# why would legal polygamy be such a problem? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 12, 2013, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-legal-polygamy-be-such-a-problem/655536 "2013-04-12T19:28:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2013, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-legal-polygamy-be-such-a-problem/655536/61 "2013-04-13T15:57:53Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I don’t think you’re being unfair, I just don’t think the issues would be THAT complex. The real complexity would be in defining what plural marriages would be legal. My own idea would be that all parties would be married to each other. > [@Weeping\_Wyvern](#): > > It seems pretty obvious to me that the answer would be no. B and C just happen to share the same husband. Even if same-sex marriage is going to be allowed, that will only create the opportunity for B and C to marry; it will not mandate it. So here is a thing that needs to be worked out. And it is important legally and financially. My assets and debts are my wife’s, and her’s are mine. If she had a husband that I was not married to, would I be responsible for his debts? Would his income affect my taxes? These are things that need to be resolved and it is not the responsibility of the disinterested to work it out. SSM proponents really only had to say make the language sex neutral and remove the laws specifically disadvantaging same sex couples (banning adoption etc.). But for multiple spouses you either need a whole different structure (or more than one) or to scrap the construct entirely and go individual ad hoc arrangements for all. The second option is a non-starter, so if you are pro-poly marriage I highly recommend that you get to work on defining how it should work. I have no direct stake in how it should work, but there are some things I would insist on to support it: [ol] [li]It needs to be fair to all parties.[/li][li]It needs to be gender symmetrical or neutral.[/li][li]It needs to address the needs of children.[/li][li]It can not affect the legal responsibilities, rights, or privileges of current marriages.[/li][li]If it give the legal rights and protections of marriage it must also confer the responsibilities.[/li][/ol] If you think you can accomplish that, get to work, get it on the ballot and I will vote for it. But all of that is non-trivial. Marriage law was not created in a day. The changes needed will take some serious effort by knowledgeable people. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2013, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-legal-polygamy-be-such-a-problem/655536/62 "2013-04-13T17:20:43Z")
As I’ve said before, give me a digital copy of the laws and a search-and-replace function, and in ninety seconds I’ve fixed all the laws so that same-sex marriage is the law of the land. But polygamous relationships can’t be done that way. I absolutely support the legalization of polygamous marriages, and I find the arguments against them specious at best (for example, the argument that polygamous marriages are traditionally sexist implies that monogamous marriages are traditionally models of egalitarianism, which is absurd). However, I don’t support tying SSM to polygamous marriages right now, because of the logistical concerns. Let’s finish SSM, and then tackle the much trickier issue of polygamy. It can be done; it’ll just take some more time and some more thinking through all the ramifications. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2013, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-legal-polygamy-be-such-a-problem/655536/63 "2013-04-13T19:59:48Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > Agreed. Yet: > > …you seem well fixated on \*sex \*as a defining characteristic of marriage. Who’s fucking who is not my business, in anyone’s marriage but mine! Do we really want a government agent to have to evaluate the extent of said sex? “Honey, this nice man from the government says you can’t have a headache tonight!” 😃 Well, is it still legally possible to annul a marriage on the basis that it had not been consummated? I admit it’s possible my information on this is out of date. > [@](#): > > Seriously, though… Yes. Please. I can easily picture a group marriage breaking up where one or more of the spouses seeks an annulment of the association with another specific spouse, claiming non-consummation. If it exists as a legal strategy, I figure inevitably someone will try to use it if they see an advantage in doing so. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2013, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-legal-polygamy-be-such-a-problem/655536/64 "2013-04-13T20:14:42Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, is it still legally possible to annul a marriage on the basis that it had not been consummated? I admit it’s possible my information on this is out of date. Only if at least one spouse is in the military and the marriage took place by proxy. In addition to no consummation, there has to be no cohabitation and no treatment of the parties as husband and wife after the proxy marriage ceremony. > **[You searched for united\_states/annulment\_laws » U.S. Marriage License Laws](https://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/annulment_laws/)** Other than military marriage by proxy, consummation isn’t considered for legal annulments. Religious annulments, of course, may have different rules. ---
**Author:** ![ctnguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@ctnguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ctnguy)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2013, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-legal-polygamy-be-such-a-problem/655536/65 "2013-04-13T20:27:31Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > And only opposite genders can marry each other. If we change that law, why can’t we change the common law and allow contracts between people and animals or furniture? > > I’m not saying I agree with the slippery slope in this case, but the guffaws and eye rolls when people say that marriage to dogs are next in line are not warranted because in both cases we are talking about changing the law. > > Of course there is no capacity to contract now, but that could be changed by law. The difference is that two adult men or two adult women have always been legally able to make all sorts of other contracts. They have merely been forbidden from making a particular kind of contract, i.e. marriage. Animals and furniture have never been considered capable of making any kind of contract at all. