The legal stuff is complicated, yes; I think the people who think that marriage equality for monogamous unions will somehow inevitably lead to polygamy have the interesting crack. Getting legal structures for multiple-adult families will take work, it can’t be done with a convenient substitution.
People keep saying this, but speaking as someone who actually knows a large number of people who pursue multiple relationships, I’ve seen no evidence for it – and in fact seen a large number of people complaining that women have an easier time finding partners than their husbands do.
Further, neither “multiple male arrangements” nor “multiple female arrangements” is an accurate descriptor for most of the structures I’ve seen; in most of them, both men and women have multiple partners, and a fair fraction of those have partners of both sexes.
As to polyamory – I consider polygamy a subset of polyamory, as not all relationships in a polyamorous web would necessarily be marital even if it were legal for it to happen. Certainly, not all of mine would be, just two of them.
Persuing casual relationships while married does not nowadays come under all that much legal scrutiny. Affairs are common enough. It is when multiple long term relationships are persued at the same time that police and prosecutors get involved and words like bigamy get brought out. Mind you I think bigamy should be a crime, when it is used to mean a person marrying someone without disclosing that they are already married to another.
The end of prostituion will not be brought about by the acceptance of polyamory. I think that people who use prostitutes don’t want love, they want sex. Sex without any preliminaries but negotiating the price.
Children with more than two parents are common today. How many people do you know who have step-parents? Arrangements with more than two parents in the same household are not that rare either. Aside from situations like mine, there are divorced couples where one of the divorced spouses move back in to take care of the child and the other gets remarried or gets another life partner. It happens more often than people think. I hear about this most often when the divorce was because one spouse is gay.
The “legal complexity” issue isn’t the reason why polygamy is considered to be bad; that’s a rationalization, a convenient excuse to avoid contemplating the real reason why it’s illegal.
The real reason why polygamy is illegal in the US today? Because we (that is, late 19th century Americans) don’t like Mormons.
I think part of the way polygamy (or whatever you want to call it) can be separated from these issues is changing the legal age of marriage to 18. AFAIK, isn’t the legal age for boys 18 in most states, while it’s 16 for girls? I’m sure it varies, but that’s the average I believe, and I’m sure someone will come along and correct me if I’m mistaken. It’s an outdated law, and I don’t think the sexes should be treated differently in this case. If a consenting adult wants to be somebody’s 8th wife, then I have no problem with that, either. It’s her life, it’s her (or his) decision.
I’d like to address what others have been saying about estate and legal issues, also. Estates are settled among multiple people all the time, though at this point in time, it’s usually children. If a person in a poly marriage wants their estate to be divided equally among their husbands and wives, without legal hassles, they should write a will dictating what they want to go to each person. Just like how they would if they had multiple children. In the case of divorce, this would be the ideal situation for a prenuptual agreement. Contracts don’t have to be between only two people.
Regarding insurance, a family of four pays more for insurance than I do by myself or will when I’m married to just one man. Third or fourth or nth number of spouses could be added, with each adding to the premium you already pay one your insurance. Just as it costs money to add a child onto your insurance, it would cost to add an extra spouse.
I think the argument re: children is the most valid, because it affects others not actually in the marriage, though it is still not necessarily a reason to outlaw it. Like others have said, children have multiple parents all the time, in the form of step-parents and sometimes adopted children form relationships with biological parents. Marriages like this might make it more likely that a loving parent stays home with a child, rather than being sent to daycare. They get to bond with a parent who loves them.
In the case of divorce, yes visiting and custody rights would be more complicated, due to a larger number of people involved. I can’t necessarily propose a solution to this, but perhaps it could be part of a prenup as well. “Any children born of this marriage shall go to it’s biological parents / Joe and Cindy / Mary and Jill…” or whoever they decide.
I guess I just don’t like the idea that possible legal complications can dictate who or how many people you can marry. Yes, it might be a pain in the ass, but isn’t it their business?
AZCowboy, your answers to me are not especially thoughtful.
Corporate law is much different from family law. You’re comparing apples and oranges.
If you had read my answer carefully, you would have seen that I said divorce is already complicated as between two people.
Divorce law is a set of rules designed to work on a case-by-case basis. Unfortunately, the rules and the case law interpreting them are all specific to two party marriages. A number of the rules–as I pointed out–would need to be significantly reinterpreted in order to work for multiple-party marriages.
Some of the rules, particularly the custody rules, would have to be totally rethought.
