It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy

[oberliner]

Welcome to the exciting new world of the slippery slope. With the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling this Friday legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states, social liberalism has achieved one of its central goals. A right seemingly unthinkable two decades ago has now been broadly applied to a whole new class of citizens. Following on the rejection of interracial marriage bans in the 20th Century, the Supreme Court decision clearly shows that marriage should be a broadly applicable right—one that forces the government to recognize, as Friday’s decision said, a private couple’s “love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family.”

`The question presents itself: Where does the next advance come? The answer is going to make nearly everyone uncomfortable: Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals? The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy—yet many of the same people who pressed for marriage equality for gay couples oppose it.

This is not an abstract issue. In Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion, he remarks, “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.” As is often the case with critics of polygamy, he neglects to mention why this is a fate to be feared. Polygamy today stands as a taboo just as strong as same-sex marriage was several decades ago—it’s effectively only discussed as outdated jokes about Utah and Mormons, who banned the practice over 120 years ago.

Yet the moral reasoning behind society’s rejection of polygamy remains just as uncomfortable and legally weak as same-sex marriage opposition was until recently.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-decision-polygamy-119469.html#.VZfTheuprzI

Legalize Polygamy!

For decades, the prevailing logic has been that polygamy hurts women and children. That makes sense, since in contemporary American practice that is often the case. In many Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints polygamous communities, for example, women and underage girls are forced into polygamous unions against their will. Some boys, who represent the surplus of males, are brutally thrown out of their homes and driven into homelessness and poverty at very young ages. All of these stories are tragic, and the criminals involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. (That goes without saying, I hope.)

But legalizing consensual adult polygamy wouldn’t legalize rape or child abuse. In fact, it would make those crimes easier to combat.

Right now, all polygamous families, including the healthy, responsible ones, are driven into hiding (notwithstanding the openly polygamous Brown family on TLC’s Sister Wives, that is). In the resulting isolation, crime and abuse can flourish unimpeded. Children in polygamous communities are taught to fear the police and are not likely to report an abusive neighbor if they suspect their own parents might be caught up in a subsequent criminal investigation. In a United States with legalized polygamy, responsible plural families could emerge from the shadows—making it easier for authorities to zero in on the criminals who remain there.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/04/legalize_polygamy_marriage_equality_for_all.html

Two very interesting and thought-provoking articles on the subject.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

1. And this is where all the social conservatives start crowing, "We told you so!"

[oberliner]

2. "And if she wants to marry a man with three other wives, that’s her damn choice."

That seems like a fair point.

I don't know - I am reading a bunch of different articles with different perspectives.

I find it interesting, at least, regardless of the social conservatives making hay about it.

[GeorgeGist]

87. What if the three other wives don't want to marry her?

[Chan790]

127. Then there won't be a wedding. n/t

[riderinthestorm]

168. Then its not marriage and not relevant to the OP which is @ a legal contract

polyamory is different than polygamy, which is the OP topic.

FWIW, I don't have any problem with polyamory. I suspect that's been a de facto situation for millennia.

What I'm troubled by is the legal status of women and children in polygamous marriages. The historical and cultural societies that practice it are severe forms of patriarchy where the women and children suffer greatly. The U.S. has a very different legal and cultural system than the vast majority of countries where women are legally second class citizens to their husbands, the children don't "belong" to the birth mother upon divorce (they stay with the father and the other wives), they can't inherit etc.

As well, US cultures like the FLDS don't inspire any enthusiasm for how this would play out here in the US either.

[Chan790]

170. rider, I respect you, but...

I think you're on the wrong side of this because you seem to be working from the base assumption that all polymarriages will be analogous to the worst goddamned examples that you can find. As a poly person, the FDLS are a personal embarrassment...while I might someday want to be married to the people of my choosing...that marriage will not look anything like the destructive and oppressive marriages of patriarchal schismatic Mormons or adherents of oppressive religions that believe women and children are chattel.

You need to logically separate the wheat from the chaff...the issues in the marital examples you're holding against us have nothing to do with polymarriage in-itself and everything to do with the underlying cultures which are inherently problematic. If all those oppressive polygamists woke up tomorrow and were happily monogamously married...they'd still be patriarchal and severely abusive to women and children. Likewise, I have doubts that non-monogamous pro-equality anti-child-abuse liberals are going to magically turn into Warren Jeffs if they can suddenly marry two-or-more people they love at the same time.

[riderinthestorm]

177. I respect you too Chan, and honestly I'm 110% with you on polyamory

(and you've transformed my pasta cooking with your tip about leaving some water in with the pasta while draining - I will be forever grateful...)



That said my perspective comes from my work at women's shelters in Wheaton IL - home of many global refugees including legally wedded refugee polygamous families.

I readily admit, I know of zero American success stories of polygamous families with legal contracts so the entirety of my position comes from academia that supports the terrible stats for women and children in polygamous families, and first hand experience with refugee polygamous families in the US.

You must know many legally bound polyamorous families to come from your perspective - they are rare in RL in my experience but obviously you have other experiences so there's that. My personal experience outside my work with refugee populations hasn't been with any poly couples in legal situations, just informal arrangements.

Again, I repeat, I don't think polyamory is analogous to polygamy because there are different dynamics, especially when it comes to legal status.. I am not in opposition to polyamory - that's adult couples in free expression outside of the law. Go nuts with my blessing. It's when it becomes a legal contract that things get sticky, especially at dissolution. That's when things matter and get bad, very bad quickly with dire consequences for women and children. Those that are in legal unions are usually coming from terrible, patriarchal, oppressive societies. We in the US have no legal analogous structure.

These aren't outliers. They are the statistical norm. I fully appreciate and have zero problem with your own polyamory. No problem. My friends in polyamorous relationships - no problem. Again, I don't know any that have legal contracts other than the refugee families and those have played out very badly.

[On the Road]

37. And They Would be Right to Do So, No?

.

[AngryAmish]

38. And so what if they do?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

86. Considering marriage equality was built on promised SSM would not lead to polygamy it

gives them a pretext to undo SSM and undermines the credibility of social liberalism.

[AngryAmish]

106. Stare decisis

Will never go back.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

111. Then explain Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson.

[Drunken Irishman]

112. Sure they can...

1) Constitutional Amendment - unlikely as it is, if they amend the constitution, it voids any power the Supreme Court has, as it's now IN the constitution.

2) Like with past cases, and what we could ultimately see with abortion under a more conservative court, all it takes is another legal challenge and a different ruling.

Likely? No. But then, social backlash can halt certain other rights - like hate crimes legislation or laws that ban discrimination based on sexuality.

[Cali_Democrat]

194. Your concern is noted, however....

Nobody promised anything.

[AuntPatsy]

3. An Adult has that right of choice, I do believe it stems from a need to control women

but again, adults should have that right,

[oberliner]

7. Many monogamous marriages stem from that same need

For what that is worth.

[pnwmom]

77. An adult doesn't have the right to have multiple spouses recognized by the Social Security system

or other parts of the government.

[SheilaT]

81. I was just thinking the same thing.

Although an adult can have multiple ex-wives collecting Social Security, so long as each marriage lasted at least ten years, and appropriate age milestones are met. And each ex-wife will become a widow if the ex dies before she does.

This is actually gender neutral, so would also apply to ex-husbands.

[AuntPatsy]

189. I read JoeyBs thread, I realize now his wrong I was ,

[malthaussen]

4. Issue of consent, really.

Anyone who didn't see this coming wasn't looking. The social conservatives, however, still have to demonstrate that the "institution" of marriage would be reasonably harmed by polygamy or polyamory. (hate that word, by the way)

Mormonism is no test, since consent is not completely evident in all cases. I've always considered that the crux of the polygamy issue is that it "traditionally" tends to reduce women to a commodity even further than they already are. The real issue is the will to dominance, otherwise a family of several adults cooperating makes all the sense in the world, both emotionally and economically.

