Sophie, I am aware of the “incest taboo”. I am also aware that it is not a universal taboo, and that the particular genetic relationships that are considered incestuous can vary significantly.
Even without those factors, though, anthropological inertia might be a “reason” for the existence of a law, but it is not good reasoning.
** Giraffe ** and ** tracer**
One reason the state is involved and the prohibition against polygamy have to do with rights of survivorship and insurance. If some one dies without a will, the spouse inherits. but if there’s mutliple wives who inherits? who gets social security? do they split it? etc etc
Gosh guys, quit saying everything I’ve typed before I get a change to submit, willya? 
pldennison - Because of the way it is usually presented and discussed. This thread is an exception to the rule. 
And I’ll second your last statement.
tracer - Hear, Hear!!
Giraffe - yes. Just as domestic/spousal/child abuse laws can be enforced to prevent the problems mentioned with the fringe Mormons, fraud laws could be used to prosecute individuals who fraudulently misrepresent themselves as unmarried in a marriage contract.
So, IzzyR, you brought it up - what’s your opinion on this?
sorry, wring, but no. Inheritance and support may be excuses for the current marriage laws, but they are not reasons.
If someone dies without a will and without a spouse, who inherits? Depends on the state law, but they’ll sureashell figure it out & divvy it up (making sure the state gets a cut, of course).
If someone dies and has no spouse but multiple children, who gets social security? Depends on the age & number of the children, but essentially they split it up.
Does your insurance restrict you to only covering one child? Why not? Doesn’t covering multiple children make it more complicated and expensive?
The fact that multiple-partner marriage would make property, inheritance, divorce, or any other laws more complicated is NOT sufficient reason for institutionalized discrimination.
Neither is the problem of child support. Again, it might make the laws more complicated, but it certainly isn’t insurmountable.
If the government wishes to register marriage or partnership contracts (for the purposes of benefits, child support, etc.), that is one thing. But to mandate acceptable contracts is wrong, especially in light of the fact that it directly contradicts freedom of religion.
Tracer asks why government should concern itself with marriage at all.
Two parts to the answer. One is idealistic and legal. The law assumes that the reasonable, prudent man will, insofar as he thinks ahead enough, take precautions for the benefit of his family. Whereby it becomes worthwhile to have a means by which he can formalize his intent to start a family by taking a spouse with whom he will presumably have children, either by birth or adoption. (Please note that this is not a post in defense of “family values” – Addams or otherwise! – but in defense of the idea that making a legal record of one’s intent is worthwhile. The common-gender “he” above could well be a woman; the spouse could be of the same sex; a single person might adopt one or more children.) But the generic picture remains the same: a legal registry of intent is valuable to assure that those matters to which spouses and children are entitled by right or law are provided to the appropriate people in case of any dispute, whether in probate, desertion, divorce, failure to support a child, or whatever brings the matter to the attention of the courts. (This makes no presumption as to who, or how many, people ought to marry, just that marriage is a valuable institution from the point of view of public policy as regards property distribution, support, health care, and a large number of other things. Betcha one of our gay posters can come up with that omnibus list of things spouses are entitled to that gay people are precluded outside Vermont from assuring each other unless they go down the list one by one and write up a ream of legal paper to ensure it.)
Second, legislators, being human, are prone to decide that they know what people “ought” to do, or refrain from doing. Just open any thread in Great Debates or the Pit and you’ll see people speaking with great assurance about what other people ought to do. Why expect that winning an election magically erases that sort of attitude from anyone’s mind?
I do not care who marries whom, and am disgusted by people enforcing their idea of proper morality on others. I am very much for marriage as a valuable social institution, and have invested a lot of time and heartache in helping friends whose marriage was rocky put it back together.
** redtail ** I agree the problems are not necessarily insurmountable, but they do currently exist.
hence my post when folks were wondering “why” is the government involved at all. and frankly, the government would STILL be involved to figure out all those pesky details should they decide otherwise.
anyhow.
anyone have any data on relative numbers? I’d suspect one husband multiple wives happens more often than the other way around. Or maybe that’s just 'cause I’ve heard more about the men.
I’d like to address the whole Mormon thing. Are you talking about Mormons back in the days of polygamy, or renegade people who aren’t Mormon who practice polygamy these days? Because while the latter are, in my opinion, pretty vile–they seem to marry an awful lot of young girls, etc., the original LDS polygamy was a little different:
a) Not that many people were really polygamous, and a new marriage had to be approved not only by the first wife, but by Church officials. This cut down quite a bit on abuse, although it happened (just as abuse happens in marriages now, too).
b) First wives often did the picking, choosing sisters or friends, and it was not uncommon for young women to decide to marry a man who was already married–this was the frontier, you know, and a settled man with property and family could be a good bet when compared with a younger man who had nothing yet.
c) There is evidence that polygamy, far from being oppressive, was very liberating for women. They had their own households–and remember, husbands were often gone on missions for years at a time. Insanity from loneliness, common on the prairies where neighbors were few and far between, was not a problem. Women could trade chores, avoiding jobs they hated and getting more done while one person watched the children. Many women left their children in their sister-wives’ care and went East to school–Utah’s doctors were nearly all women for years. (much easier on the children, too–they stayed home with ‘Auntie,’ who they’ve known their entire lives, instead of moving.) Remember, too, that Utah women had the vote before they were allowed into the Union.