Your answers about how to handle the custody situation are simply your opinion. I’m sure that some polygamous couples would feel that all the marital partners should have automatic parent status with all children of the marriage. What should we choose to be the default legal position? I don’t know, but I’m sure the answer will never be, “uhh, whatever AZCowboy says, he’s our legal oracle.” Surely you must see that deciding those questions is going to be pretty complicated, as the “correct answers” are not immediately apparent.
I’m not whining about anything. You have no idea where I stand on any of these issues. I have not come out in favor or against polygamy in this thread–I have simply pointed out the legal problems that would have to be dealt with if it were made legal.
Accusing people of whining is an extremely pathetic debating tactic. Not to mention, you have completely twisted what I was trying to say.
My reason for pointing out the situation with insurance at work was simply to point out one of the many problems that lurk out there that will erupt if polygamy became legal. I believe there are a lot of these sorts of issues that haven’t been considered in this thread–they’re the “hidden problems.”
I personally think your answer is fine. Unfortunately, the last insurer I had did not permit your solution. People fell into one of two premium groups: “single” or “family.” No matter what reasoning was used, the insurer wouldn’t change. It lead to a pretty angry bunch of “married, no kids” employees going on about how people with kids are “parasites.” These people were extremely liberal, well-educated lawyers–people who are usually obsessively PC.
Do I think that’s OK? No. Do I feel that way myself? No, though I think the pricing structure is unfair. Do I think it’s a reason to continue to prohibit polygamy? Not in and of itself. It’s just one of many problems that would need to be overcome if polygamy were legally recognized.
Now, for the legal reality: polygamy won’t ever be legal until the majority of the people vote for it. Gay marriage bans can be said to (and I believe they do) discriminate on the basis of gender, and are thus unconstitutional. All anti-polygamy laws do is discriminate on the basis of number of people in the union, so all the government needs to do to enact a ban is to have a rational basis for the law. A statement like “marriage has historically been between two people in this country; polygamous marriages have often led to abuses, particularly of children, in various parts of the world, including in the United States; and legalizing polygamous marriage would be a huge strain on our judiciary” would suffice.
I think the more realistic insurance argument isn’t against higher premiums, which, as you say are borne by the consumer (or their employer, but that’s an issue for the employers to hash out with their employees). The added cost to the rest of the group comes when claims are made. If there are more people on your policy, chances are greater that you’ll make more claims, which means the group policy as a whole needs to have slightly higher premiums to cover it.
Insurance isn’t a savings plan - I may pay $400 a month in health insurance for a year and then claim far more than $4800 in benefits for that year. The dollar difference has to come from somewhere, and it comes from those people in the group who have paid their premiums but NOT made claims. In the end, we hope, it all evens out, and the year I make little or no claims, you do. We trust Blue Cross to work out the details and ensure that we’re a well balanced group who don’t all get sick at once.
But, as I said, this argument falls down when one considers that Blue Cross will insure a family of two adults and unlimited children, but not a family of three adults and no children. The risk is far greater on the large monogomous family, yet the lower risk family can’t get coverage.
KellyM’s got it right. Legal complexity, custodial arrangements and insurance inequities are all smokescreens and rationalizations. The reason polygamy is considered bad is that it’s considered icky. It’s circular illogic, and nothing short of sweeping social (not legal, not financial) reform will change it. The logical arguments can be defeated over and over again; legal, social and financial *benefits *to society can be made pointed out over and over again. In the end, it’s not a logical issue, it’s an emotional one.
Another point of complexity is do you have to marry in groups, or what? If A and B marry C, are they married to each other? Can A also marry D? Do they need C’s consent? B’s consent?
Also, what KellyM said: polygamy has a bad rep because of people in abusive/illegal/incestuous/benefit defrauding relationships shaping people’s ideas of it.
Speaking for myself, the ‘legal complexity’ makes up about 95% of my opposition, lukewarm as it is.
I think that you’re wrong in isolating the reason why it’s illegal to simply Mormons, though. Has there ever been a situation where a society functioned with multiple partner arrangements wherein all partners had equal standing?
Mormons are certainly not a good example, especially the newer splinter groups that still promote polygamy. Islam, and other MENA cultures wherein women are not accorded full rights?
I think you are looking at this through a very progressive lens, and ignoring historical realities. Just because you won’t abuse this system, don’t assume others won’t, or haven’t.
