'Slippery slope' steepens: Netherlands registers civil union of three people

[RickJay]

@SentientMeat

Marriage is a legal contract. Other legal contracts are drawn up between three or more parties - why ought not individuals be free to enter contracts of their own devising?

In the specific case of marriage/civil unions, however, the legal construct goes beyond the private contract between the persons in the marriage/civil union.

If three people want to shack up together and bang one another and put each other in their wills, that’s fine. But it’s reasonably for the government to, say, limit the tax benefits of marriage to two people, or the parental rights and responsibilities associated with a child to two people.

In any event, polygamy is simply not a natural slippery slope extension of extending marriage to interracial couples, or gay couples. In those cases an existing state is extended to individuals who were previously denied it. Polygamy’s something totally different. If a country wants to give it a go that’s their choice; I’ll vote against it every time in my country, though.

[mswas]

@tomndebb

It should be noted, here, that monogamy is neither merely 2000 years old nor is it the creation of Christianity. In fact, Judaism, from which Christianity sprang, recognizes polygyny while the Greek and Roman societies into which Christianity spread recognized only monogamy, so there is at least the possibility that Christianity adopted monogamy from the secular societies in which it grew rather than enforcing a religious idea on the people it converted. (The references in 1 Timothy 3 that bishops and deacons should be the husbands of “only one wife,” while often interpreted to mean that divorcers and widowers should not remarry could easily mean that polygyny was accepted among the people, but that the leaders should remain monogamous.)

Roman society was not secular, the affairs of state were considered a religious matter. Though I won’t argue that Christianity is a combination of the Roman system along with Judaism.

Erek

[cwthree]

@mswas

People marry their cars all the time. It’s called “holding title”. ‘Traditionally’ the wife is the property of the husband, this has changed only in the past few generations. You can get health insurance for your car it’s called “Comprehensive” coverage. The thing about a car is that it doesn’t need to legally consent to the arrangement.

This doesn’t hold up.

While “traditionally” a wife was her husband’s property, she isn’t now. You can’t sell your wife (and truthfully, an “owned” wife could generally be divorced or abandoned, but not sold in the manner of a slave or livestock). On the other hand, you buy your car and you sell your car; your car doesn’t get a say in it, and I can’t for the life of me think of a way in which your car could express its objection or its consent. Even if a wife’s consent were not needed for a marriage to be valid, she would still be capable of comprehending and expressing her objection or consent.

Comprehensive coverage is not “health insurance” for your car. Cars don’t get sick. If a car breaks down, no amount of rest or medication will cause it to recover on its own. It’s not alive.

Nice try, though.

[mswas]

@cwthree

This doesn’t hold up.

While “traditionally” a wife was her husband’s property, she isn’t now. You can’t sell your wife (and truthfully, an “owned” wife could generally be divorced or abandoned, but not sold in the manner of a slave or livestock). On the other hand, you buy your car and you sell your car; your car doesn’t get a say in it, and I can’t for the life of me think of a way in which your car could express its objection or its consent. Even if a wife’s consent were not needed for a marriage to be valid, she would still be capable of comprehending and expressing her objection or consent.

Comprehensive coverage is not “health insurance” for your car. Cars don’t get sick. If a car breaks down, no amount of rest or medication will cause it to recover on its own. It’s not alive.

Nice try, though.

WHOOSH

[tomndebb]

@mswas

Roman society was not secular, the affairs of state were considered a religious matter.

The Roman laws regarding marriage were secular laws. There was no state-specified religious service nor any particular deity that was required to be involved in the marriage contract. Changes to the rules regarding marriage contracts weere made by the Senate, not by oracles from the temples. While religion certainly permeated Roman society (as it did nearly all societies until quite recently), there were no Roman laws (aside from prescribed rituals at the opening of publicj functions) that were based on the tenets of Jupiterism or Junoism or anything similar.

[cwthree]

@mswas

WHOOSH

Maybe for you. I’ve had people trot this one out in absolute seriousness (“But if you queers can marry each other, why shouldn’t I be able to marry my sister/mother/horse/car/invisible friend Hector?”).

[Sampiro]

Though I’ve never before announced it in this thread, I’m a gay Doper, and an advocate of gay marriage. I have no moral qualms with polygamy, though I’ll admit to personally considering it “eww”. However, I do not consider nor do I believe the state should sanction any “marriage” between more than two people for several reasons. Some have been generally referred to at this thread, but a few specifics:

The boldface below gives an issue concerning marriage as it affects the partners, all of which are reasons that gay couples want to be legally recognized. The regular print deals with the issue as it would be handled with a gay couple with a union legally recognized by the government and the italics deals with issues unique to polygamy.