I have read quite a bit on early Mormon women, and by and large, they were an amazing bunch who didn’t put up with much. I can recommend Polygamy: a history, from the Signature Press as a good source. For those who are unfamiliar with the LDS world, Signature is something of a maverick press–not owned by the Church, quite intellectual, known for its cutting-edge publications.
wring, yeah, those problems exist. Laws would have to be rewritten. My point was that those aren’t the reasons that we have the marriage laws we do. If that were the case, there wouldn’t be a problem with legal marriage between two persons of the same gender - that wouldn’t be any more complicated than standard het marriage.
As far as numbers, I don’t have any. To the best of my knowledge, there aren’t any good current studies or counts of poly r’ships. Historically, I’d have to agree. From my readings, polygyny is more common, but I don’t know by how much.
I guess I took tracer’s comment differently than y’all did. As I said, I understand the need for some sort of government registration of marriage contracts. Poly has most eloquently explained that, so I don’t need to go there. However, that is NOT the same thing as the government legally defining who can and can’t marry.
genie, yeah, that’s what they’re talking about. I’m not going to get into it, other than to say that Mormon polygamy is greatly misrepresented in the popular press and is NOT representative of most polyamorous marriages. I’m just hoping that it doesn’t totally hijack the conversation AGAIN!!!
I hope nobody took that as support of governmental regulation – I tried my darnedest to ensure that it was clear that was not my point. And if I mistook tracer’s point, I’m sorry. I do see two distinct roles – “county clerk” and “regulatory authority” – and support the first but not the second.
Just in case I made you wonder - I got it, Polycarp. Actually, I thought you explained it quite well.
I just (possibly mis-)read tracer’s post to mean only the second not including the first.
I suspect that is partly due to the way I think of this subject. To me, the phrase ‘legal marriage’ means government definition of marriage, and as such should not exist.
I also think this might be a wiser course due to the religious ‘ownership’ of marriage. Marriage is an important ritual and symbol and institution in many religions. Because of that religious history and the strong feelings of many about the word ‘marriage’, I believe it would be better to NOT use it as a legal term.
I thought it was obvious from the OP. No.
I really don’t think polygamy should be legalized because of many reasons–the most selfish being that as a taxpayer I don’t want to end up paying for this. The western polygamists mentioned before are notorious for having all the wives on public assistance/housing assistance, etc. Even without welfare–the pressure on the public school system is pretty bad. One man rarely can support more than one family–geez, there’s a lot of us who can’t get the ex to even partially support one kid. Why encourage more people to establish families they cannot support?
Another reason is that generally the polygamists end up having lots and lots and lots of children. I can’t see any benefit to the world in one man having 67 children (there were many of the old mormon polygamists who has 30-40-even more than 100 children). Only a nut would think he was so special that he would deserve to have so many descendents. Anybody in America still think there are too few people on the planet?
Then there is the social security issue. Say polygamy becomes legal. Guy marries 7 wives has 4 children with each wife. Guy becomes disabled. Workers contributing to social security have to support 1 man, 7 women for life, 28 children till age 18. DAMN! The system is stretched enough now without adding more pressure from this. No way this guy would ever contribute enough to the system to cover his & his families ultimate benefits–even if he worked to retirement and all his wives worked. That would still equal one benefit for him and spousal benefits for each spouse that survives him.
Now, if the government restricted polygamy only to the sterile??? (just kidding!)
Smilingjaws
A friend of mine has thirty odd (he’s lost count) siblings and half siblings. His father has never been married to more than one woman at a time, but he started young, liked 'em pregnant, divorced them after four or five (or eight), left them on welfare, married another young fertile one, and was still doing this at 70.
You don’t need to be a polygamist to be a)fertile and b) not take responsibility for your kids.
On the other hand, I’ve known several people in polygamist relationships, and they generally have less children than adults in the relationship.
Seems like “intent to breed” is a poor excuse for discrimination.
Smilingjaws:
Oh?
Not to be nitpicky, but why does the father have to solely support the family? All the polyamorous families I know split up responsibilities among all the adults. Let’s not throw all our polygamists into the same stereotypical basket.
Again, I think you have a limited and inaccurate idea of poly marriages, at least as practiced today. The flaw I see in your thinking is this: some religious groups are all in favor of having as many kids as possible. Sometimes these same religious groups have in the past advocated and sometimes mandate polygamy (and splinter sects do currently).
This does not mean that polygamy=lots of children. Hey, many Mormons have lots of kids today, without polygamy. Many Catholics do too.
My right to enter into a legal marriage contract with more than one person should not be abridged by unfounded fears that we might have more kids than “normal” families.
smilingjaws: what part of “Mormon polygamy is … NOT representative of most polyamorous marriages” do you fail to comprehend?