Another vote for “legal nightmare” here. I really couldn’t care less how many wives (or whatever you want to call what is, at minimum, one’s “designated fuck”) somebody’s got. But when it gets to children and issues of custody and support, it seems to me the possible permutations rise exponentially with each additional spouse. It wouldn’t be enough to simply allow polygamy, as our legal system is not equipped at all to deal with it when it breaks down. You’d have to establish a rather robust system of litigation just to accomodate it responsibly, and I simply can’t see our lawmakers going near that with a 11.5’ pole, Orrin Hatch notwithstanding.
rubberpiggy the elective share means that a woman gets to decide, based on her statutory rights, against the will and take what’s known as her “elective” share. This works out fine in a monogamous union-it is a headache in a polygamous union for so many reasons…is there a limit on the number of partners? How much will each elective share be? What if 1 but not all go for the elective share? And this happens to be just 1 thing that comes to mind when I think of the property nightmare…I could easily think up 25 more if I didn’t have work to do. Then in a divorce situation-each and every partner to the union would have to be independently represented by an attorney…oh god, I have worked on monogamous divorce cases and the acrimony and the way that family law lawyers make out like bandits on the viciousness of the wealthy and embittered is truly miraculous. Imagine the possibilities with rich, polygamous people…even better. So in short, sorting out the legal detail will require endless amounts of money, manpower and I can only imagine that it will take a group of lawyers something like 70 years and millions of dollars to work out the statutory complexities to any degree of satisfaction. Sometimes I have no idea why the Family Law Lawyers Association isn’t pushing for this prospect more wholeheartedly.
The early Mormons practiced polyandry (i.e., the practice of one woman having multiple husbands)? I’m not disputing you, but I’ve never heard that – could you tell me more?
There is nothing inherent in the legal aspects of polygamy that can’t be handled by a decent contract lawyer. The exact same statement is true of monogamy.
The fact is that we let monogamous couples get married without signing a specific legal contract regarding disposition of wealth and offspring upon the possibility of divorce because we make assumptions about how that will all work out. Those assumptions are wrong in huge numbers of cases. Hence the acrimonious divorce cases that keep ending up in court.
Those assumptions are obviously not applicable in the case of polygamy, so all of a sudden people realize that divorce is complicated. The only reason people don’t think of divorce as complicated for monogamous relationships is that they blind themselves because of the assumptions they make.
Personally, I’d like to see every marriage involve a contract signed prior to the marriage and have that contract enforced upon divorce. Update the contract upon significant events like childbirth, the same way you update a will. Encourage people to make fewer undocumented assumptions about how things are supposed to work and actually spend time negotiating these things with the people they’re involved with.
There are parts of Northern India, the Himalayan areas, that practice polyandry. There is an excessive of unmarried girls…I believe they all become gompas (Buddhist nuns). It’s not as though the woman happens to be married to all of them, though-she is married to the eldest brother of the family who gets primary rights to sexual favours and then she also must satisfy the remaining younger brothers. I believe the origin of this system was to preserve land within the family. I can’t recall the society or which state in India but I had to read a book on it in anthro in undergrad-it is one of the Himalayan areas but not Uttaranchal or the Kumaon area or anything.
Uhh…no. It’s because we have laws, not assumptions, that will determine the disposition of wealth and offspring, should the couple be unable to work it out themselves.
Then let’s keep focused on marital law, and not family law - apples and oranges and all.
You see, custody law and marital law are two different animals. For example, take a man and a women who get married. They have a child. They get divorced (and gain joint custody). They both get remarried. We refer to the new partners as “step-parents”. What parental rights do the step-parents gain?
There are no “new” complications with polygamy that don’t already exist today in family law.
Perhaps. But they also illustrate that no new complications need to be considered (acknowledging the significant ones that already exist would remain present).
I respectfully disagree. They appear as “common sense” to me.
And I simply pointed out that the “legal problems” are inherent in the system today, not created (or signficantly complicated) by considering polygamy.
Like some cheese with that?
Actually, you pointed out that those “many problems” already exist - I simply pointed out a simple solution to address the inequities that exist today in a manner that would also solve any polygamous unions.
Perhaps, unless the courts are unable to find the raional basis in the law.
I’m sure that would be one argument. Or it could be pointed out that polygamy was acceptable in this country and only outlawed due to religious intolerance. It might also be pointed out that offering parents additional models where the kids could have broader and deeper family ties with loving parents would provide a net benefit to children, keeping more and more from day-care and latch-key situations. The abuses you reference aren’t necessarily related to polygamy, and many “working” models around the world currently exist. The judiciary strain argument is a red herring, as I have already pointed out.
Equal legal standing? Some might argue that women are only now attaining equal standing in marriage, and may not have attained it yet, so that might be an onerous standard to apply. Seems the better question is whether there is anything inherent in polygamy that would prevent equal standing, and I don’t believe there is. I would also point you to polygamy currently practised in Africa, where all have equal legal standing. Even the Catholic Church has had to modify its position in order to accommodate the practice.
anu-la1979, elective share would be one such complication, but could easily be addressed by answering, “elective share of what”? In most cases, elective share claims are still adjudicated by the probate court. While some state statutes might assume a specific percentage of the “marital asset”, it doesn’t seem too complicated to intrepret that as a proportionate share. Again, business law provides some blueprints for how such asset division could be handled among multiple partners.
