|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Jul 15, 2011 8:17:05 GMT -5
Polygamy should certainly be legal in terms of allowing consenting adults to live under the same roof in a sexual relationship with each other.
However, the government has no obligation to grant polygamous marriages. Without meaning to sound judgmental, polygamy is a "chosen lifestyle," just like monogamy and celibacy. You can't choose whom you're attracted to, but you can choose how many relationships you enter into at any one time. Under current marriage laws, you can put your spouse on your health insurance. Imagine legally requiring health insurance companies to have to insure you and fifty spouses! This is just one example: what would the tax brackets be for someone filing jointly with 2 spouses? 3 spouses? 100 spouses? This would require a complete re-working of marriage law on both the state and federal level. Currently, from purely a legal perspective, it makes no difference if two people in a marriage are of the opposite or same sex. But the number of spouses certainly does make a difference.
I'm torn on this case for selfish reasons. Legally, the complainants should succeed. But I can just imagine the "I told you so!"'s from the Religious Right that could set back gay rights. Even though polygamous marriages would not be legally recognized as a result of this lawsuit, I doubt that the American people will understand the difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Jul 15, 2011 9:59:34 GMT -5
Actually...its really quite simple. (Yeah, I have a LOT of free time to think about shit like this.) Say you have...4 people, Persons A-D. They can be any mix of genders and sexualities you want, it doesn't really matter for this little thought experiment. NOW, under current (monogamy vs polyamory) law, Person A can only marry Person B, C, or D, not any combination thereof that would produce more than one partner for Person A. However, there is one thing I've thought about someone bringing up. That is, the overhead of having to record all the linking marriages. However, a great deal of things, especially government things, have gone digital in the past...oh, 20 years or so. As such, marriage records are also likely to be digital, and in the form of a database. Now, you could easily patch both the database and the software that's used to update it very easily, its done all the time with things like MMORPGs. Granted, they're not as capacious as a marriage database, but the methods have all been tried, tested, and proven. My guess, it could take...maybe a year or so to develop and deploy the patch. After that...it simply become a matter of legalizing it, which I'm all for. So long as the people being married are consenting, willing adults, then there isn't a problem, to me. It'd just be a software patch...the kind of thing that goes on all the fucking time in the digital world. And marriage licenses? Simple, just have one for each pair, problem solved. Sure, it'd mean more paper...I suppose you could requisition a longer one for you and your spouses and turn your multiple copies in to be recycled. Its all really...quite simple. The only real roadblock is getting through some particularly thick skulls. Unfortunately it's not quite that simple. For signing the marriages you need to have everyone involved sign, saying that they understand there's the additional people already married in and that everyone is in full agreement to join or have the marriage expanded to include the new person(s). This is actually the simple part of the "not so simple" as it primarily just requires a new form for the signatures. The harder part comes in for how to handle things like divorce and death. Say people A and B want to separate from people C, D, and E, and each group still wants to remain married. Do they go through a group divorce and essentially remarry each other into the smaller groups, or do you somehow amend the marriage licence into multiple ones to account for it? If one, or multiple, partners die, who counts as next of kin? Do you just start at the top of the list, going in order they signed, or what? What about when one person is in the hospital and cannot make the medical decisions for themselves (and assuming they have no living will stipulating what to do), and their partners are split on what action to take. Do you go with majority vote (and how do you manage a tie) or again just go in the order their signatures are on the certificate? cestlefun17 - This could actually be handle very easily. We already do not have a cap on how many dependant children can be covered by a person's insurance. They could be childless, or they could have 100 sprog, it doesn't matter, they all get covered. If one becomes worried that one person would try to have, say, a dozen partners and dozens of children, then just put a limit on the number of dependant they can claim on those forms, regardless of whether they're a spouse, child, or whatever. |
|
|
|
Post by The Lazy One on Jul 15, 2011 10:07:01 GMT -5
Eh. Whatever. It's not really my concern. As long as everyone consents I don't see a problem with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Jul 15, 2011 14:17:37 GMT -5