Issue: One partner dies without a will.

*Gay couple: Handled exactly the same way that it would be handled in a heteromarriage.*The surviving partner would receive full spousal inheritance rights, whatever those may be in his/her state of primary residence.

Polygamous union: Do the surviving partners receive equal shares of the estate? If the senior partner has been married to the decedent for 20 years and has 3 children with him/her, it hardly seems fair s/he should receive only the same share as the partner who married him/her 2 months ago. Also, if Wife#1 dies, does Wife#2 have inheritance rights, regardless of whether the husband is still alive? It’s hopelessly complicated if not covered by explicit contract, while again, the gay couple who have marital rights are covered exactly the same way as a hetero couple would be.
In the event that one partner sues for divorce, how is the issue of alimony/child support/custody to be handled?

*Gay couple: Handled exactly the same way that it would be handled in a heteromarriage.*The couple or a judge determine how much spousal support is warranted if any, and it’s quite obvious who will pay whom.

Polgyamous union: Can spouse number 1 receive child support from both/all former spouses? Does a partner who has no biological children have any legal rights or responsibilities where the children of the other partners are concerned? If partner A leaves the union, and is ordered to receive spousal support from partners B and C, and later partner B and C divorce as well, what does this do to the former legal relationship?

A partner is critically ill and unable to make decisions for himself/herself. S/he is in a PVS and has no living will but can be kept alive indefinitely by machinery. Who has the right to make the decision of whether to end or continue life support?

Gay couple: Handled exactly the same way that it would be handled in a heteromarriage. The surviving/healthy spouse has the right. Period.

Polygamous union: Is it the senior partner? Is it majority vote? Is power-of-attorney somehow split? Nothing seems fair.

A marital partner dies. What becomes of his/her pension and government death benefits?

Gay couple: Handled exactly the same way that it would be handled in a heteromarriage. The surviving spouse receives 100% of spousal death benefits. Period.

Polygamous union: Similar to the will- should the pensions be split evenly, or based on some sort of seniority? Suppose one surviving partner is of age to receive a widow’s pension but the other is not, should the one who is of age receive only a portion of the pension because some must be left in the kitty for the other partner, and if so, how much less? For how long?
There are more examples, but I hope the point is made: polygamous unions are incomparably more complicated than gay unions. All that gay couples want is to plug into EXACTLY THE SAME SPOUSAL RIGHTS AFFORDED HETEROSEXUAL MARRIED COUPLES. That’s it- nothing more, nothing less.
Polygamous unions, however, would create a host of complicated legal issues.
BTW, does it seem to anybody else that this union is a set-up? It’s just too convenient of a slippery slope. Conservative ministers are writing their sermons about “things to come” already because of it.

[Sampiro]

Sheebus, could a mod please fix my attrocious coding above?

[mswas]

It would depend upon the nature of the marriage, if all three partners are married to each other then the remaining partners would receive inheritance as a unit. If one person was married to two seperate people who were not married to one another, then it would be complicated.

Erek

[Blalron]

The difference with multiple marriages is this, I suppose: what’s to stop there from being 100,000 different people all married to each other? At a certain point it’s going to be too complicated for the legal system to be reasonably handle. But where do we draw the line? I think two is a reasonable place to draw the line, if for no other reason than due to issues of Power of Attorney (imagine a Terri Schiavo situation where two spouses disagree over whether to pull the plug on the third spouse)

[clairobscur]

@Sampiro

Issue: One partner dies without a will.

Don’t people without spouses but with children sometimes die? If the law can quite easily handle this situation, why would it be a problem with spouses instead of kids?, Do younger children receive less than older ones?

In the event that one partner sues for divorce, how is the issue of alimony/child support/custody to be handled?

How many parent do children generally have? Three? Four?

A partner is critically ill and unable to make decisions for himself/herself. S/he is in a PVS and has no living will but can be kept alive indefinitely by machinery. Who has the right to make the decision of whether to end or continue life support?

Don’t people without spouses but with children sometimes get critically ill and unable to make decisions for themselves? If the law can quite easily handle this situation, why would it be a problem with spouses instead of kids?

A marital partner dies. What becomes of his/her pension and government death benefits?

Any of your proposals will do, depending on the legislator’s will. Just have to pass a law. You can check how it works in the numerous countries where polygamy is legal for inspiration.

Heck! Traditionnal polygamous marriage are allowed by law in a couple of french possessions, and the french laws which normally regulate marriages between two persons somehow manage to be adapted as needed and implemented.

