Suprised that so many DUers don't understand the concept of Marriage Equality

[WestCoastLib]

I'm not here to discuss the merits of Polygamist relationships.

The fact is that legalizing Polygamist Marriage is simply not even the right argument based on anything that happened with Gay Marriage and anybody trying to equate the two is not only parroting the right-wing talking points of equalizing Polyamory and Homosexuality as "lifestyle choices", but is also failing to fundamentally understand the basis of these supreme court rulings in the first place.

Homosexuals weren't "legalized" by these rulings, so perhaps it's the terminology being used in headlines that is confusing some people. The supreme court didn't "legalize" Gay Marriage. That would suggest that they were illegally marrying somewhere and thereby breaking a law that they could be punished for. Marijuana has been legalized in some states. Marriage Equality didn't legalize anything.

The Supreme court (rightfully) ruled that these rights already existed and, as an already recognized protected minority group, these rights could not be denied.

Are polygamists an already recognized and protected minority group? Nope. Sorry. This argument doesn't apply to this group then. If you want to fight this battle, that's where you need to start. Not with marriage, but with getting the group protected minority status.

After that status is gained, this group must prove that they don't currently have the same rights as others to marry (as currently they still aren't preventing from marrying a single person, the same as anyone else). In order to do so there will then be further battles needed to be fought over the changes to the actual definition of marriage being between only 2 persons and the legal, financial, parental rights, and taxation implications of such. But really that's an argument that needs to come much further down the line after this group has obtained protected status.

This doesn't need to be about any one group "looking down" on polyamory. The fact is that plural marriage is a non-sequitur to Gay Marriage.

Move on.

[MineralMan]

1. The two issues are not related. You are right.

They're far from being the same thing or even close. Nobody is born a polygamist.

[PoliticAverse]

2. Nobody is born married. Some people appear to be born polyamorist. n/t

[MineralMan]

3. Show me some evidence that being polygamous is

an inborn trait. Give me some links to real, professional, unbiased studies that show that.

I don't think you can do that. I will visit any links you provide, unless they are simply stuff from some advocacy group. Those I will disregard as biased.

[cwydro]

32. Thank you.

We don't always agree, but we do on this MM.

[MineralMan]

4. Pairing up is universal, and always has been.

And there it is.

[eggplant]

63. That's quite a generalization.

On what do you base your assertion?

Are you suggesting that poly people are somehow going against nature?

[MineralMan]

92. It is, isn't it? And yet

Look around, and you'll see bonded pairs of humans everywhere. It's in our genes. It's what we do. The evidence is as clear as opening you eyes to observe.

[uppityperson]

72. Show me some evidence that being monogamous is an inborn trait.

Give me some links to real, professional, unbiased studies that show that.

I don't think you can do that. I will visit any links you provide, unless they are simply stuff from some advocacy group. Those I will disregard as biased.

I know I copy/pasted what you wrote, but I am serious. I'd like to see some evidence of such, real, professional, unbiased studies. Thanks.

[WestCoastLib]

7. Still just making a non-relevent argument.

If that's your belief, take it to the supreme court for protected status for the polyamorous.

[SoapBox]

20. That's just got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

I've avoided such threads...but now I see what the heck has been going on.

Sheesh...really?

Thanks to all good DUer's that have been standing up to the polygamy nonsense.

[PoliticAverse]

21. Which part do you disagree with? The "nobody is born married" part or the idea

that some people are naturally polyamorist?

[geek tragedy]

30. the decision to commit to one other person, or to not commit, is a choice.

No one is born into monogamous marriage, and no one is born with it excluded as an option.

Monogamous marriage is a choice/behavior the government encourages.

[uppityperson]

73. "Monogamous marriage is a choice/behavior the government encourages."

That is true, it does. Good to see a statement that does not say it is a choice, or natural/unnatural, but instead what the gvt supports.

[geek tragedy]

75. yes, it's a matter of policy, not natural law.

the policy decision is that monogamous marriage is an institution that benefits society, whereas polygamous marriage doesn't

[pnwmom]

84. Most people can probably love multiple people. And yet they can and do choose a single person to marry.

The issue is whether government should change the definition of legal marriage, with its attendant benefits and responsibilities, to encompass more than 2 persons. And many would argue that there is a rational basis for not doing so.

