Exactly. As a law it’s a relic. It’s too hard for the government to recognize when it is fair and when it is exploitation. Calling it marriage and giving it the same treatment while it is in many ways different doesn’t make sense. Is there no way to bestow the same rights and privileges on as many people as you’d like?
I am old enough to remember when widespread cultural beliefs that women and blacks were inferior creatures were reflected in state laws in this country.
I personally regard that as a sufficient reason why not. YMMV.
Are you serious? There’s so much wrong with this I can’t even tell you. Do you really think moms should always be granted custody?
As to the polygamy issue, I do see difficulties with ascertaining the father (in a situation where the woman is married to many men) disappearing with the advent of DNA checking. However, do people really think this would be allowed, commonly? Women marrying many men? Even in our supposedly modern Western culture there’s still a word for women who sleep with many men. We’re not at sexual equality yet!
(Polygamy has a history even in Hinduism. Draupadi was married to five husbands, all brothers. When one brother “won” her and brought her home, they were incognito as beggars, and jokingly told his mother “See what alms I’ve brought home today, Mother!” And the mother, without turning around, said “Well, just divide it up amongst all your brothers as always.” So when she turned and saw it was a woman, she could not take her words back, as a mother’s word is law in our culture.
It turns out that Draupadi previously had asked the gods for such qualities in a husband that could not be gained in only one man. So the gods gave her five. )
But even in her time insults were flung at her. She’s revered now, but I know what people would say if someone did anything remotely similar in India.
I never join in these polygamy threads, since I know so little. But I do feel that for a long time yet it will be one-sided - men marrying many women. I could be wrong.
There are other problems with polygamy besides kids, espescially in the US. Under our current healthcare system, a lot of families are provided for by the health plan of the parents through their employer. While I don’t know of any limit to the number of children one can add, I doubt very much that even the most generous of employers would care to cover a second or third spouse and the accompannying children. If conditions worsen, a polygamous marriage would be a nice way to get health coverage
I also imagine that to function under current laws, a polygamous marriage would have to be pretty ironclad in the pre-nup department.
First off – I think we should look for ways to allow polyamorous marriages for those who want them. Most of the details can be ironed out. That said…
I see a problem – if one person can be married to multiple other persons, how do we avoid creating “marriage networks”? You know – A, B, C, D and E are in a polyamorous marriage. Along come F, G and H and E wants to marry them as well – as part of that existing marriage, I mean; without forcing A, B, C and D in on the deal. What now? Do we stipulate that a polyamorous marriage has to be a “Closed System”? (i.e., a person can be signatory to one, and only one, marriage contract at any given time.) If not, how are family benefits, such as health care, handled?
But why should the law have anything at all to say about this? Employers can simply say, “Sorry, one employee and one spouse are covered, you pick which one.” Or refuse spousal coverage altogether, as some companies are already doing. There’s no mandated employer-provided health insurance.
As has been mentioned, I would think societies that allow multiple wives would be a more violent society…frustrated young men are going to be pissed off and engage in pissed off behavior or more aggressive behavior in trying to secure a wife.
Therefore, if true, society has a benefit beyond culture to outlaw it.
Have these societies been more violent. Were the Mormans more violent than ‘normal’?
This may be part of the problem here. It’s simply automatically assumed that polygamy laws would mean only multiple wives. In a society in which women now contribute more than children and laws ensure, if not equality, than at least something close to it it only makes sense that multiple husbands would be allowed as well.
You mean are they? Doubtful. But older LDS males taking multiple wives does result in a lion pride-type situation where the younger men (aka potential competition) are cast off.
From The Guardian:
In theory I don’t see anything too horrible about polyandry, as long as every other law is respected (e.g. domestic abuse laws) or changed (e.g. raising the age of consent, even with a parent’s permission). But when it comes to religious institutions, I think it’s pretty clear that women and children’s interests are rarely put before those of men (especially dirty old ones).