Mind you, I read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress at an impressionable age.

-- Mal

[HereSince1628]

5. Yes, with implications for how such a family is treated by 'The State'

[oberliner]

6. Assuming all parties are consenting adults

I'm not sure that I can see why there would be an objection.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. Multiple spouses would cause endless changes to laws and economics

How do you divide up parental rights and responsibilities? Do employers have to offer spousal health benefits, and survivors' pensions, to all the members of a marriage?

Presumably, there would be no requirement for all the members of a marriage to be sexually intimate with all the other members. But in that case how will you determine if a marriage is 'genuine', and not just something done for advantage (eg immigration rights)? If someone can bring as many people as they like into a marriage, and never have to divorce their first partner, how do you define what is the standard required for legal recognition by the state to be a benefit?

Are there many families where a restriction to 2 legal spouses is causing a problem, either to children, or to the adults?

[oberliner]

12. There is no requirement for members of a monogamous marriage to be sexually intimate

There is the same challenge in determining whether or not a monogamous marriage is genuine and not just done for advantage such as immigration rights.

Presumably, since there are countries where polygamy is legal (including some that have recently made it so), there are ways to work out the other legal issues involved.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. I don't think there's a single country which has polygamy involving equal rights

between the men and women. There is no model that could be used. The entire philosophy would have to be created from scratch. I'm surprised you aren't articulating those ideas, if you think this creating a legal system with polygamy in it is a reasonable idea.

Yes, you have to determine whether monogamous marriages are genuine in some fashion; but physical intimacy is one of the indicators used. And requiring both the people to not be married to anyone else also makes it harder for them to be doing it for false reasons.

[oberliner]

104. This is the first I've thought of it

i just read these articles today and found them interesting but I don't really know much about it. That's what I posted here in the hopes of getting further insights

[mythology]

15. There's also the historical impact of polygamy

Generally speaking it has created a situation where there are men married to multiple women, causing a spike in the number of unmarried men which brings with it a host of social problems such as increased crime.

[Chan790]

171. I suspect in a modern culture and setting...

you'd see as many polyandry (multiple husbands) marriages as polygyny (multiple wives) marriages. The divide between non-monogamous males and females is smaller than most people suspect in terms of population.

This is not something I would expect to be a problem presently, a problem we can both acknowledge it was historically.

[Le Taz Hot]

36. And none of that has anything to do with

two or more consenting adults having the RIGHT to marry. A craggy, old, corrupt Supreme Court ruled on the side of marriage equality. The issue is finished. What happens after that is for the legal profession to figure out.

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. It has everything to do with the OP

" A craggy, old, corrupt Supreme Court ruled on the side of marriage equality"

That was about the right for people to be the parties in an existing legal arrangement that assumes only 2 people at a time are involved.

"The issue is finished"

That issue is finished; the issue in the OP is a different one. It's about brand-new (assuming that the patriarchal arrangements some countries have aren't desired) legal arrangements that would need to be created to work with an unlimited number of people.

"What happens after that is for the legal profession to figure out."

And that was what I said, wasn't it? That a huge amount of legal figuring out would be needed to define how polygamous marriage would work.

[philosslayer]

70. Brothers? Sisters?

The issue is far from "decided".

[Le Taz Hot]

73. So, you really think there's going to be a spate

of brothers and sisters all of a sudden wanting to marry each other if marriage equality is expanded?

[philosslayer]

85. No one said anything about a "spate"

But if two sisters want to marry, how would you legally prevent them?

[Le Taz Hot]

116. Answer:

You wouldn't.

[Beartracks]

136. Thumbs up for the Heinlein reference! :D n/t

[Hoppy]

8. They don't get theirs until I get to marry my dog.

I love her. She's beautiful. And she brings me my papar from the front lawn every morning. That something my ex wife didn't do.

[oberliner]

9. Can a dog legally give consent?

I'm pretty sure they can't.

[csziggy]

30. Only with appliances made by evil geniuses

[Hoppy]

100. Sallie barks yes if I ask if she wants a doggie biscuit.

Therefore, yes, she can give consent.

[smirkymonkey]

31. Oh yes, I want to marry a dog as well!

In fact, I want to marry many dogs. I love them so much more than people. Do we now have that right?

When will this idiocy end for christ's sake?

[mainer]

129. She's almost undoubtedly underage

So no marriage for you.

[malthaussen]

162. Doesn't that depend on whether her age is measured in Dog years...

... or People years? There needs to be a legal clarification on this.

-- Mal

[Bluenorthwest]

10. How long has your polygamous relatoinship lasted? Or should I asssume that like every advocate

making this claim I have seen, that you are not in fact in such a relationship and are advocating not for your own rights or the rights of anyone you know?

How many such relationships do you know of, how many are outside religious communities which raise their kids to be polygamous. LGBT families do not in fact raise our kids to be as we are but to be as they are. Polygamous religious families raise their girls to marry into established marriages with other wives and an older husband. Would you encourage your own child to do that? If not, why not?

[oberliner]

13. I am just presenting two interesting articles on the subject

I found their arguments somewhat compelling but would be happy to get more information on the topic from folks who disagree. Such conversations are what make DU so great.

As both articles point out, everyone involved would have to be a consenting adult for such a marriage to be legal. The second article addresses the problem of children who are currently forced into the circumstance you describe.

[Bluenorthwest]

34. So I assume you are not in such a relationship and also don't know anyone who is.

And yet I'm told there is a big movement about this. Smells faked up.

[oberliner]

93. Reasonable assumption

that's why I am trying to learn more and hear some different perspectives on the subject

[Travis_0004]

130. I don't know anybody in a gay marraige

Should I not support gay marriage since I have no experience with it?

[Mosby]

150. a guy in montana who wants to wed two woman just filed for a marriage license

The county or state attorney is going to issue a legal opinion next week.

[Chan790]

146. Okay...answers.

(I'm taking the questions as I find them, if I miss one...apologies. Likewise, I am rewording them for simplification without attempting to alter the meaning of the question.)

How long has your polygamous relationship lasted?

My poly relationship is coming up on a year.

are advocating for your own rights or the rights of anyone you know?

Both.

How many such relationships do you know of, how many are outside religious communities which raise their kids to be polygamous?

The ones I personally know of? (As in "I know the people in the relationship&quot All of them are outside of religious communities. Few are even religiously-inspired and the two that I know of one is Onieda-inspired and the other is based in some Indian religious movement related to Tantra that I don't understand. Given, all of the poly families I know with children are raising their children to believe that there is nothing immoral or non-respectable about polyamory so in that sense I guess you could say they're raising their kids to be "potentially poly."

Polygamous religious families raise their girls to marry into established marriages with other wives and an older husband. Would you encourage your own child to do that? If not, why not?

Well...I'm not having children (I'm a potential future human test-subject for reversible male contraceptive or else I'd be surgically sterilized already), but speaking in hypothetical space...if that was what they wanted, I would encourage them to pursue the consensual-to-all-parties marriage that makes them happy. It doesn't matter if I approve...it's the marriage they want and I encourage them to love and marry who they want.

[treestar]

14. I can see a major difference

Divorce, property rights. The Supreme Court could easily distinguish that it would be too difficult for the courts to work those things out and therefore say the state has a reasonable ground to prohibit this. Imagine disentangling property and child support and custody issues. Husband divorces wife 3 and marries wife 6.

Also it would have to apply to both sexes and gay people for the 14th Amendment, not just polygamy. So how would society cope if Wife wants to divorce Husband 2? Would DNA testing be required to figure out which husband is the father and would that husband be the only one with duties of support or rights to visitation?