Oriet: I don't have an answer right now for the divorce thing, but the next-of-kin wouldn't be that hard to do. All you'd need is for the person to determine the order in which they'd go themselves. Sure, it'd mean a bit more paperwork, but...not all that difficult. Just like putting orders in a queue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Jul 15, 2011 16:19:26 GMT -5
However, the government has no obligation to grant polygamous marriages. Without meaning to sound judgmental, polygamy is a "chosen lifestyle," just like monogamy and celibacy. You can't choose whom you're attracted to, but you can choose how many relationships you enter into at any one time. That argument can just as well be turned against gay marriage. "Gay people can't help being gay, but they can choose to not enter a relationship and marriage. The government has no obligation to grant same-sex marriages." Forcing someone who is in love with two persons to choose between them is cruel. Likely not as much as forbidding marrying the one, but still. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Jul 15, 2011 16:37:21 GMT -5
However, the government has no obligation to grant polygamous marriages. Without meaning to sound judgmental, polygamy is a "chosen lifestyle," just like monogamy and celibacy. You can't choose whom you're attracted to, but you can choose how many relationships you enter into at any one time. That argument can just as well be turned against gay marriage. "Gay people can't help being gay, but they can choose to not enter a relationship and marriage. The government has no obligation to grant same-sex marriages." Forcing someone who is in love with two persons to choose between them is cruel. Likely not as much as forbidding marrying the one, but still. Like I said, you don't choose to be gay, but you do choose to be polygamous. Everyone chooses with whom to enter into a relationship and with how many people. Whether or not one's minority status is a choice makes a huge difference in determining the judicial standard to be applied to a law: we all have the capacity to be sexually attracted to more than one person at the same time. Polygamists choose to enter into several relationships simultaneously, monogamists choose to enter into one relationship at a time, and celibates choose to not enter into any relationships. While a gay person chooses to enter into a relationship with someone of the same sex, this is to be expected due to the immutable same-sex attraction of the individual. The Fifth Amendment's right to due process and the Fourteenth Amendment's right to equal protection are construed to require that all persons "similarly situated" be treated equally (Barbier v. Connolly 113 U.S. 27). Because marriages with more than two partners would require a complete overhaul of marriage law, no reasonable interpretation of this standard could be used to find that polygamous couples (who willfully put themselves in that situation) are "similarly situated" to a two-person couple. On the other hand, it makes no difference on paper if two partners are of the same or opposite sex -- the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is due purely to anti-gay bias. With two-person couples, the sexual makeup of the two people would not make any couple differently situated than any other, because men and women do not have different rights, duties, or obligations under the law in a marriage contract. |
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Jul 15, 2011 16:43:05 GMT -5
That argument can just as well be turned against gay marriage. "Gay people can't help being gay, but they can choose to not enter a relationship and marriage. The government has no obligation to grant same-sex marriages." Forcing someone who is in love with two persons to choose between them is cruel. Likely not as much as forbidding marrying the one, but still. Gay marriage requires the changing of a few words in the law. Polygamous marriage requires a far more vast overhaul of the law. While the figures I could find (though I don't trust sources, I really don't feel like doing a deeper search) showed polyamory being roughly equal to homosexuality in terms of percentage of population, I think it is wiser to focus on the more quickly attainable and more relate-able (to the 90% of the population is monogamous) issue first. Gay marriage didn't happen immediately after homosexuality was declassified as a mental disorder, polygamous marriages won't be available right after gay marriage. Change of social attitudes takes time. That said, a lot of people in the monogamous 90% have had to choose one lover over another at one time or another. So I'm not wholly sold on it being "cruel". EDIT: Ninja'd. Cestle has a point that the constitution will probably never be read as to guarantee polygamous marriage rights, but that doesn't mean that there will never be a push to get such marriages recognized. It will simply not come from the courts but from legislatures (OK, courts could see to its decriminalization under privacy rights, but not much more than that). Besides...I'd bet there was a time when it seemed impossible that the constitution(s) of this land would ever be viewed as protecting abortion rights or gay marriage, but here we are. The only constant of society is that it changes. |