I’m finished discussing this with you, AZCowboy. You are clearly not open to understanding the opinions of others, or information from people with greater education than you.
I have never heard of an elective share referring to a marital asset…I am talking about the probate estate. If you have person X who doles out his estate to wives 1, 2 & 3 in differing proportions and then 1 or 2 but not all three decide to go for the elective share I’m sure you can understand how you end up screwing over the entire point of the testamentary document. Unless of course you eliminate the concept of the elective share altogether, for everyone, because I can’t really see where you could get away with saying “and all polygamous unions shall be barred from the elective share because it giveth us too much of a headache.” Although W/T/E is a bit of a hazy memory and elective share might refer to non-probate assets as well but I doubt it does but even if it did it still wouldn’t make the matter any less complex. And god, I can go on and on and on about the personal estate and family law planning fiasco this would be but I don’t really see why you are disagreeing with me as I have a vested economic interest in people making the law needlessly complex and therefore support all sorts of polywhatever unions.
Personally, I would not participate in a group marriage, because a claim that I am married to my partners’ other partner(s) would require me to sign a legal contract under false pretenses. I would not object to having a legal means of declaring a familial relationship with her (and, in fact, I wish such were possible), but I will not lie and claim that that relationship is accurately termed as marital.
My personal feelings are that the best way of implementing polygamy would require consent of existing partners to the additional contract, as this would make it clear that the crime of bigamy (aka “marriage fraud”) is still a problem and still prosecutable. I wouldn’t object to there also being contracts with more than two lines for those people who wanted them, but I wouldn’t sign one myself.
Which would be more complicated as a standard implementation depends on which sets of problems one looks at. I tend to think that the group marriage model is superficially easier to deal with – all the obligations and interrelationships are stashed in the same place – but it doesn’t really address the most common failure state well. An ABC group marriage with a single contract may be fine up until the point that B gets a divorce, leaving AC without a contract despite their relationship not changing; likewise, an ABCD group marriage that breaks into AB and CD loses its group status while still having, at least potentially, two surviving standard-issue marriages. (Some might say that these folks should just go and establish another marriage contract that’s appropriate to their current situation, though, rather than having their continuing relationships continue to be recognised.)
A multiple-marriage model requires working out the details of how two or more contracts can be handled in a legal system that has presumed exclusivity on this type of contract until that point. This will be a pain in the ass. It will also likely require looking at those countries that have multiple marriage laws in place and seeing how they’ve done it. My gut feeling is that this would probably be more robust in the long run (in addition to being more personally satisfying to me).
Tangentially relevant – family fails to get permission to immigrate to Canada due to polygamy. The article notes that “de facto polygamy” – in other words, long-term affairs and the like – is extremely common; what’s unacceptable is giving those relationships legitimacy. (This is something I’ve noticed, actually; I find it a bit unnerving. I had someone tell me that the person asking my permission before initiating a relationship discussion with my legal husband was “fucked up”, but that it would have been just fine if she’d gone behind my back.)
Of course, there are already many relationships like this- some of them in the open- and they get along fine without benefit of being legally married.
One of the problems with Polygamy/polygyny is that sickos and perverts can take advantage of the law then, perfectly legally. In Utah (and to a lesser extent elsewhere) there are several “heritical” Mormon sects that practice Polygyny (note this is strictly against the current rules in the main Mormon Church). The way it mainly seems to be practiced is abhorant to me. Women are bought up brainwashed to believe that being a virtual slave-wife to their lord and husband is the “right” and “godly” thing. These “men” “marry” the sisters of current wives and even on occasion their own daughters. Pedophilia is rampant, as well as incest. Welfare fraud/abuse is how most of these Families survive- the “husband” rarely works, so ‘we’ get to pay for this, too!:mad: For some time, Utah law enforcement winked at this practice, but now they are cracking down to some extent. I have heard that the “Tinkers” practice something similar?
If we allowed Polygamy in any form, I think we’d need to see the minimum age laws for marriage reformed- FIRST and in all states. Perhaps even at a Federal level*. Let us say no younger than 16- and that with both the parents consent and the difference between the couple cannot be greater than 6 years (only if one of the couple is a minor of course!).
If Polygyny became legal in certain states that already have a low minimum age (or they could lower it even more, note) that- would amount to legalized and institutionalized pedophilia.