[oberliner]

17. Some U.S. legal scholars have proposed treating polygamous marriages like business partnerships.

Last edited Sun Jul 5, 2015, 12:00 PM - Edit history (1)

The parties would jointly own all property during the marriage, new partners would have to win the consent of the existing spouses, and anyone could withdraw unilaterally at any time, taking along his or her fair share of the assets.

That's from this Slate article:

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/explainer/2012/07/sister_wives_if_we_legalize_polygamous_marriage_how_will_polygamous_divorce_work_.html

Presumably, there would be a way to work these issues out if it is determined that polygamous marriages are a fundamental right.

[Exilednight]

23. That's the best argument I have heard to be against it.

This takes love out of marriage and turns it strictly into a business partnership.

This is dilution of marriage.

[-none]

33. Marriage used to be strictly a business transaction.

Love had nothing to do with it.

[oberliner]

102. Love is not a factor in many monogamous ones

certainly the government doesn't need confirmation of love in order to issue a marriage license currently

[treestar]

25. In practice it would be a big mess

And the divorces would go on for years. Family court is bad enough with two sides.

And would the children be subject of visitation rights only with their DNA parents? Some of the nonDNA partners are going to claim a parental relationship. This is not in the best interests of any child.

[jeff47]

61. The problem is "fair share".

Let's say there's 1 man and 2 women in the marriage. Woman #1 wants a divorce. Woman #1 is the biological mother of a child, but the child was day-to-day raised by woman #2. The man and woman #1 financially supported the family, including the child. The child identifies woman #2 as "mom" more than woman #1, since woman #2 did the day-to-day care for the child.

Who gets custody of the child? Who pays child support?

It is not as simple as dissolving a business partnership. The "worst case scenario" in a business partnership is every asset is liquidated and the former partners leave with cash. You can't do that when dissolving a family.

[smirkymonkey]

90. +1000

The complications are endless. It would be an absolute legal nightmare.

[tblue37]

83. Slate, not Salon. nt

[Ligyron]

19. That's a good point...

legal issues would be the main obstacle to multiple marriage partners.

What if the entire board of directors decided to marry each other for whatever legal benefits they imagine would result?

That and the immigrant thing.

[treestar]

27. The immigrant issue would be interesting

Would there have to be a limit? In some Muslim countries, there is a limit of 4 wives if I understand that right. So the law would have to say the US limit for how many wives you can immigrate. A US limit or the limit from there person's country. And you're right, people would have more financial reasons to marry when they had no real relationship.

[underahedgerow]

16. what's the point in legally recognizing a polygamous marriage? Are there some particular benefits to

be had via a legally binding marriage contract between several people?

I can see the point with a 'traditional' civil partnership if there is property and children involved, but IMO polygamous marriages (outside those mormons) are based on sexual relationships and the freedoms that those open-type relationships represent.

If one (or 3) wants something legally binding, then create a cohabitation contract of some sort. Does it have to be a marriage contract? Or do some people have this aspiration of walking down the aisle with 2 brides or 2 grooms? Is that a thing?

I don't see that polygamy benefits anyone except the males in any polygamous communities. The children are susceptible to molestation, the wives to abuse, depression, etc.

Decriminalize it? Maybe..... validate it as a legally valid form of family? How about when more than 10% of the population is interested in it....

[oberliner]

18. Children of monogamous marriages are susceptible to molestation, the wives to abuse, depression

These have been endemic problems within "traditional" marriages forever.

There are women who freely consent to take part in polygamous marriages and presumably they believe they are deriving some benefit in doing so.

I am not sure why a 10 percent threshold would be necessary to validate the process legally.

[underahedgerow]

24. Those are valid points, but I know that the polygamous communities in the USA are patriarchal in

nature where the women are just disposed of when younger 'brides' come along. It's pretty much a license for child molestation within an alleged marital construct.

And again, perhaps decriminalize it, if among people above the age of 16. The polygamous communities tend to marry much younger, that's the aspect that concerns me the most.

The idea of a 10% threshold is that it quantifies a legitimate portion of the population.

[jonno99]

143. FYI: The LGBT population is less than 10%... nt

[underahedgerow]

173. No it's right around the 10% mark if adjusted for anonymity and non-disclosure.That's a stat

used as a benchmark in the USA since 1977 by the NGTF and by Kinsey's studies on human sexuality and hence my use of it. I'm comfortable with that number.

This is a good article http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/05/10-per-cent-population-gay-alfred-kinsey-statistics

[jonno99]

198. If you're comfortable with that number, that certainly is fine. However, I don't personally

consider Kinsey's findings to be authoritative (too many problems with sampling, methodology, etc.). And while the NGTF is a fine organization, one must factor in a certain amount of bias when considering their findings (as we would for any organization which "self-reports&quot .

That the 10% number has not been seen by the majority of other "unbiased" studies/surveys should really be considered. The actual number is probably somewhere between the generally accepted number (~3.5%) and the NGTF findings.

[oberliner]

183. Your points are reasonable as well

Though I would argue that a man leaving his wife of thirty years with whom he has three children, say, to get together with a 19 year old could also be quite damaging for all concerned. Though that is currently completely legal.

[underahedgerow]

196. Yes, very legal and quite anthropologically based. Humans aren't 'programmed' for life long monogamy

and are designed to procreate with multiple partners over the course of a lifetime. Most partnerships resulting in children split up within 7-10 years after the birth of the youngest child. In most cases both partners move on to new partners and form new families. It's more difficult for the woman however, since she's a lot busier raising the children.

And of course men are going to pair up with younger partners, it makes sense biologically to reproduce with younger, healthier partners. Psychologically it totally sucks though, that's for sure.

There are always exceptions to the 'rule' so to speak. Some people pair up for their lifetimes, but it's very rare.Usually humans pair up about 3 times during their lives.

But I don't see that this ties into polygamy. I don't trust any situation that's evolved into a cult. If people want to have multiple partners in a sexual based relationship, then yee hah, have at it, but it's not a healthy, long term situation, and I don't know of anyone who's come out the other end happy and content.

[pnwmom]

78. Several women could obtain individual benefits from a man's Social Security Account. n/t

[Betty Karlson]

20. Homophobic sore-loser passive aggression. n/t

[smirkymonkey]

89. Exactly!

God, it's really so sad.

[oberliner]

94. The author of the 2nd article in the OP is gay

the second article posted is written by a gay woman who is married to her partner

[Betty Karlson]

199. Even when she was quoted and even when she happens to be gay,

the base line of all these patch-and-mix opinions is to validate the right wing scaremongering that validating love and commitment between two spouses of the same gender would somehow start a slippery slope toward polygamy (and incest, and bestiality).

It is disgusting to see how LGBT people, after fighting so hard for recognition of their relationships, must now endure a daily dose of these intimations. Like I said: they come from hatred. From a passive agressive sore-loser-mentality.

Gay and straight are now equal. Sexual orientation does not invalidate the sanctity of marriage. (Nor of matrimony, if the Presbyterian Church is to be believed! Good for them!)

This constant argumentation that somehow, "yes actually it does change the definition of marriage", is bovine excrement.

Even when some gay authors argue against the current definition of marriage, it is homophobic to imply that their position was the "gay agenda" all along.

[oberliner]

202. Speaking only for myself

That is definitely not where I am coming from at all.

[jwirr]

21. My objection to polygamy is not the marriage itself. But I want the welfare laws changed to

reflect some fairness in the system. Welfare today goes on the basis of household income. If the women do not hold paying jobs then every polygamous family could be collecting welfare. If I am not mistaken that the Texas case that now has papa in jail had families that were on welfare.

[Thinkingabout]

32. This would be my objection to polygamy is the male figure does not have the means to support

his family and in turn because of the inability the to care for the family without outside assistance. Actually, a man who works to take care of his family does not have proper time to interact and give proper attention to one wife not to mention other wives.