I don’t know about more violent than normal (how do you define that?), but early Mormon history is a pretty violent one.
And today, fundamentalist polygamist LDS communities in the wastelands of Utah regualrly jettison “extra” men between the ages of 18-25. Since leaders and their sons tend to monopolize the marriageable women, these excess males tend to become troublesome and delinquent. They often turn up in Utah cities, where they have huge problems fitting into mainstream life - having been (usually poorly) homeschooled and having few or no job skills.
Our tax system would require massive and hugely controversial overhaul before it could deal with polygamous marriage.
True, but consider the ramifications of multiple spouses on private policies etc. What happens if you divorce a wife? who becomes the primary wife?
Same thing for tax breaks, child credits etc… In theory, you could have a 4 or 5 income household with no children, reaping enormous tax benefits every year. I can’t really think of a way to even the field there. If you just say: " We only credit one spouse." then you open a huge can of worms regarding spousal rights.
I’m shocked this was given a pass around here. 99-100%?? And people just let that go?? Its complete horseshit with no basis in reality. There are plenty of folks who are in multi-person relationships (I know 2 myself) who would be happy to marry if the law allowed (sometimes they ARE married to one and the other just lives with them)…and who have zero ties to religious BS, kidnapping, incest, sexual assault, blah blah blah. You really need to get out more if you think that ‘99 to 100 percent’ of the people involved in these things are religious nutters…or that simply by allowing these kinds of marriages would automatically allow all that other stuff with it.
-XT
So encouraging polyandry would solve this problem, eh? In fact, carried to it’s logical conclusion, polygyny would (in a free society) encourage polyandry. Those excess men might just decide that sharing one woman is better than getting none.
It’s only when polygyny is allowed and polyandry isn’t that we have a problem.
It could, or we could simply say “Everyone files as an individual, and only one person may claim a Dependant as a Dependant, end of topic.”
OK, again, not mandated by law. I hold a private policy. When I applied, they approved my (one) husband separately and he’s listed as a separate line with his own premium on my monthly statement. Same for the son that was alive when I applied for the policy. My daughter, being born later, was covered from the moment of her birth with no application, but she’s still her own individual line and premium. I can cancel or add coverage for any one person individually, even though it’s referred to as a “Family Policy”.
Leave it up to the insurance companies until we’re out of the Dark Ages and enact Universal Health Care Coverage. Then it won’t matter anyway.
All of these objections COULD be headaches, or they could be very simple.
Seriously. It’s not the only thing, however. There’s also a whole ton of assertions about how women don’t want more than one husband and the only men who want more than one wife are leacherous old farts, without any sort of evidence to back that up. Most of the poly people I know have multiple men and women of varying ages in their relationships. But I figure 99-100% of the people making such statements are trolling or are not going to be convinced anyway, so I’m ignoring it.
Even simpler (but still complicated) situation: Let’s say that Alice is married to Bob and Charlie. Let’s further assume, for the sake of simplicity, that all three are heterosexual. Bob and Charlie get along well enough to live in the same household, but neither is in love with the other: Both just love (and are loved by) Alice. That would be a reasonable polygamous marriage, would it not?
Now, though, suppose Alice dies (of natural causes; no funny business here). Does there continue to be a relationship between Bob and Charlie? Are they now just married to each other? I have no problem with that, but maybe Bob and Charlie do. Or, what if they’re brothers: Are two siblings allowed to be married to each other? Are all of the marital relationships re-evaluated each and every time anyone in the marriage dies? What about if someone leaves the marriage without dying, are the others still married? What if the members of a marriage don’t want their relationship re-evaluated whenever one of them dies or leaves?
If all the practicalities like this can be worked out, I see no reason why polygamy should be prohibited. But there are a lot of practicalities to be worked out, first.
