# 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:** 5
**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, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/81 "2011-06-17T16:14:16Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > If you don’t want to be in a polygamous relationship, then don’t. But your argument is the same one against SSM. How is my argument similar to the one against SSM? Unless we wish to force naturally gay people into marriages and parenthood, they may or may not take themselves out of the gene pool. Plus, today there is ample opportunity for them to bear or father children. The subject under discussion is whether there is a rational basis for banning polygamy. I think the argument that laws governing it would be just too darned hard to write is a non-starter. Genetic diversity seems to be at least a somewhat rational argument. And we’re not talking about the people in polygamous marriages, we are talking about those who would lose access to members of the opposite sex because they have been “acquired” by the rich. To be crass, it is a simple matter of asset allocation. If there is a limited amount of a resource, letting those with more money acquire lots of it freezes out those with less money. Simple economics. ---
**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, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/82 "2011-06-17T16:16:36Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > 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). Good point. Women past child bearing years might acquire multiple husbands, though. Which would lock them out of the gene pool, at least for a while. I wonder if there ever has been a culture allowing women to have multiple husbands. ---
**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, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/83 "2011-06-17T16:19:12Z")
> [@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] Yeah, that’s the point. I was trying to give a rational argument against polygamy, not having to do with either difficulty or religion. ETA: Now, the hero sneaking into the seraglio meme shows that women in this kind of relationship might wind up impregnated by someone other than their husbands, which would improve the situation a bit, but I think it would be a bit tough to argue that polygamy is okay because it would increase the incidence of adultery. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/84 "2011-06-17T16:29:03Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Dude. Can there be a gay newborn? Indeterminate. Psychologists have devised a theoretically sound test, but using it would be a serious felony in every jurisdiction in the Western Hemisphere except Haiti (where researchers are bound to run into other problems). ---
**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, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/85 "2011-06-17T16:31:43Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > 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. It won’t happen often enough to matter is a decent counter-argument. It would be interesting to see a survey about it. I do think that in the current climate it would happen less often than say 60 years ago, since a woman in a polygamous relationship is in someway unequal to the man, and this is increasingly socially unacceptable. > [@](#): > > 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 is quite happy to make things more complex in areas having nothing to do with morality, so I don’t buy this one. > [@](#): > > 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. Even if allowing SSM required the rewriting of laws, banning it would still be wrong for exactly the reason you give - there seems to be no argument against it not involving religion or lack of comfort. The health care bill was complex also - is that a reason not to pass it? ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/86 "2011-06-17T16:38:41Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > The subject under discussion is whether there is a rational basis for banning polygamy. I think the argument that laws governing it would be just too darned hard to write is a non-starter. Nope. Forget about polygamy for a second. An unmarried person has 3 children. Who is the next-of-kin? Who gets to make medical decisions if parent is in a coma? The law has already taken these situations into account. What is the difference between this situation and a person with 3 spouses? Community property: You get (1/n) of the money while you are married. So man marries Ann in 2000, Betty in 2005 and Cheryl in 2008. Ann files for divorce in 2010. She is entitled to one-half of the assets (2000-2005), one-third of the assets (2005-2008) and one-fourth of the assets (2008-2010). But wait Cad! With 4 people now involve in the assets, it’s too complicated. Anyone who has been through a divorce as party, attorney or judge where the two cannot agree on how to divide up the assets can tell you this shit already happens when only 2 people are involved and that there are procedures in place the court will implement. The kids in a divorce: A man has a child from a previous marriage. He remarries and they have a kid. They divorce. Does the kid go with mom because of the advantages women have in custody battles or the dad to keep the family together. AGAIN these are issues that the legal system today already deals with. Polygamy adds nothing to the complication. The one area I see a legal problem (though easily dealt with through legislation) is in event of divorce or death, would the spouses still be married to each other? Clearly if a man had three wives and one of the wives files for divorce or dies, yes. But what if the man divorces all three or dies. Are the sister-wives still married to each other? ---
**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, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/87 "2011-06-17T16:59:36Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > How is my argument similar to the one against SSM? Unless we wish to force naturally gay people into marriages and parenthood, they may or may not take themselves out of the gene pool. Plus, today there is ample opportunity for them to bear or father children. > > The subject under discussion is whether there