[LittleBlue]

55. There are plenty of those men now

Millions of children are fatherless. Despite that, the guy who fathered dozens of children, and who doesn't pay child support, can legally marry. And multiple divorcees who have left a trail of broken homes can marry as often as they wish.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/18/nation/la-na-nn-tennessee-man-has-30-kids-20120518


Here is monogamous society's awesome success at keeping a father in the lives of children:

[Thinkingabout]

62. There are several states with this problem, and you are right, kids living with single mothers are

suffering because Dad is out making more babies he cannot care for. It isn't the kids problem but adding more wives is not going to be good for the kids.

[jonno99]

147. "Dad is out making more babies he cannot care for". What is the dis-incentive for this?

We can enact tougher child-support laws - but that only works if the father is known.

What you are describing is a moral dilemma.

Though some would disagree...

[hobbit709]

22. Why limit it to that? What about polyandry?

[jonno99]

149. Does this qualify?

https://www.vpointnews.com/Article/4581/three-guys-married-each-other-in-thailand-and-broke-the-internet-there

[hunter]

26. Woohoo! Another right-wing media shit bomb incoming!

Aimed at both LGBT people and polyamorous people; for the right wingers it's a two-for-one deal.

Polyamorous marriages require the development of an entirely new legal framework. Is anyone working on that? How does one address the sordid historical realities of polygamy, where women and children are abused, and young males ("competition" for the older males) are cast out of the community without any support?

Marriage between two people doesn't have any wonderful history either; it wasn't so long ago (and still is in some places) that wives and children were treated as property of the husband to do with as they pleased, but progress is still being made, chipping away at the rougher edges and abuses of the historical marriage contract.

Gay marriage doesn't change any fundamentals of existing law beyond changing "a man and a woman" to "two consenting adults." Polyamorous marriages are more complicated than that.

Yet certainly, for now, any adults who successfully commit to polyamorous relationships, without abuse to any of the partners or their children, should not be harassed by the legal system. Let the partners work it out, and from their experiences we have a basis for creating laws protecting everyone in these families.

The right wing is flopping around to find new issues to divide reasonable communities as they lose traction with "gay marriage" and their precious Confederate flag. We don't have to play their game.

[oberliner]

95. The slate article is by a liberal gay woman

I'm not sure why it's not even worthy of a discussion

[Democat]

29. If conservatives believe in religious freedom, shouldn't they support this?

I thought the gays were going to take away their religious freedom.

Isn't having multiple wives part of religious freedom?

[Le Taz Hot]

35. I have been thinking a lot about this subject lately

and I think marriage equality should be complete and extend to two or more consenting adults being able to define what marriage is to them and be able to seal it legally. The legal profession can sort out the details later.

[lunatica]

42. polyamory

Last edited Sat Jul 4, 2015, 12:39 PM - Edit history (1)

Marriage with no limits on the number, gender, sexual orientation, race or adult age. With sex or not depending on each person's preference.

I've thought about this for many years after reading Heinlein when I was a teenager (I'm now 66 and still think it's a good idea). The 'family' would become truly strong in every way. Families would have members of all ages and many professions which would make it pretty self-reliant. It would be possible to have lawyers, doctors, homemakers, teachers, scientists, and other professionals as husbands and wives. Individuals would be able to pursue their personal interests because the 'family' would support every kind of avocation, even if it was to be adventurers away from home for months at a time. Children would belong to the 'family' as well as have their own parents. They would be extended families only the fundamental relationship would be marriage. Divorce would also be an individual preference, or if necessary the entire family's choice.

I can't think of a downside that is strong enough to stand up to the upsides.

[Le Taz Hot]

44. I specifically said consenting adults.

[lunatica]

45. I know. That's why I responded

Are you so ready to read criticism in every response to you? I was actually feeling enthusiastic about sharing something with someone who I agree with.

Sorry if that's how I came off. My intent was certainly the opposite.

[Le Taz Hot]

54. I didn't read criticism.

The first part of your post listed children and I wanted to make clear that I had specified "consenting adults." Nothing more than that.

[lunatica]

57. OK

Though I didn't talk about marrying children. I did however talk about consenting adults having children.

I think I wasted my time if that's all you see.

[Le Taz Hot]

63. This is what I responded to:

"Marriage with no limits on the number, gender, sexual orientation, race or age." The subject in that sentence was "marriage" and you advocated no limits on, gave a list of conditions and one of those conditions was age. I disagreed.

Here, just made a new pot of coffee and have a "breakfast roll" all ready to go. Have a seat a join me.

[lunatica]

66. Thanks for the coffee

I should change that. The age limitations I was writing about was old age. No limit on old age. It didn't occur to me to think that someone would read it differently. I shall right now go fix that. Thanks for letting me know!

[SheilaT]

84. Reread Heinlein.

I find most of his later works to be very creepy. There's more than a hint of pedophilia, especially in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

I honestly doubt that such a family would truly support everyone pursuing their personal interests, but would instead be even more controlling than many families are now. Just imagine a kid getting ready to go off to college and wants to major in anthropology, but is told she's going to become a lawyer instead, because the family needs another lawyer. Or another being told it's a lifetime as a plumber or electrician, because those skills are needed by the family.

And if every adult family member gets to weigh in on a possible divorce, then getting out of this marriage would be a true nightmare.

My current rules for marriage:
Two people at a time.
No one can be too young.
Keep it within the species.

[lunatica]

121. I actually found him creepy in Stranger in a Strange Land

The polyamory part was not something he elaborated on very much. It's just something I've thought about for 50 years. And like I said, there are down sides to it like in everything else. And there would be cultish marriages, but then there are now with just two people.

But to tell the truth I've been divorced for 20 years and quite happy. I don't plan to ever marry again. It's simply not for me and that's just my choice. When people are happily married for decades I celebrate that because that's good for them. So I don't really have any rules for marriage, though I hate polygamy where a man gets to own many women and children. To me women should be allowed to marry multiple men at the same time too, if that's their choice. Equality all the way down the line.

But I'm with you on the species point.

[malthaussen]

126. I didn't like Stranger as much as many of my generation.

I was not happy with the way Jubal Harshaw treated his roommates. "Front," indeed.

I just recently discovered that Charlie Manson named his first (putative) son Valentine Michael. Wonder what Bobby thought of that.

-- Mal

[Mosby]

153. I always thought Heinein was a bit of a perv

Just look at his Friday Baldwin character.

He definitely was a libertarian and overly militaristic based on his writings.

Farnhams Freehold was kinda racist and disgusting at the same time, it involved underage Sex and cannibalism.

[malthaussen]

159. Eh, I disagree on both counts.

He's been opted by Libertarians, because they share a few of his sentiments. But they would not agree with his very definite views on the value of service and self-sacrifice; this is one way in which he departs from the Randites as well.

He wasn't so much a militarist as a beliver in self-reliance, including the use of force where deemed necessary (so deemed by him). Obviously, he had some leanings in that direction, we're talking about an Annapolis graduate (and champion fencer) who had to leave the Navy just before WWII because of T.B. The idea that only those who have served their country in some capacity (not necessarily militarily) should vote is not without merit, although it is obviously not going to fly in any reasonably Progressive society.

Perversion? That's a social construct. Of course he was a pervert, he wanted to screw his own mother. Raging Oedipus complex is perversion by definition. But he would object (and so would I) if you equated "perversion" with "unnatural." He doubtless agreed with the poet Terence, who said "Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto," or "I am a human being, nothing human is foreign [or alien] to me."

-- Mal

[malthaussen]

123. He was certainly not being critical

Paedophelia is in the eyes of society. I know a number of my ancestors married women who were under what most states consider the age of consent today. But Heinlein was rather insouciant about age of sexual congress, it would appear he believed if one was pubescent, one was eligible. It is not clear, however, that Hazel Stone had sexual congress at age 12, she could have been opted but not touched (OTOH, she may already have been sexually experienced, depending on how her initial family treated her. Heinlein is silent on that, too). For some reason, he didn't go into that.