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2013, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-legal-polygamy-be-such-a-problem/655536/66 "2013-04-13T20:44:10Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > Only if at least one spouse is in the military and the marriage took place by proxy. In addition to no consummation, there has to be no cohabitation and no treatment of the parties as husband and wife after the proxy marriage ceremony. In that case, I have to wonder about a group marriage in which some of the spouses live in different houses or even different cities, i.e. where a male spouse alternately visits the various female spouses - a configuration I think quite likely in a polygamy-legal society. > [@](#): > > [You searched for united\_states/annulment\_laws » U.S. Marriage License Laws](http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/annulment_laws/) > > Other than military marriage by proxy, consummation isn’t considered for legal annulments. Religious annulments, of course, may have different rules. [I’m not entirely sure that’s true](http://www.lawteacher.net/family-law-resources/Non-Consummation-Marriage.php). In any case, I anticipate quite a few legal battles regarding annulment in group marriages. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2013, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-legal-polygamy-be-such-a-problem/655536/67 "2013-04-14T00:54:07Z")
> [@Pitchmeister](#): > > A few people have said that a marriage is just a contract between two (or possibly more) people. Well, it’s not - it’s also a contract with the rest of society and herein lies the rub: I don’t recall the rest of society signing my marriage license. > [@Pitchmeister](#): > > everything that is interpersonal could possibly be worked out, but what about questions of insurance, pensions or benefits? Inheritance issues and emergency rights have also been adressed, but there’s a whole lot of things that apply to married couples that would be very messy to implement with three or more people. The whole way the system works would probably have to be reworked, and as has been pointed out there is so far not a significant enough number of people with a workable idea. > > To clarify: I’m in no way against a polyamorous lifestyle, but to claim that the legal question of poly marriage is as easy to fix as SSM is very disingenious. What about a single person with two children? How does insurance, pensions and benefits work? Just a hint: it’s pretty straightforward. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2013, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-legal-polygamy-be-such-a-problem/655536/68 "2013-04-14T03:17:28Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > I don’t recall the rest of society signing my marriage license. Really? Then who did? On mine it was me, my wife, two witnesses, and an officiant authorized by the state of California via the San Mateo County Registrars office. And mine is on file with said office as a public document. Any two people can agree to live as a married couple/trio/group, but if you don’t get the government (aka the duly appointed representatives of the whole of society) to sign off on it, you don’t get all those benefits and responsibilities. > [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > What about a single person with two children? How does insurance, pensions and benefits work? Just a hint: it’s pretty straightforward. Yes it is. But that is because children have a legally defined relationship that has been worked out in common law, legislation, and the courts for centuries which is different than a spouse’s. And it is still changing. Only recently has the law been changed to require insurance to cover children until 24. And children have no rights to your assets, just support until age 18. Spouses on the other hand share assets. For pensions, your children only get a piece of it if you die and you designate them beneficiaries (which could be any one), but a spouse can get a portion of it in a divorce. But what if you have two spouses and only divorce one? What if your spouse has another spouse? Since you share assets (including pensions) with your spouse and he/she shares assets with her/his other spouse, how much of your pension is that person entitled to? ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-legal-polygamy-be-such-a-problem/655536/69 "2013-04-15T01:24:37Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > Yes it is. But that is because children have a legally defined relationship that has been worked out in common law, legislation, and the courts for centuries which is different than a spouse’s. And it is still changing. Only recently has the law been changed to require insurance to cover children until 24. And children have no rights to your assets, just support until age 18. Spouses on the other hand share assets. For pensions, your children only get a piece of it if you die and you designate them beneficiaries (which could be any one), but a spouse can get a portion of it in a divorce. But what if you have two spouses and only divorce one? What if your spouse has another spouse? Since you share assets (including pensions) with your spouse and he/she shares assets with her/his other spouse, how much of your pension is that person entitled to? and this can’t be addressed by laws re: polygamy? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-legal-polygamy-be-such-a-problem/655536/70 "2013-04-15T02:58:02Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > and this can’t be addressed by laws re: polygamy? Sure, it can. So address them. Give us your legal formulation of the privileges and responsibilities (and limitations, if any) of group marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-legal-polygamy-be-such-a-problem/655536/71 "2013-04-15T03:32:37Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > and this can’t be addressed by laws re: polygamy? > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Sure, it can. So address them. Give us your legal formulation of the privileges and responsibilities (and limitations, if any) of group marriage. And no matter how you do it, some group will be left out. As said repeatedly, if you(or anyone)want polygamy recognized, then either show how not recognizing it violates the Constitution or draft some model statutes and get to lobbying. I won’t do it because I have no stake in the outcome. The poly people need to come up with something that meets their needs that the rest of us can accept. ---