is a rational basis for banning polygamy. I think the argument that laws governing it would be just too darned hard to write is a non-starter. Genetic diversity seems to be at least a somewhat rational argument. And we’re not talking about the people in polygamous marriages, we are talking about those who would lose access to members of the opposite sex because they have been “acquired” by the rich. To be crass, it is a simple matter of asset allocation. If there is a limited amount of a resource, letting those with more money acquire lots of it freezes out those with less money. Simple economics. > [@Voyager](#): > > It won’t happen often enough to matter is a decent counter-argument. It would be interesting to see a survey about it. I do think that in the current climate it would happen less often than say 60 years ago, since a woman in a polygamous relationship is in someway unequal to the man, and this is increasingly socially unacceptable. > > The government is quite happy to make things more complex in areas having nothing to do with morality, so I don’t buy this one. > Even if allowing SSM required the rewriting of laws, banning it would still be wrong for exactly the reason you give - there seems to be no argument against it not involving religion or lack of comfort. The health care bill was complex also - is that a reason not to pass it? The government, or the people via direct propostions is perfectly capable of making poly marriage legal. It can make things as complicated as it desires, it is not Constitutionally required to do so in all cases. > [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Nope. > > Forget about polygamy for a second. An unmarried person has 3 children. Who is the next-of-kin? Who gets to make medical decisions if parent is in a coma? The law has already taken these situations into account. What is the difference between this situation and a person with 3 spouses? > > Community property: You get (1/n) of the money while you are married. So man marries Ann in 2000, Betty in 2005 and Cheryl in 2008. Ann files for divorce in 2010. She is entitled to one-half of the assets (2000-2005), one-third of the assets (2005-2008) and one-fourth of the assets (2008-2010). But wait Cad! With 4 people now involve in the assets, it’s too complicated. Anyone who has been through a divorce as party, attorney or judge where the two cannot agree on how to divide up the assets can tell you this shit already happens when only 2 people are involved and that there are procedures in place the court will implement. > > The kids in a divorce: A man has a child from a previous marriage. He remarries and they have a kid. They divorce. Does the kid go with mom because of the advantages women have in custody battles or the dad to keep the family together. AGAIN these are issues that the legal system today already deals with. Polygamy adds nothing to the complication. > > The one area I see a legal problem (though easily dealt with through legislation) is in event of divorce or death, would the spouses still be married to each other? Clearly if a man had three wives and one of the wives files for divorce or dies, yes. But what if the man divorces all three or dies. Are the sister-wives still married to each other? Look, all of these things are solvable. I am not arguing otherwise. I am just saying that it would be more difficult. Additional laws, regulations, and court resources would be required. If enough people want it to happen it can and will. But I contend that courts will not force the state to act because that difficulty raises a rational basis to limit it. Think about this, the person who inspired this thread, **CitizenPained** , has outlined how she thinks legal poly relationships should work. You have outlined another. I have brought up situations that fall outside of both. All of these things would need to be worked out. The more inclusive you get the more complicate it gets. Should poly marriages be considered one unit, or one person be married to two others who are not married to each other? Rational basis is not a high bar. The reason is real. It is not onerous, it could be solved, but it doesn’t have to be. ---
**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 17, 2011, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/88 "2011-06-17T17:13:16Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Indeterminate. Psychologists have devised a theoretically sound test, but using it would be a serious felony in every jurisdiction in the Western Hemisphere except Haiti (where researchers are bound to run into other problems). They make them watch _Glee_ and see if their heads bob? ---
**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, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/89 "2011-06-17T19:30:17Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Nope. > > Forget about polygamy for a second. An unmarried person has 3 children. Who is the next-of-kin? Who gets to make medical decisions if parent is in a coma? The law has already taken these situations into account. What is the difference between this situation and a person with 3 spouses? I’ve worked on software for problems a lot more complicated than this. I think you underestimate the cleverness of lawyers - not to mention that corporate mergers/divestitures are many times more complicated than this could ever be. > [@](#): > > Community property: You get (1/n) of the money while you are married. So man marries Ann in 2000, Betty in 2005 and Cheryl in 2008. Ann files for divorce in 2010. She is entitled to one-half of the assets (2000-2005), one-third of the assets (2005-2008) and one-fourth of the assets (2008-2010). But wait Cad! With 4 people now involve in the assets, it’s too complicated. Anyone who has been through a divorce as party, attorney or judge where the two cannot agree on how to divide up the assets can tell you this shit already happens when only 2 people are involved and that there are procedures in place the court will implement. Though I’m mostly in favor of married people having shared bank accounts and assets, I might change my mind in this situation. Community properly scales easily, as you said. Now, if there are negotiations involved, sure it gets more complicated - but so what? Plus there are always pre-nups, even more useful