I think Heinlein makes a fool of himself in his later works, much as Dorothy Sayers did in her later ones. But I am a fan of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, I just ignore it's lacunae.

-- Mal

[malthaussen]

117. Another fan of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, I see.

In fairness, Luna did not have the kind of legal complexities that would follow in the wake of such a decision here. Sure, we can let the lawyers sort it out, but it would take a long time.

-- Mal

[lunatica]

125. Well the way I see it

There will be some very interesting legal complexities regarding clones in a few decades.

Like, who is the clone's legal parent or parents? Is the original legally a 'parent' to the clone? If the original's parents leave him an inheritance and he dies, does his clone get the inheritance? What if the original has children? Would they have to share the inheritance with their father's clone? What would be his legal standing with those children? Would he be their father? An uncle? A non- human? Would the clone be even considered a human? If not then what would he be?

The possibility of clogged courts looms.

Eventually a clone is going to go all the way to the Supreme Court to get equal rights.

[malthaussen]

128. You're an optimist, then?

You think society is going to muddle through long enough for this to be an issue?

Shades of Lois McMaster Bujold (and C.J. Cherryh).

-- Mal

[lunatica]

132. LOL!

I'm actually a pessimist! I do believe we're going to make it into the eventual Dystopia.

[malthaussen]

138. Damned if we do, damned if we don't

I'd love to live long enough to find out, provided I could be independently self-sufficient enough to survive. But I frankly think there are going to be some hard times ahead. Well, that should be obvious from my nickname.

-- Mal

[lunatica]

141. My nickname explains a lot about my 'human condition' too

To borrow from another book, life is a Catch 22. If you say you're crazy it's the first sign that you're sane. Like you said, we can't win.

[malthaussen]

148. Hey, kudos for properly using Catch-22.

So many people are sloppy about that.

-- Mal

[HassleCat]

39. Please stop this

There is no logical connection between same sex marriage and polygamous marriage, other than they both fall in the category of "things that bring up religious objections." Chief Justice Roberts is way off base when he points out the slippery slope, that we are systematically and incrementally getting rid of prohibitions against various types of marriage, first interracial marriage, and now same sex marriage. This is the logical fallacy of "reductio ad absurdum," or reduction to absurdity, claiming that it's impossible to draw a line in a logical sequence of events, so that the occurrence of one event leads certainly to the next event, and so on, until we get to an end where no more events are possible.

There may be arguments in favor of polygamy, although I don't think any of them are good arguments, certainly not compelling, but this issue stands on its own, and does not relate to same sex marriage. In spite of the fact they were both considered taboo, and both involve the institution of marriage, they are not the same. They are not even related enough that they hinge on the same arguments, unless you count religious arguments, which we ought not do. From a secular standpoint, society has no interest in approving or disapproving same sex marriage, because its impact on society is a wash, a net zero. On the other hand, society has a strong interest in preventing or regulating polygamy, since it is used to exploit women in the various cuts and sects scattered around the rural United States. In countries where polygamy is approved, it is heavily patriarchal, sometimes to the extent it constitutes virtual slavery, and heavily religious, two attributes that suggest it's incompatible with our views on human rights.

This whole "gay marriage leads to polygamous marriage" argument is fallacious, and is a propaganda tool of the right wing. If you want to post it here, I guess it's OK, but expect to have your motives questioned.

[TubbersUK]

53. Spot on - n/t

[oberliner]

96. It's worth considering

i don't see why it is such an objectionable idea that is not even worth talking about

[HassleCat]

105. OK

I'll assume you're interested in stimulating an intelligent discussion. And my response focuses on discussing the cracks in the arguments, treating them as serious arguments. Just keep in mind, you are doing so by passing along a popular right wing talking point, along with some deceptive logical fallacies and slippery slope arguments favored by the RW.

[oberliner]

108. Fair enough

Though Slate is usually considered at least center left (not far right wing certainly). The article piqued my interest - I thought it raised some reasonable points

[hunter]

157. Yep, playing on the right's home field, with the right's referees is a bad idea.

Justice Robert's team are weasels.

[riderinthestorm]

40. No. Just no. Until there's a legal framework for custody, visitation, inheritance,

pensions, social security, welfare and the rest. I have no idea how those issues can be resolved - especially with children, custody, visitation and welfare.

Women and children are failed badly in countries/regions where polygamy is practiced and legalized.

There's no legal framework as precedent (other than that which makes women property and subservient to their husbands).

Same sex marriage is a construct that already has a legal framework with demonstrable benefits to society. Polygamy does not.

This is a homophobic reaction to the recent court decision and I'm really disgusted seeing it hitched to that wagon.

[demmiblue]

43. +1

[oberliner]

115. Did you read either article?

they are definitely not homophobic - the latter was by a gay woman in a same sex marriage

[riderinthestorm]

119. Linking this at this time is homophobic.

I don't care who authored it.

It's RW garbage and has been used to smear the SSM campaign.

The legal issues aren't the same and arguing for it only diminishes the value of SSM.

You say you want a dialogue and then you're deliberately ignoring the real and tangible objections to polygamy. If you want a dialogue you have to have some kind of answer to the problems other DUers have laid out all throughout this thread.

[oberliner]

184. That is absolutely preposterous

I cannot believe that you could even make a claim like that.

As for the real and tangible objections to polygamy, I think they are fair and reasonable and I am glad to see some people posting them as I am learning more about the subject from knowledgeable people.

That's what I love about DU.

Being accused of being homophobic for linking to an article that presents a reasonable serious of arguments in support of polygamy is what I don't like about DU.

Take the good with the bad, I guess.

The interesting discussions are worth the occasional ridiculous knee-jerk insult or outrageous accusation.

[Starry Messenger]

41. Question--did this issue come up after Loving vs. Virginia?

Somehow I doubt it.

[former9thward]

52. Loving v. Virginia

was about one man and one woman. Why would it come up? Traditional marriage was not being challenged. Virginia was one of the last states to still have a law on the books forbidding inter-racial marriage.

[muriel_volestrangler]

56. 'Traditional marriage' has not been challenged by same-sex marriage either

Have you any idea how regressive you sound when you repeat a right-wing meme about same-sex marriage being a 'challenge' to opposite-sex marriage?

[former9thward]

59. I'll move pass your personal attack

and just point out Loving v. Virginia would not have brought up the issue of polygamy.

[muriel_volestrangler]

65. You're going to pretend you didn't make the remark about challenging traditional marriage?

Tell you what, if you edit that out, then I'll edit my post to get rid of what you see as a personal attack.

[former9thward]

67. Apparently you have not read the opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges

by Justice Kennedy. From his opinion: The history of marriage as a union between two persons of
the opposite sex marks the beginning of these cases. So yes, the definition of traditional marriage was challenged in the case whether you like it or not.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Don't bother editing because I sure won't.

[muriel_volestrangler]

71. You claimed traditional marriage was challenged by the same-sex marriage rulings

You did not talk about a definition of marriage.

What challenges are you saying traditional marriage faces now? How have the rulings affected people in opposite-sex marriages?

[former9thward]

74. You are playing word games.

Go play with someone else.

[muriel_volestrangler]

76. You shouldn't run away from your use of words

Nor should you pretend you said something else, and then say pointing that out is 'playing games'.

[Wella]

60. Living vs Virginia did not come up with a new legal theory of marriage as a civil right of a person

That's the difference.

For gay marriage to succeed, lawyers had to argue that marriage was not a social institution (which could be limited to one man and one woman) but, rather, a civil or fundamental right of every person. Once something is a civil right of a person, any limitations imposed by government become problematic and potentially discriminatory. If I have a civil right to marriage, I should not be prevented from exercising that right if my potential spouse is same sex. Under this new theory of marriage as a civil or fundamental right, the government is legally discriminating if it does not let me marry someone of my own sex.