**Author:** ![dotchan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@dotchan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dotchan)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-legal-polygamy-be-such-a-problem/655536/72 "2013-04-18T19:46:47Z")
What _are_ the laws concerning the rights and responsibilities of a business partnership? If B and C have a falling out in an A/B/C equal partnership but want to remain partners with A, does the law have any say in what happens beyond the dissolution of the original partnership? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-legal-polygamy-be-such-a-problem/655536/73 "2013-04-20T06:28:51Z")
Just saw a stat that there are 500,000 polyamorous families in the US. If that’s true, then that’s a lot of people being denied equality. Here’s a viewpoint I hadn’t heard before from a lesbian activist: The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago. I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.” > **[Why get married when you could be happy? - ABC Radio National](https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/why-get-married/4058506)** > > The same-sex marriage question has provoked a lively debate of late and it's an issue that's far from settled. There's a wide diversity of opinion about the importance of marriage equality within the gay and lesbian community. And this diversity was... I’m a bit confused by the point she’s trying to make here, it seems like she wants some kind of institution that recognizes even more unconventional situations than what we currently think of when we think of marriage. Or maybe she’s arguing something different entirely, I’m not sure. ---
**Author:** ![esmeralda2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ccd318/32.png) [@esmeralda2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/esmeralda2)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 9:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-legal-polygamy-be-such-a-problem/655536/74 "2013-04-20T09:50:43Z")
I think polyandry makes more sense. Men wear out faster than women, in more than one way. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 10:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-legal-polygamy-be-such-a-problem/655536/75 "2013-04-20T10:04:41Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Just saw a stat that there are 500,000 polyamorous families in the US. If that’s true, then that’s a lot of people being denied equality. I’d be very interested in tracking down the source of that statistic and the method used to determine it. So far, I see claims on both pro- and anti- polyamory websites that it was mentioned on CNN, ABC, in Newsweek, but I can’t trace it further than this mention in a [Newsweek article](http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/07/28/only-you-and-you-and-you.html): > [@](#): > > Researchers are just beginning to study the phenomenon, but the few who do estimate that openly polyamorous families in the United States number more than half a million, with thriving contingents in nearly every major city. Not a lot to go on. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 10:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-legal-polygamy-be-such-a-problem/655536/76 "2013-04-20T10:40:40Z")
It’s not exactly clear how many gay people there are either. One study I saw said 2%, another said 5%, and a gay friend insists it’s closer to 10% of the population. But we do know that there are a lot of them, and also a lot of polyamorous households. And I’d bet anything that upon study most of these would involve bisexuals rather than the traditional polygamist structure. ---
**Author:** ![pjnlsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e8c25b/32.png) [@pjnlsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pjnlsn)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-legal-polygamy-be-such-a-problem/655536/77 "2013-04-22T01:04:06Z")
Because given enough time or pressure or some combination of both, people will defend what they’ve been instructed to believe no matter what. This kind of behavior is called ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ when it’s present to a large enough degree. But all people have the tendency, in one form or another, and to some degree. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-legal-polygamy-be-such-a-problem/655536/78 "2013-04-22T01:53:39Z")
That’s what people used to assume about gay men, that they got “recruited” through abuse as young boys, and learned to think of it as desirable. ---
**Author:** ![pjnlsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e8c25b/32.png) [@pjnlsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pjnlsn)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-legal-polygamy-be-such-a-problem/655536/79 "2013-04-22T04:20:03Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That’s what people used to assume about gay men, that they got “recruited” through abuse as young boys, and learned to think of it as desirable. Well, I was talking about the sort’ve people who think it’s sin and the work of the devil, or something like that, and for no reason. But to be clear, even if that were true absolutely (about gay men), and few things are true absolutely, I’d still think it’s better to give people the most freedom to do the most things. (not to say you disagree) ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-legal-polygamy-be-such-a-problem/655536/80 "2013-04-22T04:26:15Z")
> [@dotchan](#): > > What _are_ the laws concerning the rights and responsibilities of a business partnership? If B and C have a falling out in an A/B/C equal partnership but want to remain partners with A, does the law have any say in what happens beyond the dissolution of the original partnership? I googled “partnership dissolution” and you can get the forms online from, like, everywhere, man. Anyway, since my expertise in business partnerships stems from watching numerous episodes of _L.A. Law_, I gather the easiest way to resolve the conflict you describe would be for A to fall down an elevator shaft. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-legal-polygamy-be-such-a-problem/655536.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-legal-polygamy-be-such-a-problem/655536.md?page=5)