There are more examples, but I hope the point is made: polygamous unions are incomparably more complicated than gay unions. All that gay couples want is to plug into EXACTLY THE SAME SPOUSAL RIGHTS AFFORDED HETEROSEXUAL MARRIED COUPLES. That’s it- nothing more, nothing less.
Polygamous unions, however, would create a host of complicated legal issues.
.

Not that complicated. It’s always the same old tired arguments. Like no law or contract currently exist refering to the the rights/obligations of more than two persons. Because it’s way too complicated. That’s why people aren’t allowed to have more than one relative, why no association or company can include more than two persons, and no contract can be signed by three persons or more.

Besides, would you renounce to the right to same-sex marriage if it was somehow complicated, or if you have to pass new laws to regulate it? Or is your support more dependant on what seems right to you than whether it’s “more complicated” or not?

[clairobscur]

Just noticed that you wrote in big red letters. Somehow it irritated me.
I just wanted to ask : are you searching for some specious reasons not to allow people with a different lifestyle than yourself to be able to enter marriage? Hmmm?

[clairobscur]

@Blalron

The difference with multiple marriages is this, I suppose: what’s to stop there from being 100,000 different people all married to each other? At a certain point it’s going to be too complicated for the legal system to be reasonably handle. But where do we draw the line? I think two is a reasonable place to draw the line, if for no other reason than due to issues of Power of Attorney (imagine a Terri Schiavo situation where two spouses disagree over whether to pull the plug on the third spouse)

IMO, the way to draw the line is for the state to remove itself completely from the marriage business (or grant the exact same right to people in identical situations regardless of they being married or not) . Why, for instance, should a married couple without children enjoy various priviledges that I wouldn’t if I were wanting to live with my brother in the family’s house, exactly?

[Kimstu]

I don’t understand how people who argue against same-sex marriage on grounds of tradition can also argue against polygamous marriage. Polygamous marriage is very much a part of traditional marriage, practiced in many historical and modern cultures including those of the Bible, as already noted. (It also has a uniquely American recent history among US Mormons.)

And I don’t understand how people who argue against polygamous marriage on grounds of legal feasibility can also argue against same-sex marriage. Two-partner same-sex marriage is absolutely no more of a legal hassle in any way than two-partner heterosex marriage.

Consequently, I don’t buy the slippery-slope argument that one innovation in non-discriminatory marriage laws necessarily leads to the other. Since dozens of cultures permit traditional polygamous marriage without sliding into permitting same-sex marriage, I don’t see why we couldn’t do the reverse, if we feel so strongly about limiting civil marriage to two partners.

@Sampiro

BTW, does it seem to anybody else that this union is a set-up? It’s just too convenient of a slippery slope. Conservative ministers are writing their sermons about “things to come” already because of it.

I don’t think it’s a set-up, I found a Dutch article about it (the tone of which seems somewhat less disapproving AFAICT, though my Dutch is far from perfect).

And the deal here is a “samenlevingscontract” which, as already noted, a pair or group of roommates can get regardless of their sexual/marital relationship. It’s distinct from Dutch civil marriage (which has been available to same-sex couples since April 2001) and also from “registered partnership”, which is a civil-union type deal allowed to same-sex partners from 1998 on. The samenlevingscontract doesn’t specify a formal partnership status the way the other two arrangements do; it’s up to the contracting parties to decide what responsibilities their contract will formalize.

In short, this “marriage” is not legally much different, AFAICT, from forming a business partnership or signing a lease together. Just because this trio choose to interpret it as a marriage and a symbol of a permanent romantic/marital commitment doesn’t mean anybody else has to. So calling it a “polygamous civil union” as the English article did seems inaccurate to me, if not actually disingenuous. The Dutch article says nothing about its being anything but a “samenlevingscontract” in any legal sense; as the bridegroom remarked, “Students who live together can also get a contract”.

[Blalron]

@clairobscur

Don’t people without spouses but with children sometimes get critically ill and unable to make decisions for themselves? If the law can quite easily handle this situation, why would it be a problem with spouses instead of kids?

A legislature could reasonably conclude that they don’t want to make the problem of uncertainty any worse than it already is.

[slaphead]

@Blalron

A legislature could reasonably conclude that they don’t want to make the problem of uncertainty any worse than it already is.

Or they could reasonably decide that it’s no more complicated than other matters which are handled by legislation, and that a proportion of citizens would appreciate laws accommodating of their personal preferences in the matter of establishing a family.

Like I said, it’s a cultural thing which seems odd from a ‘western’ perspective but is absolutely part of everyday life in other parts of the world. NBD from my perspective, but it’s interesting to contemplate the effects of differing legal traditions.