The case of polygamy is a natural next step for this civil rights argument. If marriage is a civil right residing in a person, why should my right to marry be arbitrarily constrained by the state in terms of the number of spouses I may have? That restriction becomes discriminatory, especially if I can argue that polyamory is an inborn orientation and not a lifestyle choice.

I do believe the polygamy ship has sailed and that it's only a matter of time now. The legal theory has been put in place.

[muriel_volestrangler]

69. Loving v. Virginia did recognise marriage as a "basic civil right"

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/388/1

That's the right to marry one person, which others already have in US law. No-one has the right to marry multiple people at the same time.

[Starry Messenger]

72. Thanks, that's what I thought too.

The new ruling to expand marriage for same-sex couples does not change the definition of marriage, right? It recognized that you cannot discriminate on the basis of gender, I thought.

[muriel_volestrangler]

75. One can argue it does change a definition, by expanding it

and recognising that the previous definition was discriminatory. Since the definition is expanded, it doesn't affect existing marriages.

One thing I haven't seen yet is how states with 'civil union' laws will react to the Supreme Court ruling; will they say all civil unions are now marriages, or will they keep them as a category for people if they want - and just for existing couples in them, or for future couples too - and, if so, would heterosexual couples have them as an option too (as France, for instance, has, as well as same-sex marriage)?

[NuclearDem]

49. Trolltastic.

[demmiblue]

68. A ban-worthy comment, imo. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

151. Plus One

If you really believe as BKH70041 does what are you doing here?

[BainsBane]

47. Ridiculous and offensive

[oberliner]

97. Did you read either article?

i don't see what in them could be seen as offensive

[BainsBane]

124. Introducing this entire subject of polygamy following the ruing on marriage

equality is offensive. They are not comparable. Marriage equality doesn't opening the door to polygamy, marrying one's dog or bicycle.

[oberliner]

180. The Slate article just came out

I present it to DU because it was just published and I thought it was interesting.

Dogs and bicycles cannot legally give consent to marry, only humans can.

[TubbersUK]

50. Ridiculous n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

51. What Bain's Bain said...

One is born gay, one is not born a polygamist.

Arguing in favor of polygamy is akin to arguing that an adult man can marry his mom or adult sister.


It's also a right wing trope to associate marriage equality with an unpopular and frowned upon practice. As someone who has been to same sex weddings and knows several married gay couples I find the comparison patently offensive.

[oberliner]

109. The articles seemed to make reasonable points

if all parties involved are consenting adults I am not sure I see what is so offensive.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

120. If so Mary and Joe are adult brother and sister and want to marry...

If Mary and Joe are adult brother and sister and want to marry is there nothing offensive about them doing so?

[malthaussen]

131. Nope.

"Offensive" is a social construct. Mind you, it would be genetically unsound.

-- Mal

[DemocratSinceBirth]

135. Actually, no, horror stories of kids with eleven toes notwithstanding...

Mind you, it would be genetically unsound.

Actually, no, horror stories of kids with eleven toes notwithstanding...Positive characteristics are as likely to be transmitted as negative ones. If Rhonda Rousey married Floyd Mayweather and were brother and sister their offspring might very likely be a great prize fighter.


Offensive is indeed a social construct. That's why folks frown upon, errr, cannibalism.

[malthaussen]

137. Genetically unsound in that it increases chance of reinforcing negative traits.

Yeah, a trait is just as likely to be passed as any other reinforced, but we generally are concerned about the bad recessives more than we are willing to chance a good reinforcement. I wonder if genetic science will be able to affect this (should we last so long), it could be interesting.

-- Maql

[muriel_volestrangler]

139. No, inbreeding does increase negative characteristics more than positive ones

In a paper soon to appear in Nature, Peter K. Joshi and a cast of thousands show that inbreeding can make you shorter, ‘dumber’, and less likely to succeed in school, but not a blowhard. In a study of hundreds of thousands of people from dozens of populations from all over the globe, they found that height, educational attainment, g (‘general intelligence’, derived from various cognitive tests), and expiratory volume (the amount of air you expel while breathing) are all negatively correlated with the degree of inbreeding. An original aspect of their study is that they did not estimate inbreeding from pedigrees, but by directly examining large swathes of the genome for homozygosity, thus allowing the scope of their study to be considerably enlarged.

This is an interesting, but expected, result. It has long been known that matings between close relatives, in both plants and animals, can lead to reduced viability, reduced vigor, reduced fertility, and phenotypic abnormality: inbreeding depression. Though long known to breeders, the phenomenon was first quantitatively investigated by Darwin (who fretted over the possible effects on his children of his own consanguineous marriage– Emma was his first cousin); he studied the effects of inbreeding and outcrossing in a number of plants, many of which have adaptations that limit the extent of inbreeding and insure outcrossing. Inbreeding is also often said to have afflicted the royal families of Europe, who repeatedly married within a small group of families. A historically famous case often attributed to inbreeding, that of the ‘Habsburg jaw‘, however, is not due to inbreeding, as the allele causing prognathism is apparently dominant (see below on why this is relevant), although inbreeding may well have contributed to the family’s physical and mental decline.

The converse of inbreeding depression, hybrid vigor, has also long been known: the offspring of crosses between unrelated individuals or different strains of the same species often show increased vigor, increased viability, and increased fertility. Almost all of the corn grown on farms in the United States comes from seeds produced by crossing disparate varieties. So-called ‘hybrid corn’ has higher yield than the parental varieties (and also insures that the seed companies get paid every year, as the high-yielding variety cannot be regenerated by the farmer the next season by reserving some of his yield for seed). A similar phenomenon can occur in interspecies crosses, but offspring of such crosses, despite being large and vigorous, may well be sterile (e.g., mules, a cross between horses and donkeys), so such sterile crosses are said to show somatic luxuriance.

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/07/03/inbreeding-depression-in-man/

[DemocratSinceBirth]

142. Would it be okay if Joe and his sister submitted to sterilization before getting married?

eom

[muriel_volestrangler]

144. That, I don't know

I just wanted to link to a recent study of inbreeding, for accuracy's sake. You could use 2 brothers, or 2 sisters, as examples as well, when there'd be no question of biological offspring.

[oberliner]

188. How does their marriage impact you one way or another?

If they are both adults and they both freely consent, then what is the actual objection? Especially if they make the decision not to reproduce. Presumably there are currently such couples that do exist illegally.

[malthaussen]

163. Interesting link

I do wonder if genetic science is going to have an affect on that circumstance in the future. Could be interesting.

-- Mal

[demmiblue]

58. Countries that allow polygamy vs. Countries that allow marriage between same sex partners:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_polygamy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

There is a reason. Think about it... create a Venn diagram in your head. Also, think about the direction women's rights regarding their own healthcare, the agency over their own bodies, is taking in this country.

[AngryAmish]

79. Thw right to marry whom you choose is a right vested in every person

Banning a loving marriage due to the fact one finds Saudi Arabia icky is not a compelling governmental interest.

[pnwmom]

82. The right to marry THE PERSON you choose is the right vested in every person.

There is no legal reason to assume that people have the right to marry multiple spouses.

[jonno99]

152. The problem is that there is also no legal reason to prevent it. That you or I find it offensive is

not a sufficiently high legal hurdle...

[pnwmom]

158. Yes, there is. The law that exists is the hurdle. There COULD be another law passed in the future,

but it is very unlikely, IMO, we will pass one anytime soon.

In the meantime, the present law doesn't discriminate. It allows any single adult to choose another willing single adult, not already a close relation, to marry.

A man who is involved with several women can choose one of them to legally marry. Neither he nor they are being discriminated against.

