polygamy is completely legal...

[luvspeas]

Any group of people who want to go to an attorney and set up legal parameters for a group arrangement that includes sharing of resources and benefits, power of medical attorney, distribution of assets after death, titles and property ownership, divorce etc that all parties agree to are completely free to do so if they wish.

These have been serious issues for same sex couples who have had to deal with problems related to sharing assets, visiting partners in hospitals, next of kin decisions on death.

Our system is set up to accommodate these legal matters and it does not matter what the couple's genders are.

If you want to marry more than one person, try to apply these laws to 3,4,or however many people and you will quickly see how complicated it would be.

I'm not for or against plural relationships. I am just saying that the definition of a legal marriage in the US simply does not apply to more than 2 human people. sorry.

[TM99]

1. Polygamy is illegal.

What you describe is not marriage. It would not cover pensions or social security benefits. Neither would it cover issues concerning children.

Is it complicated to do what is being talked about? Sure, but fuck our tax codes are complicated and somehow as a society we make it through April 15th every year.

You are correct in one thing. Legal marriage in the US only applies to 2 human beings.

[luvspeas]

2. As it stands now legal marriage can ONLY apply to two human beings...

To say fuck it does not make it doable. It's not. It would also be difficult to change our traffic laws to allow people to build houses or plant trees in the middle of the street. I'm sure there are some people that would like to do that but it doesn't make any sense.

[TM99]

3. That is true.

And legal marriage until a few weeks ago was only for two straight human beings in this culture. And 50 years ago, it was only legal for two straight white human beings in this culture. I saw it during the entirety of my black father and white mother's marriage how bigotry, racism, and non-acceptance of others even when things have become legal still exist.

Stop insulting people's intelligence with such arguments as changing traffic laws to allow people to build house in the middle of the street. Do you honestly think what is being discussed is that frivolous?

[Bluenorthwest]

4. You object to every point made to you by saying it is irrelevant or insulting to the intelligence

and that's ineffective. To get what you say you want, you have to be able to speak to those objections and overcome them, you can't just say 'that does not matter'. I mean you can, but you will get nowhere.

[TM99]

5. Did you speak rationally to objectors of

gay marriage who were concerned about the slippery slope of marrying pets and toasters?

[pnwmom]

17. It isn't that the issue of polygamy is frivolous. It's that the laws that don't include

it under the 2-person definition of marriage are based on rational reasons -- not discrimination based on race or gender.

Laws that limit our freedoms can be justified, even when the freedoms aren't trivial. The issue is the rational basis for the laws.

[TM99]

18. But they did.

That is what is so shocking to read here.

Yes, it was illegal for a black and a white to marry until 1973! My parents were married in 1963 technically illegally.

Two women or two men could not legally marry until a few weeks ago. Sure, they could in some states as it changed or do so spiritually. But full legal protection at a federal level? No, not until June of 2015.

Things change. The argument that they can't is never the one on the winning side of history.

[pnwmom]

21. And those laws changed because there was no rational basis for denying marriage

to people of different races or the same gender.

In the presentations about SSM before the courts, many strong studies showed no damage to children raised by same-sex parents; and there were none that showed the opposite.

OTOH, many studies have showed damage to women and children in polygamous societies -- which provides a rational basis for restricting legal recognition and benefits to 2-person marriages.

[TM99]

22. Study the polyamorous relationships

here and in Europe.

Studying an illegal religious cult does not show the truth. Studying a repressive theocratic & authoritarian culture that might have polygamy in one form as its marriage rite but is also devoid of civil rights and free speech also does not show the truth.

I am done defending reality against bigotry and misunderstanding.

[Mojorabbit]

30. What would those rational reasons be?

It might be traditional but that does not make it rational.

[pnwmom]

33. Polygamy is a traditional form of marriage with a long history

and is still commonly practiced in countries around the world. Its effects on women and children have been demonstrated to be harmful, and more egalitarian societies have moved beyond it.

[Mojorabbit]

42. You are speaking of religious cults or repressive societies

which is not what is being discussed. Religious cults like those in the news can only operate in the shadows.

[pnwmom]

46. Please show me studies or examples of successful polygamous societies that are not

based on religion and are not repressive.