in this kind of situation. > [@](#): > > The kids in a divorce: A man has a child from a previous marriage. He remarries and they have a kid. They divorce. Does the kid go with mom because of the advantages women have in custody battles or the dad to keep the family together. AGAIN these are issues that the legal system today already deals with. Polygamy adds nothing to the complication. Uh - yes, the two person situation is no more complicated than the \> 2 person situation. Your point? > [@](#): > > The one area I see a legal problem (though easily dealt with through legislation) is in event of divorce or death, would the spouses still be married to each other? Clearly if a man had three wives and one of the wives files for divorce or dies, yes. But what if the man divorces all three or dies. Are the sister-wives still married to each other? I don’t think marriage is necessarily transitive - A M B, A M C does not imply B M C. So no. Unless there is also SSM, in which case B and C can independently marry each other. Anyhow, all of this has been figured out years ago by that great legal scholar [Spike Jones.](http://www.ibras.dk/comedy/spike1.htm#LonelyHeart) Now, I must go away somewhere and figure this thing out. ---
**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, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/90 "2011-06-17T19:38:53Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > The government, or the people via direct propostions is perfectly capable of making poly marriage legal. It can make things as complicated as it desires, it is not Constitutionally required to do so in all cases. I was speaking of SSM there. I think there is a basis for saying laws banning SSM are unconstitutional, due to equal protection. I don’t see that for polygamy, unless there is an innate drive for polygamy in the same sense as people being born of various sexual orientations. I doubt this myself. As for complexity, unless you are of the Cain “any bill over 3 pages long is too complicated and shouldn’t be passed” variety I don’t see complexity as a good reason against polygamy. It could be applied to lots of other laws also if it worked here. ---
**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, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/91 "2011-06-17T20:18:54Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I was speaking of SSM there. I think there is a basis for saying laws banning SSM are unconstitutional, due to equal protection. I don’t see that for polygamy, unless there is an innate drive for polygamy in the same sense as people being born of various sexual orientations. I doubt this myself. I don’t think we are are necessarily disagreeing here. Neither of believe that poly marriage seekers are a protected class. > [@](#): > > As for complexity, unless you are of the Cain “any bill over 3 pages long is too complicated and shouldn’t be passed” variety I don’t see complexity as a good reason against polygamy. It could be applied to lots of other laws also if it worked here. I think I have said repeatedly that poly marriages could by allowed if the legislature and/people wanted it. That is not the question in this debate. The question if not allowing it meets the rational basis bar. As I understand it, it does. If poly marriages need on average 1.1x the court resources couple marriages do, that is a rational basis. If one page of additional regulations are required (as opposed to changing one word) that is a rational basis. And that is why I think poly marriage will not be allowed by court action unless those desiring it are found to be a protected class. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/92 "2011-06-17T20:41:13Z")
Quoth **Diogenes** : > [@](#): > > I know what it literally means (and the word you’re looking for is “fucks,” not “loves”), I was asking what about a person makes them “polyamorous” other than behavior? Can there be a polyamorous virgin. [Sure](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archie_Andrews_%28comics%29). ---
**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, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/93 "2011-06-17T21:50:48Z")
Saying, ‘oh, it would be too hard to change the laws’ is not a valid argument. I feel that the abolition of slavery, changes in family law concerning women, changes in law regarding same sex couples and parenting, and so forth and so on have proved that. ---
**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, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/94 "2011-06-17T21:53:09Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > They make them watch _Glee_ and see if their heads bob? Hahah! Seriously, though, I’m not so inclined to believe that people are _absolutely_ born gay. At least not for women. Too many social and behavioral aspects mark lesbians different from gay men. Regardless, we’re not born to be monogamous. ---
**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, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/95 "2011-06-17T22:54:30Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > I don’t think we are are necessarily disagreeing here. Neither of believe that poly marriage seekers are a protected class. > > I think I have said repeatedly that poly marriages could by allowed if the legislature and/people wanted it. That is not the question in this debate. The question if not allowing it meets the rational basis bar. As I understand it, it does. If poly marriages need on average 1.1x the court resources couple marriages do, that is a rational basis. If one page of additional regulations are required (as opposed to changing one word) that is a rational basis. And that is why I think poly marriage will not be allowed by court action unless those desiring it are found to be a protected class. I guess it all boils down to our definition of rational. I was coming from the angle of, if for some reason lots of people wanted to legalize polygamous marriage, what reasonable arguments could I make against it - realizing that the reasons for might outweigh the reasons against. I’d personally feel comfortable with the diversity argument, but not with the complexity argument. I haven’t heard of any others. ---
**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, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/96 "2011-06-17T22:58:01Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Hahah! Seriously, though, I’m not so inclined to believe that people are _absolutely_ born gay. At least not for women. Too many social and behavioral aspects mark lesbians different from gay men. > Regardless, we’re not born to be monogamous. However, throughout history many, many gay people were compelled to act on their feelings at great personal risk. While even more showed themselves not to be monogamous by having affairs, very few set up multiple partner households. It is far from clear to me that men with mistresses would even want to turn the relationship into a polygamous marriage. So, the drive to not be monogamous argues against laws banning adultery, which makes sense to me. ---
**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 18, 2011, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/97 "2011-06-18T00:32:10Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > It is far from clear to me that men with mistresses would even want to turn the relationship into a polygamous marriage. Clearly some do. > [@](#): > > So, the drive to not be monogamous argues against laws banning adultery, which makes sense to me. Do gay men cheat more than straight men? Are gay couples more open to polygamous relationships? Do you want laws against adultery? ---
**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 18, 2011, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/98 "2011-06-18T00:35:47Z")
[Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html) > [@](#): > > Love brought the middle-age couple together — they wed during California’s brief legal window for same-sex marriage. But they knew from the beginning that their bond would be forged on their own terms, including what they call “play” with other women. > > As the trial phase of the constitutional battle to overturn the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage concludes in federal court, gay nuptials are portrayed by opponents as an effort to rewrite the traditional rules of matrimony. Quietly, outside of the news media and courtroom spotlight, many gay couples are doing just that, according to groundbreaking new research. > > **A study to be released next month is offering a rare glimpse inside gay relationships and reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many.** From NYT, not WND, so don’t yell at me for quoting it. ---
**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 18, 2011, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/99 "2011-06-18T02:30:55Z")
Well, without the risk of an inconvenient pregnancy, either of the husband’s mistress or of the wife by her lover, I can see why homosexual marriages need not be as uptight about monogamy. Big deal. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2011, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/100 "2011-06-18T05:09:55Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Saying, ‘oh, it would be too hard to change the laws’ is not a valid argument. I feel that the abolition of slavery, changes in family law concerning women, changes in law regarding same sex couples and parenting, and so forth and so on have proved that. Any real difficulty at all is enough to meet the rational basis test. I will repeat again: I am not saying that we could not legislate a legal status for multiple marriages. I am saying that unless those seeking poly marriage get defined as a protected class (like racial minorities and women) then the courts will not mandate it. And SSM and SS adoption bans seem to fail the rational basis test. They cannot cite extra complexity because the laws banning them were actually adding complexity. Poly marriages put an additional burden on the courts and legislature. The burden is not insurmountable, but it does not need to be for a rational basis. > [@Voyager](#): > > I guess it all boils down to our definition of rational. I was coming from the angle of, if for some reason lots of people wanted to legalize polygamous marriage, what reasonable arguments could I make against it - realizing that the reasons for might outweigh the reasons against. I’d personally feel comfortable with the diversity argument, but not with the complexity argument. I haven’t heard of any others. Am I being unclear? My position is not poly marriages should be illegal. Let me be absolutely clear: I am not debating whether or not poly marriages should be legal. I don’t care. If you can get a law passed allowing them I will applaud. I think some proponents under estimate the challenges and effects, but that is not a good reason to make it illegal. BUT, and this is a big but, none of that has any bearing on the topic raised in the OP. That topic is if the policy and statutes limiting marriage to two persons will pass [rational basis](http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Rational+Basis+Test) scrutiny: > [@](#): > > A law that touches on a constitutionally protected interest must be rationally related to furthering a legitimate government interest. In applying the rational basis test, courts begin with a strong presumption that the law or policy under review is valid. The Burden of Proof is on the party making the challenge to show that the law or policy is unconstitutional. To meet this burden, the party must demonstrate that the law or policy does not have a rational basis. This is difficult to prove, because a court can usually find some reasonable ground for sustaining the constitutionality of the challenged law or policy. > > For example, a state law that prohibits performing dentistry without a license deprives laypersons of their constitutionally protected rights to make contracts freely and discriminates against those unable or unwilling to obtain a license. But a court would undoubtedly uphold the constitutionality of the law because the license requirement is a rational means of advancing the state’s legitimate interests in public health and safety. The purpose of this debate was to show that poly marriage is not in the same judicial situation as SSM. Prop 8 was overturned for failing to meet the requirements of rational basis. I do not believe the same is true for the ban on poly marriages. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741.md?page=6)