Exactly. If and when gay marriage becomes generally legal, I would fully expect polygamy to be the next big issue in civil rights. You can say now that there will only be tax benefits for one spouse, for instance, but eventually, I’m sure there will be advocates insisting that their rights are being violated.
Seems to me all of the problems of polygamous marriage are caused by attempting to shoe-horn a legal concept developed (under Western laws) with only two people in mind to suit three or more. Wouldn’t work well in practice.
It is true that these laws were originally developed for heteros, but it is easy to substitute two men or two women for a woman or a man. Not so easy to substitute three, or a group.
I’m not sure what is wrong with the notion of having one and only one person designated as an official “spouse” for tax purposes, pension benefits, automatic inheritance (where applicable) and the like; then either partner can have as many un-official relationships as they want, sanctioned (or not) by their religion of choice. They can be just as “married” in the eyes of their diety as they want.
Kiddies would still have support rights from bio-parents, like they always do. Requires minimal re-jigging of existing legal institutions.
What exactly is the ultimate benefit of changing the existing laws? That is, what are advocates of a legal concept of polygamous marriage out to achieve? If it is “equality of status among the partners”, seems this would be tough in the ways that really matter - for example, entitlement to pension benefits or other such spousal benefits under gov’t social programs. It would be unfair to in effect double (or more) such benefits because one has double the number of spouses, and halving such benefits may be quite problematic.
Ok, so they divorce. Why is this hard?
Whoever you the family decides. As far as paperwork goes, why should it be any different than it is now? There are medical policies which allow parents and siblings in addition to children and spouses/domestic partners.
Or take the same benefit and split it however many ways.
Polygamy is illegal for the simple reason that most people don’t care for it to be legal. Honestly, there isn’t some secret majority yearning for legalized polygamy, straining at the ties of their existing marriages. 9 out of ten people oppose polygamy (Gallup poll from two months ago). Some might change their tune if laws recognized polygamy, but it ain’t going to be 44% of the people who now say they oppose it.
A tiny minority of people are discontent enough with working their polyamorous desires around the existing law enough to want polygamy to be to be legally recognized. A huge chunk of existing law would have to be re-formulated to accomodate polygamy, and even if it didn’t give people the willies, it would complicate affairs in a way that would not benefit most people. Multiple negotiated contracts for the sake of long-term nooky may sound find to those who want polygamy legalized, but that multiplies paperwork for the majority who simply want to marry just one person.
Government recognizes marriage because it sees it as a benefit to society that relieves burden on government funds, the same way they let you deduct your property taxes and mortgage interest because it sees home ownership as another reduction in burden. Complicating the marriage contract any more than it already is would encourage more people to simply shack up and bone whoever they wanted to, not bothering with marriage at all. The resultant burdens of parentless children on social services, and really really really messy divorces on the court system could not be seen as a benefit.
I don’t see how polygamists, who want the government out of their lives, would cotton to Anne Neville’s idea that all decisions would have to be unanimous for recognition of the marriage. How do you legislate or enforce that, and how is that getting government out of your marriages? So you’re going to have partial multiple marriages. So you’ll have a husband and wife owning property jointly under old law, a new spouse entering under new law, married to one but not the other perhaps, and either working out in detail ahead of time how property is going to be divided in case the new spouse gets divorced (which means the majority who want one marriage have to navigate the same complicated paperwork), or the non-married spouse going to court because they are suddenly having to pay their original spouse’s burden for their other failed marriage. How this is supposed to be simpler than simply getting some on the side or staying single and not committing at all is beyond me.
And I can’t wait for the stagnating court time taken up by abuse of the new system to flout the prostitution laws:
Judge: What are the reasons for this divorce?
John: When I saw Trixie on the streetcorner I really thought she was the one for me. But after three hours of mostly wedded bliss, we have found we have irreconcilable differences. We have agreed that a fair amount of my income due to her for the duration of our marriage is $150.
Yeah, go on, tell me the polygamists would tolerate a government-mandated minimum length of the marriage contract term.