And are not a pipe dream.

[Mojorabbit]

51. I personally know people in healthy poly relationships

that are long term. I can see it work in real time by keeping in touch with friends. They don't make the news.

[pnwmom]

52. Anecdotal evidence doesn't provide a rational basis for making law. nt

[MattBaggins]

57. As a nurse, which wife do I have sign the MOLST?

Who do I listen too, when 5 different wives demand 10 different treatments for a loved one?

IF you support polygamy, could you do all of the US a favor and rewrite Probate law for us please?

[TM99]

59. The one empowered by the family unit to make the decision.

A polygamous marriage of 4 husbands and 1 wife will have arrangements made to have one person be the spokesperson in such situations.

Because lord knows when a family member is ill and there are children, ex-wives, and siblings all in the mix, it doesn't get complicated now with medical treatments? Ultimately the one with legal power decides. And that is not always the spouse.

A marriage of more than two could easily work out a similar arrangement.

You act like nothing reasonable is possible in such situations. Or that major changes to our contract laws or legal system have never ever been made.

Really all your post is is just a flimsy rationalization for your bigotry and lack of understanding.

[lame54]

6. and taxes?

[luvspeas]

7. OK, so how do you suggest we (the people) apply these laws to 3 or more people?

Let's just say 3 people of any gender want to get married. And the government now allows that. How would you address the following:

Who has ownership of common assets and to what percentage per person?
If one spouse is hospitalized who is next of kin?
Who is next of kin if all people are incapacitated?
Taxes?
Who gets the assets if one spouse dies? To what degree?
How and to whom does one divorce? What if 2 people want to divorce 1? What if 3 people want to divorce 2?
Who has custody of children and who are the parents?
What about step children and second or third marriages?
What about people who marry and do not disclose to a spouse another spouse?
What if one spouse has a pension and marries someone after retirement then dies? Would the pension be split equally?
How many spouses should businesses be required to offer health insurance to? How about health insurance for the kids?

Everything increases exponentially in complexity. It's not what anyone intended with the legal arrangement of marriage in the US.

And on and on and on. I won't even begin to touch people wanting to marry something other than a human being. That's just STUPID because it's pretty damn obvious that our legal system and our marriage laws are set up for humans.

And FYI-marriage between people of different genders and ethnicities has always been legal. That's what our supreme court decides. Our government created and enforced illegal laws. So with that, why don't you give me a cogent argument that multiple partner marriage is legal and that our government has created and is enforcing illegal laws.

[ladyVet]

8. Okay, I'll give this a whirl.

Let's just say 3 people of any gender want to get married. And the government now allows that. How would you address the following:

Who has ownership of common assets and to what percentage per person?

It would be the same as with two people: depending upon state law. I would think that with three people, each owning one third is fair.

If one spouse is hospitalized who is next of kin?

Who is next now? The husband or wife (or the other man/woman, in a same sex marriage). I don't think it would be hard for the people in question to draw up a legal document declaring that one of the remaining spouses would have control of these issues, or even that the two would split some duties.

Who is next of kin if all people are incapacitated?

Who is next now? Any children who are of age, or whatever person the individuals have named as guardians or executors. My ex and I had wills naming each other, and a guardian, in case something happened to one or both of us. It's pretty simple, really, and adding a third person wouldn't have been that hard or confusing.

Taxes?

Head of household, with the largest wage earner filing, as it is now?

Who gets the assets if one spouse dies? To what degree?

This is what wills are for. If no will, then the assets are divided between the surviving spouses and any children.

How and to whom does one divorce? What if 2 people want to divorce 1? What if 3 people want to divorce 2?

Well, this could get complicated, but I don't see why the three couldn't go into court, show that one wants to leave and that's that, just as if it were a couple. Or the two women want to divorce the man, or two men want to divorce a third, or whatever.

Who has custody of children and who are the parents?

I'd like to see it go back to lineage is determined through the mother, with her having full custody. The parents would be whoever was the biological donors (unless sperm donor used, and then they'd probably have to have a legal document drawn up accepting the paternity).

What about step children and second or third marriages?

Hell, that's tricky now. There's no reason a legal document couldn't be drawn up to all parties's satisfaction, so long as there is cooperation with the children's biological/legal mother or father.

