To my knowledge, they can’t; on this handy Application to Register Permanent Resident or Adjust Status form [WARNING: PDF], they ask, “Do you plan to practice polygamy in the U.S.?” To my knowledge, if the answer is yes, they simply won’t let you in the country.
I have heard tales about polygamists sneaking in, but that when they’re found out, the first marriage is considered the legal one…but that’s not anything more than unsubstantiated talk which I certainly cannot cite.
And yes, perhaps the state should get “out of the marriage business”. Perhaps they should also get rid of the electoral college and the regulation of interstate commerce as well- good arguments could probably be made for all. But it’s probably not going to happen anytime and it’s certainly not going to happen yet, so I’m more concerned with how to work within the existing system.
According to the 2000 Census more than 1.2 million Americans reside in monogamous same-sex domestic unions. While polygamy is illegal and as such not reported on the census, the most liberal estimate I’ve ever read for people who live in polygamous domestic unions (I’m not talking about people who are promiscuous or who screw around on their partners or have had three-ways, but again, who live together full time in a polygamous union) is a minute fraction of that. (When you read that there are “more than 100,000 Fundamentalist [polygamous] Mormons”, that is referring to the number of people who are members of that sect and live in those communities, not to the number of people who actually practice polygamy.) Polygamy is a choice, not an orientation, and it’s one that just generally affects too few people to justify such a major rewrite of marital laws (while gay marriage would be, again, just extending the structure that’s already there to same sex unions.)
Ugh. “To my knowledge, to my knowledge”! Sorry about that one.
Someone else might already have made this comment and if so I’m sorry but …
You are putting the cart before the horse. I doubt that before multi-party contracts began there was a legal structure in place to sort them out in cases of dispute. I rather think that structure was erected bit by bit as various disputes took place.
You’re darn tootin!. Why, In Nepal, A man married a dog!! In India, A wpman married a statue!! . Where will it end?
Hats off to Erinaceus europaeus who has pretty much put the case into perspective.
First, I couldn’t help but notice that the case occurred in the Netherlands. So the slippery slope is that gay marriages in the US lead to multiple marriages in the Netherlands which leads to incestuous marriages in the US? If that’s the gist of your argument, rest easy. Last I checked, what will keep polygamous marriages from spreading like wildfire is the fact that polygamy is illegal in the US. As far as incestuous marriages, I can’t speak for you guys, but the Massachusetts state code specifically says:
All is well. Remain calm
I dunno, but I am wondering whether Tom Hanks modeled his character in Ladykillers after Sampiro.
As I’ve said before, given my druthers, the government would issue only civil unions to everyone. The next best thing is to issue marriages to any two adults who are not currently married and who both ask for one.
There’s no reason to issue a marriage license to a straight couple, or a gay couple, and not to a couple of sisters who decide they want to live together and exchange the same rights that a married couple has. There’s a good reason not to issue the same set of rights to three people: you can’t do it. They’re a different set of rights once there’s not one-to-one reciprocity involved.
And issuing a marriage license to adult relatives does not condone incest: you can have the incest laws be completely different.
Daniel
As Kimstu said [who’s Dutch is near perfect, as far as I can tell. Admirable!]
’
It’s not a marriage. It’s a contract.
Homosexuals can marry here. Yes, Sampiro, with all the same rights as hetero sexuals. 
One husband is enough of a pain in the ass for me, thanks…but hey, whatever floats your boat.
I won’t go near that one with my brother’s neighbor’s ten foot pole…
So, it’s only because sexual preference would be determined that gay marriages should be allowed? Intellectual exercice : if it were proven that sexual orientation is indeed at least partly a choice, should same-sex marriages stay banned? If so, why? For moral reasons? Because the neighbors don’t like the idea? Apply the same reasonning to polygamous marriages.
By the way, if same-sex marriage was allowed, should it be forbidden for bisexual people, who have a choice?
Finally…so, it’s a lifestyle. You happen to be extremely strongly in love with two people. What do you do to stop loving one or the other? Which one do you choose?
The same apply to polyamorous people. They want the same rights.
I mentionned it many times, but I’m going to do it again : currently, everybody have the same rights. As a gay, you have the exact same rights as your straight neighbor. You can marry one person of the opposite sex.
Now, I understandand you’re unhappy with that. You’d like to change the equation and remove the “opposite sex” part. A polyamorous person wants to remove the “one” part. What’s the difference and what makes you claim more valid?
Not really, as I and other posters mentionned.
Besides, why bother with this same-sex marriage stuff? That’s complicated peopl are opposed to it, it changes the social customs. say : just forget about it.
. And byn the way, onlythe “make crucial decision” part is true in France, for instance, where the spouse is neither the next of kin neither the heir. But since you pick your own definition of what marriage really is to make your poit, here’s mine :
“Marriage, in the legal sense, is an union between a man and a woman. It doesn’t work the same in same-sex marriage”. What do you think of it as a basis for the debate?