[jonno99]

160. "The law that exists is the hurdle". What is to prevent the current law from being changed?

Like I said - not wanting the law to change is not a good enough reason...

[pnwmom]

164. Nothing. Like I said, I just don't expect that it will. And there's no legal basis

for judges' overturning the current law.

[jonno99]

165. See the problem is that some are going to challange the law. The question is:

On what basis will a judge uphold the current law?

Mere whim is an insufficient reason.

[pnwmom]

166. They will say that it it doesn't discriminate. Because it doesn't.

Any person, no matter what his or her race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion, can still choose another willing and unrelated adult partner to legally marry.

Whatever the person chooses to do with other people, not his legal spouse, is his business.

[jonno99]

167. I don't diagree with you, but methinks it is inevitable... nt

[oberliner]

98. Almost every Muslim majority country

would that be fair to say?

[merrily]

64. FWIW, Jon Stewart made a distinction based on members of the GLBT being born as they are born.

Some of us are born hetero and some of us are born gay. There is no rational reason for the law to give more rights to those born hetero.

He said people are not born polygamous. Then he went into a riff about realizing, at the age of 5 that he was different from other kinds somehow because all he wanted to do was make bedroom sharing schedules.

I'm just reporting. Don't kill the messenger.

My view is that the state should stick to matters like domestic abuse, spousal and child support, alimony, etc. and get our of the business of sanctioning or not sanctioning marriage per se. That is for the individuals involved and, if they choose, their religion. But, I was not going to take that position so long as people were being discriminated against over something over which they had no control. Now that marriage is equal, I don't especially care if the state continues to be involved in it or not.

[tblue37]

80. The main issues I see with polygamy have to do with community property and child

custody arrangements in the case of divorce. Also, what if *some* of the spouses want to divorce but some want to stay married?

Remember, the legal question is whether the state has a "compelling interest" when it decides to infringe on individual rights or liberties. I think a case could be made that the legal/contractual mess that divorce could cause, plus the chaos that child custody arrangements could develop into, might be seen as a compelling state interest.

OTOH, perhaps people who wanted to enter a polygamous union could draw up contracts, along the lines of prenups, to forestall such chaos.

Other big issues:

Humans have been polygamous more often than not, but often polygamy has worked more like the harems of alpha male apes than like anything we want to see in modern society.

I also hate the idea of creating a situation in which wealthy and powerful men can have multiple wives and thus fill the world with huge numbers of spoiled, parasitical offspring.

Just think of the proliferation of "royals" among the Saudis--and think also of the vicious dynastic battles that could result when the many children of many wives fight over control of huge, powerful financial empires.

The Koch brothers had a dynastic fight, and one got pushed out. Can you imagine if there had been a dozen brothers, from several different mothers?

Shudder

I think the government does have a compelling interest in preventing such things--and so do the ordinary people in this society.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

88. It's not for me but it's fine with me

I'm for the expansion of freedoms as long as it involves consensual relationships between adults where the woman can seek a divorce any time she wants.

[oberliner]

99. Well said

i don't understand the angry reaction by some to even considering the idea

[malthaussen]

134. Because it is used as a dog-whistle

You've no doubt observed that many of the objections in this thread come from people arguing not the substance, but the introduction of a subject which is used as a right-wing/fundamentalist objection to gay marriage.

Some very good substantive posts in this thread, though. Concentrate on them.

-- Mal

[oberliner]

182. Yes indeed

But I think it is worth looking past that and examining the actual case for it and discussing the topic on its merits, which, as you point out, many posters here have done, and I do appreciate that.

[smirkymonkey]

91. This is just a bullshit post by someone who has a problem

with marriage equality. Peddle your hate elsewhere.

[oberliner]

92. That's BS

The articles are interesting. Certainly worth a discussion at least.

[romanic]

175. Were tired of discussions.

Go blow hot air somewhere else, don't muddle gay marriage with it.

[oberliner]

186. Not everyone is

In fact, some folks have raised some great points in response. I think the Slate article in particular makes a reasonable case to consider, but I also agree that there are some problems to consider. I don't see how talking about it is somehow troublesome.

[Blue_Adept]

101. For the science fiction readers...

It's something that has been tackled many times over the decades, though often not referred to as polygamy.

Anyone remember some of the better examples of how it worked in a positive way? I've not done any heavy reading in a few years and can't recall off the top of my head.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

114. Heinlein had the 'line marriages', I think it was.

Basically corporations that one 'bought into', with shared parenting duties, and as children came of age, they received payouts to help them get started in life. Sort of the old 'it takes a village'.

[Warren Stupidity]

103. lost boys, child marriages, women considered property, what's not to like?

polygynous societies are generally fucked up. Young men are chased out of the community. The old male 'leaders' control all the women and marry them off to each other, typically at a very young age. The women, in turn, are indoctrinated into submission and subordination, and are generally considered the property of the men of the community.

A liberal society has no interest in licensing these sorts of arrangements.

[oberliner]

107. Did you read either article?

those issues are addressed / especially in the slate article

[Warren Stupidity]

110. no. the whole idea is insulting and bullshit.

You want to live in a fucked up fundy-mormon community, go right ahead. Don't ask the state to license your misogynist bullshit.

[oberliner]

113. Most people in polygamist marriages are Muslim not Mormon

i would encourage you to at least read the slate article - it's pretty short

[riderinthestorm]

118. Muslim women are considered legally secondary to their husband

in cases of divorce, the children never get to remain with the mother for any custody, the law stipulates that.

Wives have no say over the man marrying more wives.

Those societies are purposeful patriarchal societies with fucked up values when it comes to women and marriage.

You seem utterly uninterested in having a "conversation". You're ignoring tangible objections raised up thread and simply derogating on those who disagree with you're OP.

If you're really interested in a dialogue, then put up some answers to patriarchal issues, the legalities of child custody, divorce, inheritance, welfare etc.

[oberliner]

185. Often the case in "traditional" Christian marriages as well (and Jewish ones!)

The ones that involve just one man and one woman.

In fact for hundreds of years that is how it has been here in the United States.

I am interested in the conversation. I've given a lot of thoughts to the points that people have raised.

I don't know enough to rebut those points effectively, accept to say that traditional marriage has a lot of patriarchal issues as well certainly

The legal issues, I assume that in societies where this is legal, they figured out a way to make it work.

[pscot]

122. No. It's not.

[Jamastiene]

133. I am still waiting for one of those broken record types to point out

where in the Bible it says marriage is between "one man and one woman." Most marriages in the Bible involve lots of wives and concubines. I wonder how many of these women in monogamous marriages saying they only believe in Biblical marriage would react when their husbands start bringing home some "sister wives" and concubines on the side. Jerry Springer's show wouldn't have anything on the reality show they could make from that. It would be pure comedic gold.

On edit: If consenting adults want a polygamous marriage, I don't see why not. That's their life. Doesn't affect me. I just have a beef with the anti-gay marriage people who talk about biblical marriage being between one man and one woman. That's not common in the bible at all, actually. So, whatever slippery slope they imagine is already written in the book they use to beat gay people over the head with. They don't have a biblical leg to stand on in the case of allowing polygamous marriages.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

156. The polygamist relationships in the Bible never appear harmonious or happy for anyone.

Not one. It was Paul who specifically stated each man should be the husband of only one wife. Marriage had no resolute definition but, again, the relationships with multiple partners invariably appear to be full of conflict.

It's almost as if God wants us to act like responsible adults rather than hormone-drunk imbeciles.

[oberliner]

187. Nor did many of the monogamist ones

In fact, women in the Bible had to deal with a lot of seriously unpleasant behavior to put it mildly.

[DiverDave]

140. Seriously?

Um, NO.