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Jul 15, 2011 16:46:39 GMT -5
I disagree with you, cestlefun17. But I've said my piece, and I don't think any further arguing will do any convincing. Edit: Kit Walker: Focus on other things first? Cool. Should it eventually be legalized, however? Yes. Last Laugh Edit: I just got double ninja'd. First my post got ninja'd by Norris, then my edit got ninja'd by Norris' edit. |
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Jul 15, 2011 20:39:59 GMT -5
but the next-of-kin wouldn't be that hard to do. All you'd need is for the person to determine the order in which they'd go themselves. Sure, it'd mean a bit more paperwork, but...not all that difficult. Just like putting orders in a queue. But the paperwork has to be done, which is not currently the case with two-person marriage. Say three people are married. They are all in their 30s, so have not felt the need to make living wills or power of attorney. Person A is in an auto accident and ends up in a coma. Doctors do not expect Person A to ever wake up. Person B agrees and is willing to pull the plug. Person C disagrees and wants to wait. Who do the doctors listen to? Who is the next-of-kin? Or another scenario... Person A dies in the accident without a will. State law mandates the estate of those who die without a will goes to their spouse. Who gets what assets? How is that determined? cestlefun and Norris are correct - there is not really a parallel between same-sex marriage and polygamous marriage. Probate, estate, and family law work equally well if the spouses are the same or opposite genders. But the law (as currently written) does not work when there is more than one spouse. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 15, 2011 20:44:17 GMT -5
At the same time, poly relationships happen and a lack of recognition does put us in a disadvantage. I also really can't accept an argument that comes down to "it's hard." "It's hard" is a lazy excuse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jul 15, 2011 20:56:12 GMT -5
At the same time, poly relationships happen and a lack of recognition does put us in a disadvantage. I also really can't accept an argument that comes down to "it's hard." "It's hard" is a lazy excuse. I don't think they're using "It's hard" as a reason not to do it, but the reason for why it's not nearly as simple as gay marriage. And it isn't. It should still be done, but it'll take much time and money to get even the most basic idea going for this. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 15, 2011 21:04:10 GMT -5
There is significant discussion on how it would require an overhaul of how marriages function and the implication that this is a bad thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jul 15, 2011 21:24:04 GMT -5
There is significant discussion on how it would require an overhaul of how marriages function and the implication that this is a bad thing. I didn't really get that. What I inferred was that this would be a very complicated thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Jul 15, 2011 21:25:17 GMT -5
There is significant discussion on how it would require an overhaul of how marriages function and the implication that this is a bad thing. That's not personally what I was trying to imply. I'm trying to imply that since we're only just now get to a point where there is political will to allow homosexual marriage (and even that is still somewhat tenuous), now is simply not the best time to attempt to create a legal form of marriage that will require lots and lots time and effort (ergo, political will) from legislatures. It is not a matter of repealing a law or removing a relatively arbitrary requirement from the law - it is rewriting everything. I don't see a real push for polygamous marriage (on the level of the present push for gay marriage) working right now. In fact, I see it setting back the efforts for gay marriage by proving the doomsayers on the right wing correct. Fighting the criminality of it in court (like the fighting of sodomy laws, for instance) is a good stage to be at. Gay Marriage is at the plate right now. Polygamous marriage (the only other "alternative lifestlye" that could be legally recognized) is in the practice circle. Trying to step up before the gay have hit the ball will only screw up both of them. In summation: It's hard, and it should be done. Not just right this minute, and probably not in this decade. Doing this shit right takes a long ass time. |
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Jul 15, 2011 22:24:28 GMT -5
I'm torn on this case for selfish reasons. Legally, the complainants should succeed. But I can just imagine the "I told you so!"'s from the Religious Right that could set back gay rights. Even though polygamous marriages would not be legally recognized as a result of this lawsuit, I doubt that the American people will understand the difference. THIS. It's exactly what the Religious Right has been saying all along with their slippery slope argument. While I'm OK with polyamory, I kind of want to say, "Not right now! You're not helping!" Which is unfair, because they deserve rights, too. It's just, we're so close, and this could be a huge setback. |
|