For instance, what happens if a family composed of Dad, Mum1, Mum2, Mum1kid1, Mum1Kid2 and Mum2Kid1 emigrate to the US?
Is Dad a bigamist? Does he have to go through another marriage ceremony in order to be legitimately married to his one allowed wife? Is Mum2Kid1 suddenly an illegitimate offspring by his ‘mistress’ Mum2? How should the family do their tax returns?

Could keep a lawyer or two fed and watered for a while, probably…

[Muffin]

@RickJay

In any event, polygamy is simply not a natural slippery slope extension of extending marriage to interracial couples, or gay couples. In those cases an existing state is extended to individuals who were previously denied it.

Our (Canadian) constitution protects against racial discrimination, therefore interracial marriage and the right to marry interracially is protected. The constitution protects against sex discrimination, therefore same sex marriage is protected and the right to marry one’s own sex is protected. The constitution protects against religious discrimination, therefore polygamous marriage should be protected and the right to marry more than one person at a time should be protected.

@RickJay

Polygamy’s something totally different. If a country wants to give it a go that’s their choice; I’ll vote against it every time in my country, though.

Polygamous marriage already exists here, and to a very significant degree is protected in provincial family and succession legislation. What we do not yet have is the ability get married polygamously here – we have to do it elsewhere and then return or move here.

The Family Law Act deals with child support, spousal support, parental support, dependants’ claims for damages, and married spouses’ division of net family property.

The Succession Law Reform Act deals with testate and intestate succession, and dependants’ claims for relief.

Both acts specifically state: “In the definition of ‘spouse’, a reference to marriage includes a marriage that is actually or potentially polygamous, if it was celebrated in a jurisdiction whose system of law recognizes it as valid.” FLA e-Laws | Ontario.ca) and SLRA e-Laws | Ontario.ca)

The inclusion of polygamy in these laws have not caused any difficulty at all. One must remember that we already have, and have had for many years, serial polygamy by way of folks moving from one partner to another either in common law relationships or in marriages.

[Muffin]

@Muffin

Polygamous marriage already exists here, and to a very significant degree is protected in provincial family and succession legislation.

But to be clear, although it exists and there is a significant degree of provincal protection (see above post), it still remains an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada. Where that leaves us is with quite a disjunction between civil and criminal law with respect to polygamy. CCC s.293: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/

I think the government should keep its nose out of the bedroom. Criminalizing spousal relationships is unacceptable.

[Epimetheus]

Is it just me, or does the guy in the article looking frighteningly similar to Dr. Evil?

[Sampiro]

@clairobscur

Just noticed that you wrote in big red letters. Somehow it irritated me.

Really? Most people probably noticed it right away. Would you say that it made you see red? (Sampiro laughs into perfumed handkerchief at the joke he has made.)

@clairobscur

I just wanted to ask : are you searching for some specious reasons not to allow people with a different lifestyle than yourself to be able to enter marriage? Hmmm?

I wouldn’t use the word specious (since, among other things, it’s accusatory and as such rude), but I don’t see it as an issue of lifestyle (a word that is imo inappropriate when you’re talking about gays- polygamy is a lifestyle, homosexual is an orientation). What gay couples seek isn’t moral acceptance (the evangelista are never going to accept a same sex marriage as the moral equivalent of their own) or even an “alternative lifestyle” but THE EXACT SAME RIGHTS AS A MARRIAGE that already exists. No special rights- just an extension of what’s already there. This is a whole new way too complicated playing field.

Marriage, in the legal sense, is saying “this person is my legal next of kin and authorized by me to make crucial decisions on my behalf if necessary and is heir to all that I possess unless I specify otherwise”. It doesn’t work the same in polgyamy.

For example, you counterargued that there are issues with multiple children disagreeing on inheritance and life support issues. That’s true- but all adult children are equally the child of their parent. Are all spouses equal, or is the one with the most seniority or most children or the most loved, etc., primus inter pares? What if I’m married to a woman who has another husband who has another wife- it gets hopelessly complicated. There’s nothing at all complicated about same-sex-unions- just plug it into the existing structure.

If A wishes to live with B and C and D and E, all of whom are in some order and combination involved with F through S, then I couldn’t care less and bully for them if they can make it work, but one person needs to be the official spouse. (And you mentioned nations where polygamy is already legal- most of them are Fundamentalist Muslim where they simply do not have the same issues that are relevant in the west as women are not the legal equals of their husband and inheritance is a whole other funky business than it is over here.)