[malthaussen]

145. One objection Heinlein can be said to have dealt with...

... if only by implication. Setting aside, for the nonce, other difficulties with the line marriage concept, it seems to me that the marriage is considered prior to the individuals, meaning that any children born would remain with the family and not any member who opted out. The children are considered to be children of all the members, and the actual blood relation is not relevant. I really do wish he had expanded on this idea, instead of wandering off into cloud-cuckoo-land with fantasies of screwing his own mother and changing history. (And changing Future History). How members who opted out would be financially compensated is an interesting question.

It seems pretty clear to me that Heinlein had some pretty radical ideas about blood relations and family.

-- Mal

[DonCoquixote]

154. and perfect timing

as people, many of whom are conservative old testament creeps who use Mormonism as an excuse for their behavior, will leap onto this like a bunch of fleas.

Marriage is about people deciding to pool resources, but when you add more people to the mix, it frays. It makes it easier for abuse to be hidden, because there are more people involved. Even in societies that do allow polygamy, such as Islamic ones, there are very strict rules to be followed which, as Osama Ben Ladin illustrated, become roadkill when wealth is involved. What do I mean? Islam allows for only four wives, and the rights of each wife are lain out very exactly. However, Osama's Dad was a billionaire that paled around with the likes of the Bush family. He had four official wive and nine concubines. Guess who was born to the 13th concubine? Guess who was treated like shit by his brothers and sisters and was sent off to boarding school, where his teachers noted "Sammy" was a very very sad little boy, despite the fact his father kept shoveling money at him, more money than most could dream of, since the Ben Ladins were wealthy even by Saudi standards. He, like many people who were born of abusive families, ended up prey the religious fundamentalists, that offer people the family they really wanted. The rest is history.

I use him not to dig up 9-11, because even if that never happened, Osama would illustrate that polygamy, even if you have the sort of wealth that make the brightest imaginations seem dim, is fraught with peril. It is hard enough for any two people to raise a child, and to make children work with each other instead of hating each other. The last thing we need is to complicate that.

[Warpy]

155. It was banned originally because it was open to so much abuse

Wives weren't sister wives sharing a home, a man would just keep adding younger women while abandoning the older ones and their children to fend for themselves.

This is no different than the serial polygamy (and polyandry) practiced by some people via divorce, marrying a whole string of spouses, the men especially guilty of abandoning their children along the way because they can't please new arm candy while supporting old brats.

The form practiced by the Browns and other reasonable polygamous families is fairly benign. I've talked with women in polyg marriages and they tell me that the built in support system of other women to watch the kids and help with the work is an advantage, especially when they're doing things like completing their education or starting careers. And yes, they do such things, they're not chained to the stove and constantly pregnant in many marriages.

Offhand, I'm all for allowing consenting adults to do what they want, but serial polygamy is abusive whether they're Mormons or CEOs with trophy babes or gold digging women.

[malthaussen]

161. Yeah, I often find it odd...

... that people are fine with monogamy seriatum, but hate the idea of polyamorous relations. The problem is, and will remain, that polygamy has been so abused as an institution where it has been permitted, that it is anathema to people of more-or-less good will.

That allowing more forms of marriage would cause vast adjustments to be made legally is not to be questioned, either, the only question for society is whether the benefit of the adjustment would be worth the work.

-- Mal

[NaturalHigh]

169. It's fine with me.

[frogmarch]

172. Polygamous families: Who pays their bills?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-foots-bill-for-polygamist-communities/

snip:

A significant part of the answer, according to Early Show national correspondent Hattie Kauffman is -- taxpayers, in the form of welfare.

Kauffman and Laurie Allen, who escaped from polygamy, drove around one such community, in Colorado City, Ariz., and saw many mammoth homes built to accommodate multiple wives and children.

How the man of the house can afford to build such super-sized dwellings! The answer: He can't. He doesn't pay for them, you do.

As Allen explained to Kauffman, "What happens is a man marries one wife, she's his legal wife, then he marries ten other wives in the church, and all the other wives are, by law, single women, so they have all these children with him, and they all get welfare."

The more kids, the bigger the welfare check, Kauffman points out.

"Some of the women in this town have 26 babies," Allen told her.

[rickford66]

174. Why would the religious right object to what's really in the Bible?

[cheapdate]

176. Same-sex marriage is not a "slippery slope" to polygamy or inter-species marriage.

Civil marriage is a contract and a legal status recognized by the state. It allows two, non-related, consenting adults to be recognized as family and next of kin. It has consequences in family law, estate law, contract law, etc.

The same arguments that demanded that adult, same-sex couples be given the same treatment by the state do not demand the state to recognize, or even allow, polygamous marriage.

Polygamous marriage isn't "a thing". No one is being discriminated against. It just isn't allowed. For anyone.

[lancer78]

178. No it is not.

There is a rational basis to ban polygamy. There was no rational basis to ban SSM.

Rational basis to ban polygamy is that polygamy destroys genetic diversity, and that young men unable to find partners cause societal harm.

[oberliner]

179. Did you read either article?

They present some rational reasons why polygamy ought not to be banned. It i already practiced here in the US illegally by tens of thousands of people and it is legal throughout the Muslim world.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

181. I thought about the issue some more...

I thought about the issue some more...

I don't give a rat's ass if someone wants to marry their toaster and even if he or she wants to consummate the union with it.

As to polygamy don't expect me to stand behind you or in front of you. Just don't piggyback on the fight for marriage equality.

[oberliner]

190. In terms of piggybacking

The one thing I would say is that the fight for marriage equality has caused people to question the idea that "traditional marriage" is somehow the right kind or better kind of marriage. I think that it is a good idea to reflect on the fact that traditional marriage isn't necessarily all that it's cracked up to be.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

191. Marriage in the ideal is the vehicle for two people to devote themselves to each other fully.

If a man marries twenty women he can't devote himself to each of them fully and that's why polygamy invalidates the ideal of marriage.

But if someone wants to marry twenty people I won't stand in his or her way but they shouldn't expect me to stand behind them either. I will choose my fights.

[oberliner]

192. What about three people who want to devote themselves to one another fully?

I get your point about twenty, but how about just three?

I would also point out that marriage often does not exist in the ideal and there are many many "traditional" marriages where the two people hardly devote themselves to each other fully - and are married for other more practical reasons or worse.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

193. The affection and attention has still been divided, albeit by less...It also causes a host ...

The affection and attention has still been divided, albeit by less...It also causes a host of custody and division of assets problems.

But, if the poly people can figure it all out and want to have their arrangements recognized they should pursue it... I will be neither an ally or an enemy...I just don't care enough...

But I would ask them not to piggyback on marriage equality.

[oberliner]

195. Fair enough

I just hate how RW-ers go around saying "they will try to legalize polygamy next" as if polygamy is something too awful to be contemplated. I don't like how some are falling into that trap of letting the right wingers define what is ok and what isn't.

[Warren Stupidity]

197. That isn't the issue. The issue is one of equal rights.

Your argument continues to frame "marriage" as a religious ritual in which a "tradition" is important. What marriage is in a secular society is a contract between two people that grants certain mutual rights and obligations and entitlements. The issue of marriage equality only affected "traditional" marriage outside the realm of the secular contract. Expanding marriage contracts to more than two people is not an issue of equal rights, it is an expansion of marriage contracts to more than two people. Make the case that this expansion is in society's best interest. Given the available data on polygynous societies, it is clearly not in society's interest to do so.

[Blue_Tires]

200. Hell with that...

I can't find *ONE* decent woman to marry me, and now folks are proposing to take even more women out of the dating pool??

[Oilwellian]

201. It will never happen

It's a system that would be extremely costly to society, in many different ways. I don't think there's any possibility our government would legalize such a lifestyle that most modern societies abandoned long, long ago.

I don't believe the recent SCOTUS decision in any way opened the door for polygamy.