome. Poor people get married. No one would _have_ to partake in a polygamous marriage. It’s a _choice_. Actually, poor people may benefit, as it’s silly to assume that women in poly marriages wouldn’t be working. Communal living and all that. ---
**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 17, 2011, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/70 "2011-06-17T07:16:26Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > But it can be argued that there is a social good in as much genetic diversity as possible, and polygamy would tend to eliminate the genes of the poor from the genome. Actually no. Your notion (most likely) has one man impregnating several women. If you want a broader gene pool then you want several men impregnating several women. That is better served by the one man/one woman model. (Although to be fair when there are 6 billion people on the planet it probably does not matter one way or the other.) [sub]Hopefully people know what I mean…sounds a bit skeevy.[/sub] ---
**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 17, 2011, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/71 "2011-06-17T07:19:15Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Poor people get married. No one would _have_ to partake in a polygamous marriage. It’s a _choice_. Actually, poor people may benefit, as it’s silly to assume that women in poly marriages wouldn’t be working. > > Communal living and all that. If there were as many female dominant marriages as male ones, it would be no problem, but that isn’t likely. The left over men would not get married - to whom would they? My wife’s aunt lived with her parents all her life, so they had two incomes and one person staying home - and this works quite well. But communal living could work fine with multiple couples, and no one left out. ---
**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 17, 2011, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/72 "2011-06-17T07:25:06Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > If there were as many female dominant marriages as male ones, it would be no problem, but that isn’t likely. The left over men would not get married - to whom would they? Biologically one man/many women makes a lot more sense than the reverse (ignoring societal norms for the moment and going with Mother Nature). One man can easily impregnate numerous women. But a woman with numerous husbands can only be impregnated by one and then, reproductively speaking, she is out of action for 9+ months. It makes no sense for men to sign on to that (if we assume a biological imperative to spread their genetic material). ---
**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, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/73 "2011-06-17T07:31:40Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > If there were as many female dominant marriages as male ones, it would be no problem, but that isn’t likely. The left over men would not get married - to whom would they? > > My wife’s aunt lived with her parents all her life, so they had two incomes and one person staying home - and this works quite well. But communal living could work fine with multiple couples, and no one left out. If you don’t want to be in a polygamous relationship, then don’t. But your argument is the same one against SSM. ---
**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, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/74 "2011-06-17T07:33:34Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Actually no. > > Your notion (most likely) has one man impregnating several women. > > If you want a broader gene pool then you want several men impregnating several women. That is better served by the one man/one woman model. (Although to be fair when there are 6 billion people on the planet it probably does not matter one way or the other.) > > [sub]Hopefully people know what I mean…sounds a bit skeevy.[/sub] Oh, I know whatcha mean. :: skeevy face :: But if you had a marriage where there were 2 women and 1 man, they are not going to hurt the gene pool any more than 2 gay couples would. And poly marriages would also leave open the option of 2 men, 1 woman. My kinda marriage. 😉 ---
**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 17, 2011, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/75 "2011-06-17T07:42:21Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Oh, I know whatcha mean. :: skeevy face :: > > But if you had a marriage where there were 2 women and 1 man, they are not going to hurt the gene pool any more than 2 gay couples would. And poly marriages would also leave open the option of 2 men, 1 woman. > > My kinda marriage. 😉 Well, if a gay male couple wanted to father children of their own (they provided the genetic material…trying to avoid saying the jacked-off into a turkey baster…ok I said it) then it depends on if they choose one mother or several. For a broad genetic pool they should choose different women but honestly I doubt it’d matter at all. If there were a hundred humans left on the planet it’d probably be worth thinking about but with six billion do whatever you want. ---
**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, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/76 "2011-06-17T08:20:58Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Well, if a gay male couple wanted to father children of their own (they provided the genetic material…trying to avoid saying the jacked-off into a turkey baster…ok I said it) then it depends on if they choose one mother or several. > > For a broad genetic pool they should choose different women but honestly I doubt it’d matter at all. \*\* If there were a hundred humans left on the planet it’d probably be worth thinking about but with six billion do whatever you want.\*\* My point exactly. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/77 "2011-06-17T08:24:07Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > But if you had a marriage where there were 2 women and 1 man, they are not going to hurt the gene pool any more than 2 gay couples would. And poly marriages would also leave open the option of 2 men, 1 woman. > > My kinda marriage. 😉 Maybe, but it’s an unusual attitude. Even in societies where polyandry is allowed (it’s practiced in part of Tibet I believe), I understand that the people who practice it generally don’t like it. The motive there for one woman marrying 2+ men is extreme poverty; two men being better able to support the woman while she’s pregnant and the raising of the children. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 10:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/78 "2011-06-17T10:34:20Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > What happens when the sole remaining parent is gravely ill and there are more than one children who are next of kin? > > This happens in the majority of families. Well, by answering my question with a question, you leave my question unanswered. You’ve a valid point, to be sure, I guess the doctors will only take certain actions if there is a consensus among the adult children, but there’s an extra wrinkle in a multiple marriage - a possibly lifesaving course of treatment is extremely expensive. Adult children can pay for it or not to pay for it as they individually choose, but what if some members of a group marriage want to pay out of family assets and some don’t? I can easily picture financial disputes within multiple marriages being dragged through courts for _years_. Heck, sufficiently wealthy and determined couples do this already during divorce proceedings, and adult children/inheritors can contest a will for decades. I’m just picturing a contentious multiple marriage that is breaking apart You’re gonna need a bigger court. ---
**Author:** ![Severian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/49beb7/32.png) [@Severian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Severian)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/79 "2011-06-17T13:27:05Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Sorry, but saying that male-female marriage laws are sexist is just wrong. You’re implying that, for you as a gay man, marrying a _man_ is better than marrying a _woman_ because there’s something inherently _better_ in men and you are denied this ‘right’ that women have. > > It’s the same kind of thinking that makes lesbians appear to be man-haters. No, a person should be able to freely choose their spouse from the pool of willing candidates. For the government to limit that pool based on sex - how can that be anything but sexist? ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/80 "2011-06-17T15:58:24Z")
I don’t think a genetic diversity factor would pass rational basis. It is the kind of searching for anything seen in the Prop 8 case. Rational basis is a low bar, but it is still a bar and in a population our size genetic diversity doesn’t really come to play unless you start talking about small communities that practice polygamy only within the community. And there, legalizing may actual help the genetic diversity because it would allow the community to open up since it would reduce the stigma and give all parties more legal remedies. I still contend that the rational basis is met because it adds complexity to the system all around and the government is not obligated to do that. The government has decided to give certain protections and rights to two individuals that wish to enter a specific relationship. Similarly, the government has decided that to provide certain oversight and protections for certain purchases (I am thinking houses here) that are not given to others. The government only has to show it has a rational reason for giving those protection to one group (house buyers) and not another (boat buyers). There is nothing preventing us from trying to get those rights and privileges extended to a different class, but the Constitution does no mandate it. To bring it back to marriage and Prop 8, in that case the only reasons that any one can seem to come up with are that the thought of SSM occurring makes some people uncomfortable, and some religions don’t allow it. Neither of those arguments pass the ration basis bar. Having to significantly rewrite laws and putting additional burdens on the courts does. I will also note that if those seeking to have legal poly marriages were ever found to be a protected class, the current status of the law would not, IMHO, pass strict scrutiny. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741.md?page=5)