[n2doc]

5. Crap stirrers

Frankly, the sudden appearance of many threads on Poly... with completely self-self-rightous arguments just stinks of trolls to me.

[Le Taz Hot]

8. uh, Yup!

It seems like it's always the same group of people, too. Iirc, a lot of these same people told us for years that Democrats shouldn't take on "Gay Marriage" (not marriage equality, mind you) because it's a non-issue with too many people and and it will alienate the base. I'm not sure which base they were talkin' about but ALL the PROGRESSIVES that I know always advocated for it.

[laundry_queen]

116. I agree with you here

all the poly people I know were the ones who converted me to being a 'radical' leftist. They were the same people that steered me toward DU but warned me it was too 'radical' back in the day, LOL. I wonder if they lurk now and if they see how conservative it's become.

[jtuck004]

18. I think your smeller is right on. n/t

[Betty Karlson]

23. Especially whgen these same people

claimed that a thread about religious comfort and support for LGBT was "DU advocating atheism".

[randome]

26. Lonely guys who dream of having multiple sex partners, I think.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Starry Messenger]

27. Boom. nt.

[cwydro]

33. I've got to agree with you on this one.

These DU threads on polygamy have just floored me.

[tymorial]

77. I said I wasn't going to respond anymore on these threads but here I am

it is because of your comment that I am going to disregard what I promised an hour ago. I consider most of these comments to be flame but honestly some of the threads appear to come from long term DU users. One person stated that polygamy was rape. I have said elsewhere that i consider these arguments to be largely white knighting of women. People so fervently against poly lifestyles are using same sex marriage opponent arguments. Its ludicrous that they do not see their own inherent hypocrisy. These same people were calling out conservatives for the SAME language. Therefore I feel as though they must feel as they are on a mission to save women. I know more than a few people in poly relationships. One relationship in particular has lasted for 15 years... one man 2 women. The man is quite frankly rather submissive in that relationship. They've been on here reading and laughing. Yet, those two women are actually being raped and they don't know it? It is white privilege because they have been happy for 15 years? What if I said one of the women was born in Argentina.

Maybe you are right and this is all about trolling. Honestly I hope so because otherwise we have a lot of people here who feel it is their responsibility to direct other people's personal sexual morality and I find that completely offensive. DU has sadly proven lately that moral superiority is not a trait only found on the right.

[99Forever]

115. Exactly.

Self-appointed moral superiority preachers.

Who died and left them to judge how other consenting adult human being conduct their relationships?

What a bunch of freakin' hypocrites. Liberals and progressives, my ass.

[prayin4rain]

6. [phone]

[closeupready]

9. 2 people here are pushing this aggressively on the boards.

They claim they don't have a homophobic agenda. I can take them at their word, but the timing sure is suspicious.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. It's pretty easy to see their previous comments about gay issues and also to note that they never

previously advocated poly rights or whatever and very specifically that in marriage equality discussions on DU neither had introduced any notion of a personal stake in the issue as a 'poly' hoping to gain rights in the future. Not once did they make any of those arguments until the SCOTUS decision. All of that makes the timing an indictment.

[closeupready]

14. Agreed. Also note that one of these two has been flagged

for review. Not a PPR, perhaps, but an indicator that something's up.

[Blue_Adept]

16. Let's be realistic though

Polyamory supporters tend to fly under the radar for a host of reasons. It's not something that many wear outright because of a lot of the stigmas attached to it. Particularly those that associate it with religious polygamy and all the really terrible attributions that go along with it.

Some of us have been involved on the poly side for a long time. But it's not something we're going to insert into every conversation. Even now with the push for it by a vocal segment, a lot will still simply not talk about their own involvement in it because of the quick vitriol thrown their way.

