smilingjaws:
The marriage laws in the US are based upon Judeo/Christian religious beliefs.
My religion states that I may marry as many people as I choose. I am legally prevented from doing so by the institutionalized discrimination of the marriage laws of the states.
Please justify these laws that: establish state religion, prohibit my free exercise of my religion, and deny me equal protection under the law. Then we’ll talk about burdening Social Security and Welfare.
I believe that if polygamy were made legal then the families practicing would then be more easily held accountable for their offspring. At least in theory this would work. But it seems that the Mormon custom of polygamous marriage practiced today by the splinter sects fits fairly well into the orginal practice as started by Joseph Smith himself. These “marriages” are often done in secret and the “husband” never makes attempt to support his additional families. These so called “spritual” marriages often resulted in children that were left without paternal support of any kind , emotional or financial.
I can see no reason why consenting adults should not live and marry as they please. Yet the posters who have equated this practice with the Mormon splinter sects do have some valid points. Often these marriages are arranged between close relatives and with very young women, some as young as 13 and 14. How a law would be able to separate a legitimate plural marriage from such archaic pratices will be difficult. It seems that polygamous practices among these people is rarely investigated or prosecuted even now.
But the idea of polygamy itself does not seem so terrible as long as the parties involved are old enough to decide for themselves and not coerced through threats and brainwashing techniques by religous cults.
Needs2know
Finally, something on which I can agree with IzzyR! 
I’ve posted this a couple of times previously, but here is my view on what should legally constitute “marriage”:
The word “marriage” should be replaced by something else, perhaps “family contract”. A “family contract” can be formed by any number of parties, with the following provisions:
a) Unanimous consent by all members of a “family” to allow admission of a new member.
b) The decision to separate oneself from the “family” can be taken independently (i.e. does not require consent by the other members.)
The laws governing family contracts would be similar to the laws currently governing marriage and divorce, e.g.
One of the problems with this “scheme”, that a friend pointed out to me, was how to determine child custody. I confess I don’t have a good answer for that. In my opinion the priority should not go to the biological parents, but to the “parents” who have spent the most time and/or show the greatest desire to provide a good environment for the child.
Religious communities, of course, would still be free to make up their own decisions concerning what is or is not a valid “marriage”. However, those decisions should not have any bearing on what is determined to be a “family contract” by a secular government.
(Aside: in re incest: IMHO, incest between consenting adults should be legal, with laws governing pedophilia ruling the decision to know what is or is not allowed between ancestors and descendants.)
A “family contract” should not require the parties involved engage in sex…Sex is none of the governments business and the fact that we divide up society based on who has sex with whom - and whether society approves - is silly. i.e. My family contract might be me, my husband, and a good friend of ours with children and no spouse that we decide to “take in”
Well to get you back to more familiar territory - I disagree with your entire post.
I think the government should not be in the business of outlawing things like polygomy. But that does not mean that the government should recognize them either.
I would think that units that are commonly accepted as families in our culture should be recognized as such by the government. To the extent that such units come into widespread practice and acceptance, they should be accepted. To the extent that they do not, they should not.
The government, in my view, should not legislate what is or is not a family, but should merely recognize definitions that already exist in our culture.
As far as family contracts, you can do that to some extent under existing law. You can’t do things like file joint tax returns, but people can sign an agreement dividing familial responsibilities: A and B work and agree to contribute money to the household, C and D stay home and receive the benefit of that income, and in return agree to cook, clean, take care of children, get the oil changed on all the cars (man! I wish I had someone to do that for me!), whatever.
As long as you don’t break any laws (sex can’t be an official part of the contract, for instance), you can make any contract you like. For it to be enforceable, there has to be actual agreement and there has to be benefits (“consideration”) flowing between the parties to be bound. But generally it would be do-able. Custody would not come under a contract, though - the state mandates that that decision be governed by the best interests of the child.
As a matter of fact, Lee Marvin’s non-wife sued him under this theory - an oral contract under which he promised her property and support.
(Obligatory disclaimer: This is not legal advice - it is an observation about the general state of the law.)
IzzyR - that’s more like it!
You say
You mean, you agree with the current laws in most (if not all) states in the USA? There is nothing to forbid me from having several “wives” (or “husbands”) now, I just can’t marry them legally.