What about people who marry and do not disclose to a spouse another spouse?

I would think that would be the same as bigamy, as for a polygamist marriage you'd still need consent of all parties.

What if one spouse has a pension and marries someone after retirement then dies? Would the pension be split equally?

If both spouses are legally married to the one with the pension, then yes, unless a will was made or a legal agreement was signed otherwise.

How many spouses should businesses be required to offer health insurance to? How about health insurance for the kids?

All of them? Honestly, I foresee a future where businesses do not offer health insurance, with people being under a single-payer system like the rest of the civilized world.

Everything increases exponentially in complexity. It's not what anyone intended with the legal arrangement of marriage in the US.

Yeah, it could get terribly complicated, but society can grow and adapt, and laws can be changed. Not saying it would be easy, or that things could get mixed up at times, but I'm a believer in the eventual common sense of humanity.

And on and on and on. I won't even begin to touch people wanting to marry something other than a human being. That's just STUPID because it's pretty damn obvious that our legal system and our marriage laws are set up for humans.

Yeah, I'm not touching that either. You can't form a legal contract with any person or thing unable to give consent. Hence, no marrying a dog, or a 14-year-old.

And FYI-marriage between people of different genders and ethnicities has always been legal. That's what our supreme court decides. Our government created and enforced illegal laws. So with that, why don't you give me a cogent argument that multiple partner marriage is legal and that our government has created and is enforcing illegal laws.

Actually, it has not always been legal to marry someone of a different gender or ethnicity. In fact blacks and whites couldn't legally marry until 1973. Whites and Asians or whites and Native Americans couldn't legally marry, either.

I don't argue that multiple partner marriage is legal. It is not. I do think it could be worked into current laws with a little thought and effort. Marriage to the government is simply a legal contract, after all. Get some lawyers and advocates working on it, and you'd have a plan pretty soon.

[luvspeas]

10. thanks for proving all my points...

Most of your fantastical answers rely on the courts or other legal arrangements to figure it out. There's no need to make such a complex speculation into a bunch of needless laws.

[TM99]

14. His answers were quite logical and did

not require that much effort to respond to. Most were merely extensions of laws already on the books. Instead of two, three individuals were being dealt with.

There are needless laws still on the books from decades ago. We have needless tax laws. An argument based solely on 'it would be difficult' and 'it might create needless laws' is not good enough when discussing marriage rights. We have just seen that with regards to gay marriage.

[luvspeas]

32. you make it sound so easy-just make more laws and intrude into people's lives more

simplistic logic does not always apply.

[TM99]

39. Have you got more insults?

I mean come on. Spit it out and be done with it.

Laws change all the fucking time. The basis for them is culture. And cultures change. You have had rational replies to your post but choose to ignore them. You have been informed of the facts that marriage laws have changed dramatically not once but twice already in my lifetime.

You are just playing a bigoted game now. I am done with you.

[luvspeas]

43. bye...I don't agree with you. Deal with it.

what fact are you referring to? the fact that marriage laws never changed. The supreme court deemed that the law was being misapplied and certain people were being illegally denied their right to marry.

Tell me one law that changed.

[TM99]

48. Marriage laws did in fact change.

Racial intermarriage has been legal only since 1967. I am sorry I incorrectly stated 1973. Gay marriage is only now legal since June 2015.

Read Obergefell v. Hodges. Get back to me when you are able to understand what has changed legally.

Thanks.

[luvspeas]

49. the supreme court can't make law it can only overturn laws

FACT

[TM99]

53. Fact.

By affirming that marriage is a constitutional right, laws on the books which have stated that only one straight man and one straight woman can marry have now been forced to be changed.

[luvspeas]

54. marriage is not a costitutional right...give it up already

You really need to let it go. You just keep contradicting yourself.

[TM99]

55. You are incredibly wrong.

The court ruled that the denial of marriage licenses and recognition to same-sex couples violates the Due Process and the Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

If it violates the 14th Amendment then yes, it is a constitutionally protected right.

[luvspeas]

56. nope im right. you cant even read your own post.

[pnwmom]

19. If multiple-person marriages were allowed, what would be the upper limit?

5? 10? 100? What would the justification for the upper limit be?