[Mojorabbit]

24. I can see where people living in the shadows in poly relationships

now have hope that they can affect change after the latest ruling. I have said in several threads that I know people in two different poly long term relationships and I am gobsmacked at the supposed progressive reaction here. I assumed many other people here also had friends in relationships made up of more than two people. I am almost 60 and this is not all that rare. I really can't believe a lot of what I am reading on this board. The first time I ran across a poly family was in the 70s and it was made up of two couples and their children and they were a loving healthy family.

[riderinthestorm]

11. Be prepared to be called a bigot. I've been talking the legal angles as well

and the fact that the same sex marriage decision is not at all analogous to legalizing polygamy over and over and over...

Only to be called out as a bigot.

I'm concerned for the legal protection and welfare of women (and children) within a new legal framework.

Those who want polygamous marriage must confront the realities of their own, new fight. Not piggy backing on SSM, not co-opting the GLBT community's struggle as their own (especially when they can't even demonstrate they even supported the GLBT community in their own struggle!)

K&R

[SidDithers]

13. DU rec...

Well said.

Sid

[Gman]

15. Good explanation

[JDPriestly]

17. Thank you. Many, many people do not understand the issues that were presented in the

case on same-sex marriage to the Supreme Court. Good explanation.

Marriage to one person is a fundamental right. To deny that right based on gender is a violation of the Constitution. Gender is an immutable or unchangeable condition or trait into which we are born. Therefore the government may not discriminate in recognizing our innate rights based on that condition or trait.

Marriage is defined by law between two individuals as things are now defined. The polygamy, polyamory debate is not about discrimination based on an innate or immutable characteristic.

Marriage cannot be defined as a relationship based on gender because to do so is to discriminate based on gender.

The bar against recognizing polygamy and polyamory as "marriages" has nothing to do with the recognition of the right of same-sex marriage.

Thanks for explaining this so well.

[geek tragedy]

19. for the courts, the two big words are "rational basis"

there is a rational basis for constructing a legal system that allows only two people to be married and form a joint legal union that changes their property, tax, custody right etc.

there is not a rational basis for denying the benefits of that system to people based on race, or sexual orientation--there is literally no legitimate purpose served by such exclusion.

[Humanist_Activist]

25. What is the rational basis for only allowing two people to be married?

I've seen this assertion before, haven't actually seen any arguments beyond, "its too complicated".

[geek tragedy]

28. multi-lateral marriages are inherently more likely to promote

inequality both within the marriage and in society as a whole, they are less stable, they provide an inferior child-raising environment, and they've been shown to be really awful for women.

that, plus the administrative complexity part is certainly a valid concern. Why not allow people to marry 1,000,000 others?

all of those are completely valid rationales that, independently, satisfy the constitution.

multi-lateral marriage advocates can certainly disagree, but the place for such disagreements is not the courts, but the legislature.

[Humanist_Activist]

31. What you just described was monogamous marriages until about the middle of the 19th century...

and in many places today as well.

Polygamy, as practiced in countries and cultures that don't have equal rights, or even equal rights on paper, for all genders or children is going to be problematic, but so is monogamy as well. That isn't an argument against polygamy, but an argument for equality, child rights and feminism.

Also, I'd like to see evidence that this polygamy is always going to lead to inferior child raising and not due to extremely religious misogyny and abuse.

I do see a point on administrative complexity, I could imagine a type of arrangement that is like a LLC or possibly a corporate structure to regulate taxation, custody, division of responsibility for each other, appointment of heads of household, etc. But frankly I'm not a contract or corporate lawyer, so I'm not familiar with all the complexities involved.

ON EDIT: I'll give an example, the quiverfull movement isn't an indictment of monogamy, no more so than FLDS cults are an indictment on polygamy.

[geek tragedy]

35. as I said, you're free to disagree with all of those rationales.

but the place for such disagreements to be weighed is the legislature, not the courts. it's a policy decision, not a civil rights one. no one is being singled out--it's a matter of behavior that isn't traceable to any immutable characteristic.

As far as studies on the subject go, here's a couple:


http://news.ubc.ca/2012/01/23/monogamy-reduces-major-social-problems-of-polygamist-cultures/

In cultures that permit men to take multiple wives, the intra-sexual competition that occurs causes greater levels of crime, violence, poverty and gender inequality than in societies that institutionalize and practice monogamous marriage.