I agree with that up to a point. Our laws are in a great part determined by what is accepted by the majority of the population, but some issues should not depend on the majority view. e.g. If the majority of the population in a state determined that, for example, interracial marriages are unacceptable, I think that a proper interpretation of the US constitution should still say that interracial marriages are legal. Some issues are more important than majority opinion.
As far as polygamous marriages go, they are forbidden (IMHO) mostly because of the Christian heritage of the USA, and a properly secular society should ignore those religious considerations.
AerynSun - I agree that people can sign private contracts for many of the issues that I’ve raised. What I propose is that the legal concept of marriage (and its automatic benefits) should be extended to cover not just two people of opposite sex, but any number of people regardless of sex.
Dangerosa, of course my proposal of the “family contract” would not require the participants to engage in sexual relations, in the same way that the current laws governing marriage do not require that either, as far as I know. (Though it might be that some states allow for the possibility of divorce if sexual relations are withheld by one of the parties, I’m not 100% sure about that.)
Umm, maybe, but the US Supreme Court has said you have no “roght” to be polygamous. They can make a law limiting evryone to ONE spouse, as long as everyone (not just redtail’s religon). If you are a member of the old “thuggee” cult- you don’t hav the right to murder travelers, “sacrificing” them to kali, and stealing their belonging, even tho it is a critical part of your religion.
Next, umm, what religion is that, pray tell? I know the last few leaders of the Mormon Church have condemmed Polygamy. Also, Federal law does not prohibit Polygamy. If you really think it should beallowed, get the State to repeal it. True, the Feds did lean on BY to stop Polygamy, but also to stop trying to (apparently) seccede.
Next, I read no personal attacks in smilingjaws posts, but there were sure some in yours- verboten here in GD.
FYI – Federal law does prohibit polygamy. I don’t have a cite in front of me, but if my memory is correct it was the Edmunds-Tucker Act, passed in 1880, which was the source of the prohibition.
Looked at from another viewpoint, it had to have been a Federal law that outlawed polygamy among the Mormons since Utah was not a state while polygamy was legal. Utah was denied statehood until the practice was stopped.
Further, the law was challenged by the Mormon Church all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld it.
So, unless there has been further legislation to modify or repeal this legislation, the Federal prohibition is still extant, and the FBI can come after you for marrying more than one spouse.
Daniel - I am quite aware of the SCOTUS stance on this. They also ruled slavery to be legal at one point in time and then reversed that ruling later. Although reversal of SCOTUS precedents are rare, they do occur. In my opinion, their rulings on this subject uphold laws that contradict the 1st and 14th Amendments.
Please note that I asked for justification of these laws in light of the fact that they infringe upon my civil rights, not an explanation of why they still exist. I know that already.
As far as what specific religion I follow, that is immaterial. There ARE religions that allow multiple marriage - Islam and Wicca are two that immediately come to mind.
While YOU may not have read any personal attacks, I did. I mentioned that I found it offensive, as has often been done in GD, and I pointed out that the poster had failed to provide valid evidence to support repeated postings. I got a bit snippy, granted, but nothing extraordinary for GD.
Just as, in previous threads, you have read things and believed them to be personal attacks on YOUR beliefs and ‘lifestyle’ when others disagreed. In some of those cases, you’ve gotten a bit huffy and bitchy and railed at posters for their comments. Or is that a privilege that you claim only for yourself?
Arnold - I do have some problems with the gov’t getting that involved and specific about how marriages should work. I simply think that they should register (i.e., legally recognize as legitimate) whatever situation individuals work out for themselves. With the exception of child support and custody / visitation. I would agree with requiring all members of the marriage to be equally responsible for the support of children, including those that choose to leave. Much like the current situation for divorce, only bigger. 
On the other hand, on remand, the district court decided that she hadn’t proved she was entitled to anything, anyway.
Well, this is one of the more interesting threads I’ve seen so far.
My only complaint about it is the recurring Morman thing… I don’t think the original poster was refering to Mormanism, but I could be wrong.
My 2c.
I feel that any legal problems/difficulties with Polygamous marriages could be curcumvented by new laws with ease. I feel that a Poly marriage has the possibility to be more stable and healthier for childern than many of the “traditional” marriages that I’ve seen. It’s all about how it is dealt with.