Polygamy is legal in numerous countries in the world. The issue is already legally handled even in countries where it isn’t, due to the presence of polygamous migrants, as already mentionned. There’s nothing unheard of, here…
Whatever te legislator and the voters will decide. Both could work. Why would the fact that you have a choice between two options aproblem, exactly? I mentionned previously that in frace the spouse wasn’t the heir, contrarily t the USA. You see : when you write a law about marriage, you’ve to decide how things will work. And you might have to actually decide between several possibilities. How awful ad inconvenient!!!
And since I think that the state should withdraw completely from the marriage business, I don’t have much a problem with A married with B, B with C but not A with C. Just don’t have anybody married with anybody, I say. People can make their wows, go to the church, etc… if they want to.
Anyway, there’s a simpler answer : just allow marriage where everybody is involved, and don’t allow the A with B but not with C stuff. In other words (your words, actually) : just plug it into the existing structure.
By the way, ad once again : since you’re not talking about moral issue but apparently only about “same rights” : will you support my example of me living with my brother and having the same rights as you in your hypothetical same-sex marriage? IOW, do you support same-family marriages? If not, why?
Nope. they’re both muslims and christian nations. Women, as already mentionned aren’t necessarily the heir of their husbands, evenin western countries. It just happens to be the case in the USA. Finally the fact that they don’t are the legal equal of their husbands is completely irrelevant.They aren’t equals in monogamous marriages, either. In both ase, the solution is easy : give them the same rights. And unrelated to monogamous/polygamous marriages.
Finally, I’m going to ask again : what makes you argue against polygamous marriage, exactly? You think your hypothetical same-sex marriage will be devaluated by the existence of other people living in a polygamous mariage? You want to enforce your morals and/or religious beliefs on other people? You’re grossed out?
If none of the above apply, why don’t you support polyagamous marriage? If you don’t, can you tell me why a non-gay man should support same-sex-marriage when a non-polygamous sees fit to argue against polygamous marriages?
Hmmm… In Europe, less and less couples are married, and when they are, it’s often for purely legal reasons after years of common life. Marriage is losing ground. I don’t see the dissapearance of marriage as an impossibility.
And…you know… how many people would have thought that same-sex marriage would even be remotely considered in any foreseeable future 40 years ago?
Besides…why do you want to be married? Why is marriage important to you? If it’s only for legal reasons, once again, why should you get special priviledges because you’re “married”? Because getting laid should logically allow you to a tax break? Because you’re going to father chil…err…sorry…you won’t, actually. So, why?
Of course, if it’s not about rights and priviledges, you don’t need a legal marriage, do you?
You know what’s the logical cosequence regarding same-sex marriages is if we take numbers into account, don’t you? You’re aware that gay people are a tiny minority?
I answered half a dozen times about the “existing structure”.
I answered also about “choice”. Anyway, you may not have the choice not to be attracted to men, but you don’t need to be married, do you? Why do you want so much to benefit from this institution? The concept of marrriage is coded in your genes?
And once again, why are you so willing to argue against granting to other people a right that you’re seeking for yourself (while fully expecting that people who aren’t gays will support you)?
Maybe you’re right, and I should argue against gay marriage from now on. Afterall, it’s just a pain. I say, let’s keep the status-quo. It’s way easier that way. And since I can legally mary whoever I could want to marry, why on earth should I care about you and your tax priviledges concerns? You’re just a small minority, so it’s really not worth it, anyway.
Not to be glurgey, but when my mother learned I was gay she pulled a gun on me and has numerous times threatened suicide. My sister is an evangelical Christian. If I were to require hospitalization, how much of a chance do you think any man I loved and shared my life in
1= would have of being allowed to visit me in the hospital
2= would have in vocalizing what should be done in issue of a Life Threatening crisis
3= would have of inheriting my property (true, I could leave it to them in a will, but I personally know two cases in which gay lovers were completely screwed over in courts in favor of the “real” family, whereas breaking a will where a spouse is concerned would be a helluva lot harder).
Yes, I want the rights should I ever meet somebody I want to share my life with. I don’t give a damn what you or anybody else thinks should be the relationship between government and marriage, while they are in the marriage business I want mine recognized.
I don’t expect or even greatly care if people who aren’t gay will support me. If the issue is ever decided in the favor of gays it will be, like most social change, in the courts and not at the polls. However, same sex unions simply are not the same as polygamous unions. The fact that the former involves 2 people and the latter involves more than 2 is enough in and of itself to void comparison.
Maybe you’re right, and I should argue against gay marriage from now on. Afterall, it’s just a pain. I say, let’s keep the status-quo. It’s way easier that way. And since I can legally mary whoever I could want to marry, why on earth should I care about you and your tax priviledges concerns? You’re just a small minority, so it’s really not worth it, anyway.