By the best available counts of which I am aware (and I do not claim these to be extremes of accuracy, just the best I can offer) there are approximately 20,000 ‘Mormon’ polygamists in the U.S and there are approximately 300,000 non-Mormon polyamorists in the U.S.
Plus what Dangerosa said: polygamy does NOT equal irresponsibility and vice-versa.
Please spare me your rhetoric about having to support legions of welfare children.
Most polyamorists that choose to have children can support them BETTER than the same individuals could in standard marriage. Why? Because you have MORE income per household. An example: one man and one woman marry and have kids. They have essentially two choices to support themselves - one spouse works and the other does kid-care or both work and pay someone else for kid-care. Guess what? Add another person and you have still have TWO incomes, but voila! one spouse is now available for kid-care, thereby eliminating an extra expense.
Please note the use of ‘spouse’ above - it is probably more common for a MALE parent to handle childcare in poly families than in standard families. Your whole “strong man brings money while wives stay home pregnant” theme does not apply to the VAST MAJORITY of people in poly relationships. Not to mention being a tad offensive.
In addition, I would guess that many poly’s have fewer children per adult to be supported (rather than 2 marriages with 2 kids each = 4 kids, you might well have one marriage of 4 adults with two kids).
Interestingly enough, when the Bolsheviks came into power, they legalized Bigamy, Polygamy, and Incest among other things.
The western polygamists mentioned before are notorious for having all the wives on public assistance/housing assistance, etc.
Oh?
Here you go
http://www.polygamyinfo.com/plygmedia%2099%20115%20trib.htm
I can understand some of these arguments that just because one group of polygamists are welfare cheats is no reason to think all polygamists are welfare cheats. I’m sure there are many polygamous people who aren’t running around breeding like rabbits. I’m just not for public policy changes that encourages many, many children whether it is based on religious beliefs or personal lifestyle choices.
As far as your assumption that I think fathers ought to be the major support of families–that’s not true either–they ought to be providing as much support as the mothers. Are most polygamous men so wealthy they are providing half the support for each of their children? I find it hard to believe that a man with 4 wives who work, and each with children is providing an equal amount of support to each child as the wife is providing. Maybe you could give me some statistics to prove this? Maybe every polygamist except the ones I’ve read about in the paper is a man of such wealth that the children he fathers are all well supported by his income and his wife’s–both equal partners in the venture. Give me some facts (not isolated anecdotes), maybe I’ll change my mind.
Good point about the deadbeat, serial fathers. I wish there was some way to stop them–but involuntary sterilization is not exactly an option in the US.
But, I still would like to see someone address the burden on social security from polygamous marriages.
I really don’t see why it matters, anyway. It’s not like anyone is prosecuting people for polygamy much. If there are as many polygamists as you claim, then the incident of prosecution is practically nil because the only ones in the news are the Western polygamists–mostly fundamentalist mormons.
The greatest argument against polygamy:
What–ONE mother-in-law isn’t bad enough?
Not to be picky, but the link above isn’t exactly what I’d call an unbiased news source on the subject.
Anyway, I’d have to agree with the majority of the posters here - the government should not have any say regarding marriage by any group (2 or more) of consenting adults.
We could also ask the same question about prostitution (why is it illegal again?) - but that’s a topic for another thread.
smilingjaws:
I am not a member of the LDS church. I do not even know any members of the LDS church, other than those I’ve met on this board. I am most certainly NOT one of the fringe polygamist groups that have splintered from the LDS church.
Nonetheless, you are using biased information that applies ONLY TO THOSE SPLINTER GROUPS to posit that I am a welfare leech with hordes of children I can’t support, or at the very least, that my “lifestyle choice” encourages such. When this egregious error is pointed out to you by several posters, you simply repeat your misstatements.
You are not just offensive, you are intentionally and willfully offensive and ignorant.
As to your request for facts, you are the one pulling wildly speculative and bigoted ideas directly out of your ass. YOU provide some facts that apply to more than one small religious group before you apply your ignorance to a more general population.
I have already explained why polyamorous families can often support themselves BETTER than they could in standard marriages. I’ll explain it again in cliched words of one syllable, just for you: Two can live cheaper than one, and four can live cheaper than two. (Oops, sorry, that has a two-syllable word; I hope you can manage those.)
In regards to Social Security, YOU are the one claiming that poly marriages will somehow “burden” the system. Please explain exactly HOW and WHY that would happen, or quit making the claim.
YOU are the one claiming that multiple-partner marriages somehow encourage prolific breeding. Prove it, and prove that it applies to someone OTHER THAN the fringe Mormons.
And, concerning the legal situation, you are once again wrong. People ARE prosecuted, people DO lose their children, people ARE discriminated against because of these laws. Does the fact that it doesn’t happen constantly somehow make that right? Does the fact that YOU don’t hear about it somehow mean it’s not happening? Gorsh, who died and made YOU the Supreme Deity?