However, having attempted a Poly relationship (failed, badly, hurt nice people, very bad!) I now know that the cultural imprinting of American Society runs deep. Most folks, no matter how free thinking, can’t handle a true Poly marriage.
I don’t think the gov’t. should have the right to tell us what kind of marriages are allowed, straight, gay, poly… hell, if a guy wanted to marry his car, I’m all for it. But we must be sure to safeguard children, for that is the true purpose of civilization.
Tristan -
No, I don’t think he was either. But these threads always seem to get dragged there; I’ve taken to kicking and screaming (in case you hadn’t noticed ;)).
Poly marriages are very definitely tough to make work. Most everything in our culture opposes them. Sorry to hear that you’ve been thru ‘Poly Hell’ (as some folks call it); there’s nothing worse then hurting and being hurt by people that you love. 
First piece of advice I give to a single person about marriage: marry an orphan!
I suppose that would go double (triple, quadruple… ) if you’re considering polygamy.
So poly marriages are more difficult than dual marriages? This does not surprise me. Learning to be in a relationship with just one other person is difficult enough for me right now.
Anyone know the status, if any, of poly marriages in Canada? The only potentially poly people I know of, I met in the States…
Poly marriages are definitely more complicated than dual marriages. 
They often take more attention and work, in part because you can’t fall back to an auto-pilot mode as more standard relationships can.
On the other hand, they are easier in some ways. Scheduling can be more flexible because you’ve got more options; IME you don’t ALL get mad at once, which means you’ve got someone to mediate and keep arguments on a constructive, discussion basis; areas that commonly cause difficulty in standard marriages (finances, childcare, personal time) are often easier to work out due to the increase in resources.
IOW, it’s certainly not something I’d recommend trying just for giggles, but it certainly can be done if you’re committed. Much like a standard marriage, doncha know.
On the religious note: I’ve seen a couple of Christian groups that claim Biblical support for their poly-ness. I’ve not actually read their pages, so I can’t explain nor vouch for their theological reasoning. Here’s one link, but I can’t find the other one again (sorry): http://www.libchrist.com
There’s also a subscribed-only discussion list on polyamory and religion (all welcome - neither poly nor religion required). If anyone wants the address, let me know.
Izzy, I know that Judaism allowed polygyny, at least at one time. Was there a later proscription on multiple marriage? It’s my understanding that modern Judaism is purely monogamous.
Mormons do not practice polygamy. It is true that, for a short period of time, when they arrived in Utah, they did engage in plural marriage for various reasons (it was commanded by God). It was eliminated a few years later. The “Mormons” you see with many wives today are actually part of a branch that broke off Mormonism years ago called “Fundamentalist Mormons”. They might sometimes claim to be Mormons, but they have no real affiliation with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
I hope y’all learned something here. I’m getting tired of explaining this distinction to everyone.
Back to the original question…
Nope, it shouldn’t be illegal. The government should keep it’s nose out of it, though it does likely have to recognize it, at least in so far as adjusting the laws/rules/regulations so those laws that currently dictate what currently happens in two person marriages can be made flexibly enough to cover n person marriages.
And (not particularly directed at any one person) I wish folks would stop using Polygamy and Polyamory interchangably. It gets confusing.
-Doug
There is at least one situation where I absolutely believe polygamy should be legally recognized in the U.S.: when an African immigrant with multiple spouses comes to this country. It would be indecent to require, or even to permit, a man to dump all but one of the wives who depend on him and whom he has promised to support, in consequence of his moving to this country.
I don’t know if the law already provides for this situation or not.
As to polygamy in other cases, I don’t think that the government should interfere with it, but I am not certain whether or how it should be legally recognized.
(BIGAMY, n. A mistake in taste for which the wisdom of the future will adjudge a punishment called trigamy. – Ambrose Bierce)
Arnold:
Your model polygamy law states that all members of a family must agree to the “marriage”. But, should that include dependents? Under our current marriage laws, children do not have to give consent for their parent(s) to marry. Or do you mean only the adults?
Also: Some people have apparantly confused polygamy with polygyny. Polygamy means multiple marriages, between multiple males or multiple females. Polygyny means a marriage that has multiple females. Polyandry means a marriage that has multiple males.