[/QUOTE]
America isn’t Europe is it? Europe also has socialized healthcare, incredibly high income taxes, wildy varied from border to border political systems and an absurdly high by American standards number of vacation days that I don’t see happening here anytime soon. We’re not comparable.
True. Polygamy isn’t the same as same-sex marriage is it?
Yes, I am. I am also aware that, as I’ve said many times, same-sex unions would not require a major rewrite of existing laws, only the eradication of a few. Likewise, blacks did not have to have rights redefined, only discriminatory laws omitted.
Please do! As loud and furiously as you can, in fact. If there’s one thing that will get Republicans in favor of gay marriage it’s the knowledge that the French are militantly opposed to it.
Originally posted by clairobscur
Why do you say that?
Why wouldn’t he?
If Sampiro and his partner love children, they can adopt one.
Research comparing this arrangement with heterosexual parenthood indicates that there are no important differences between homosexual and heterosexual parenthood. It’s the quality of the parenting that counts, and not the parents’ sexual orientation. As a matter of fact, the sexual orientation of the parents doesn’t determine the sexual orientation of the children: how else could one explain that most homosexual children have heterosexual parents?
That it is more in the interests of the child to have good parents than to support existing prejudices against homosexuality indicates the importance of Hirschfeld's Per Scientiam ad Justitiam and Schorer's conviction that human rights are universal and have to be applied to homosexuals as well.
http://www.galha.org/glh/172/rights.html
[Oh, and I do see the difference between a monogamous homosexual and a slave owner]
Dank je gum, ik kan wat lezen maar niet so goed spreken!
A related question: So why does the Netherlands still have this “civil union” or “registered partnership” (“geregisteerd partnerschap”) thingy? By my count, the current Dutch knot-tying options are as follows:
Civil marriage (“huwelijk”), available to couples of opposite or same sex.
Registered partnership/civil union (“geregisteerd partnerschap”), available to couples of opposite or same sex. Confers same civil benefits/recognition as “huwelijk”.
Cohabitation or living-together contract (“samenlevingscontract”), available to couples or groups of cohabitants, with or without a romantic/marital relationship. Legally formalizes whatever aspects of cohabitation the partners choose to formalize in their notarized contract. Does not confer any legal marital status or obligations of financial support, although some third parties such as insurance companies apparently voluntarily recognize it in determining benefits etc.
(AFAICT, a religious marriage ceremony by itself has no legal force, but conversely the government can’t require a religious institution to permit a religious marriage ceremony to people who are not eligible to marry according to its religious doctrine, even if they’re eligible for civil marriage.)
So isn’t “geregisteerd partnerschap” now pretty much redundant? “Traditional” committed couples, homo or hetero, can just get a traditional civil marriage, and anybody who wants a more unconventional or limited cohabitation agreement can get a samenlevingscontract.
Is there a reason I’m missing to keep the “geregisteerd partnerschap” as a separate option? If not, are there any legislative plans to abandon it? (With a grandfather clause so that everybody who already has such an arrangement is still legally recognized, of course.)
“However, opposite sex unions simply are not the same as same sex unions. The fact that the former involves a man and a woman and the latter involves two men or two women is enough in and of itself to void comparison.”
Don’t you realize how silly your argument sounds?
Scott Plaid…
/me runs::::::::
clairobscur, I’ve seen you assert over and over that there’s no great complication in allowing polygamous marriages, but I seem to have missed the post where you’ve justified this assertion. Can you point me toward it? And if the post doesn’t answer the following questions, could you answer them for me?
As near as I can tell, the answer to #6 is that the answers aren’t clearly suggested by current law, and that we won’t have clear answers to these questions for many, many years after polygamous relationships are legally enshrined. Compare to SSM, where any questions will be answerable just as easily as they’d be for OSM.
I’m all for legal recognition of polygamous relationships. But they’re a different, thornier kettle of fish. Pufferfish, maybe. SSM is, from a legal perspective, very easy to implement. Let’s get that out of the way, and then look at polygamous relationships afterward.
Bundling them together is unnecessary and harmful to SS couples.
Daniel
newcrasher: Oh, you just say that because you know I will “hurt” you even worse when you get back from work, dear. Chesire Cat Smile
I think it’s unfair to expect any Doper to solve contractual problems for other people. As he suggested earlier, perhaps existing laws can offer some help. My mother is a widow with six children. She falls into a PVS. Who chooses what happens to her? Do you know? I don’t, even though I am one of the six children who might, potentially, be part of the equation. I think most of us are probably in a situation like that, where something could happen and we don’t know what our rights or responsibilities are. Why then say that other people should be denied things because it might be murky what their rights or responsibilities are?