Could one working person get spousal social security benefits for an unlimited number of stay-at-home spouses?

Would any group of adults be allowed to marry? All the members of a frat, for example? Or all the members of a bowling team?

[MattBaggins]

58. It can not be worked into existing law with little thought ot effort

You are talking about massive overhauls of legal doctrine and laws.

How many of you answers involved drawing up legal documents? Now codify those documents or figure out how all 50 states will accept them.

[Humanist_Activist]

9. There are anti-brothel laws and other outdated(yet still enforced) regulations that make...

cohabitation difficult, even for monogamous straight couples who are unmarried.

Example from my area that was from the last decade:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-05-15-unmarried-family_x.htm

[luvspeas]

11. ok stretch armstrong n/t

[Humanist_Activist]

12. Not sure where the stretch is, just pointing out a possible legal obstacle to polyamorous...

relationships being allowed to exist at all. Something that legal marriage recognition could resolve.

ON EDIT: The fact is that such laws extend to all sorts of living arrangements from unmarried couples to platonic roommates. Not saying its targeted against poly relationships, obviously its not, but the side effects are discriminatory to all sorts of family types and living arrangements.

[luvspeas]

13. sooo. I assume you are saying legal multiple person marriage wouldn't change your issue

That's why it's a stretch

[Tatiana La Belle]

15. By that logic, gay marriage has been legal all along too

And that's just nuts!

[Skittles]

16. getting my x-ray glasses out

oh wait, I don't need them, do I?

[luvspeas]

29. it has been legal...the supreme court just said so...

the law was being illegally applied.

[Tatiana La Belle]

31. Ok. I can see you're not serious.

Peace.

[luvspeas]

34. and I can see that you are misinformed.

[PowerToThePeople]

20. "the definition of a legal marriage in the US simply does not apply to more than 2 human people."

That is the whole point of the discussion imo. Current laws are overly narrowly bound, i.e. conservative. I thought we fought against social conservatism here?

[TM99]

23. DU and the Democratic party

are no longer truly left, liberal, or progressive.

That sad reality has punched me in the face the last few days. Fuck it.

[PowerToThePeople]

24. To be honest

It is only a small group here (on DU) who are conservative. They are just loud. The same group of people support NSA, bank bailouts, TPP, MIC and preemptive wars, and other Bush policies as long as a "Democratic" POTUS does them.

I get upset about it too.

[TM99]

25. Well, they are fucking loud

and it disgusts me. I am done with it and them.

[PowerToThePeople]

27. I used to have many of them on ignore

But I figured, "why let them spew right wing things here without a callout?" So I cleared my ignore list. It sucks and sometimes I have to step away and take a break from this place when it gets to be too much. After some time I can come back and start fighting right wingers again on DU.

[TM99]

40. I have spent the last hour adding

a lot of asshats to my Ignore list. If I don't do so right now, in my hurt and anger, I will get myself juried for telling numerous bigoted narcissists to fuck off!

[PowerToThePeople]

44. I understand =)

Stay safe out there, conservadems don't like real progressives at all.

[Mojorabbit]

36. me to

I am amazed at the comments I am reading

[luvspeas]

26. you want MORE laws and MORE government oversight-who's the conservative here?

not me.

[PowerToThePeople]

28. Modifying current forms of laws does not necessitate "more laws."

[luvspeas]

35. modifying a law IS making a new law JEEZ!

[PowerToThePeople]

37. While removing the old one. JEEZ!

[luvspeas]

38. how exactly would one do that? You just like to argue.

You like to argue more than you like to think things through.

[PowerToThePeople]

41. modifying

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/modify

[luvspeas]

45. the dictionary definition has nothing to do with it...

take for example social security benefits. The legislation regarding a 2 person marriage would still stand. It would have to. Then whatever craziness you make up in your fevered mind that you think is logical would become the "new law". You would have to have both because different laws would apply based on the number of people in the relationship.

[PowerToThePeople]

47. Not necessarily.

You could modify or replace the current 2 person spousal laws with general laws not attached to a numerical spousal number. It is part of the natural order of things for this to occur. Second law of thermo-dynamics and stuff.

[luvspeas]

50. whatever you say