That is a key finding of a new University of British Columbia-led study that explores the global rise of monogamous marriage as a dominant cultural institution. The study suggests that institutionalized monogamous marriage is rapidly replacing polygamy because it has lower levels of inherent social problems.

“Our goal was to understand why monogamous marriage has become standard in most developed nations in recent centuries, when most recorded cultures have practiced polygyny,” says UBC Prof. Joseph Henrich, a cultural anthropologist, referring to the form of polygamy that permits multiple wives, which continues to be practiced in some parts of Africa, Asia, the Middle East and North America.

“The emergence of monogamous marriage is also puzzling for some as the very people who most benefit from polygyny – wealthy, powerful men – were best positioned to reject it,” says Henrich, lead author of the study that is published today in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. “Our findings suggest that that institutionalized monogamous marriage provides greater net benefits for society at large by reducing social problems that are inherent in polygynous societies.”

Considered the most comprehensive study of polygamy and the institution of marriage, the study finds significantly higher levels rape, kidnapping, murder, assault, robbery and fraud in polygynous cultures. According to Henrich and his research team, which included Profs. Robert Boyd (UCLA) and Peter Richerson (UC Davis), these crimes are caused primarily by pools of unmarried men, which result when other men take multiple wives.

“The scarcity of marriageable women in polygamous cultures increases competition among men for the remaining unmarried women,” says Henrich, adding that polygamy was outlawed in 1963 in Nepal, 1955 in India (partially), 1953 in China and 1880 in Japan. The greater competition increases the likelihood men in polygamous communities will resort to criminal behavior to gain resources and women, he says.

According to Henrich, monogamy’s main cultural evolutionary advantage over polygyny is the more egalitarian distribution of women, which reduces male competition and social problems. By shifting male efforts from seeking wives to paternal investment, institutionalized monogamy increases long-term planning, economic productivity, savings and child investment, the study finds. Monogamy’s institutionalization has been assisted by its incorporation by religions, such as Christianity.

Monogamous marriage also results in significant improvements in child welfare, including lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death, homicide and intra-household conflict, the study finds. These benefits result from greater levels of parental investment, smaller households and increased direct “blood relatedness” in monogamous family households, says Henrich, who served as an expert witness for British Columbia’s Supreme Court case involving the polygamous community of Bountiful, B.C.

Monogamous marriage has largely preceded democracy and voting rights for women in the nations where it has been institutionalized, says Henrich, the Canadian Research Chair in Culture, Cognition and Evolution in UBC’s Depts. of Psychology and Economics. By decreasing competition for younger and younger brides, monogamous marriage increases the age of first marriage for females, decreases the spousal age gap and elevates female influence in household decisions which decreases total fertility and increases gender equality.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22794315

The identified studies are of mixed methodological quality, but generally suggest a more significant prevalence of mental-health issues in polygynous women compared to monogamous women. Individual studies report a higher prevalence of somatization, depression, anxiety, hostility, psychoticism and psychiatric disorder in polygynous wives as well as reduced life and marital satisfaction, problematic family functioning and low self-esteem. Conclusions. The current state of the research reveals with moderate confidence, a more significant prevalence of mental-health issues in polygynous women as compared to monogamous women. Implications for practice and research are indicated.

[Humanist_Activist]

37. Again, was this controlled for rates of extreme misogyny and religious practice?

Most examples in most societies were NOT equal for women at all, and all of them almost exclusively practiced polygyny only. Women were or are legally property of their husbands, with few rights or opportunities.

You cannot extrapolate that the same outcomes would be expected in equitable polyamorous groupings.

[geek tragedy]

40. Yes, they did. They found that introducing monogamy improved the life of those women.

Direct, causal links between monogamy and increased equality.

And, in case you didn't notice it, we don't live in a completely equal society. Polygamy will reinforce inequality in society, not fight it.

If polygamists want to start their own laboratory in Vermont or Alaska to see how it turns out, they need to lobby for those laws.

[Humanist_Activist]

42. No, I'm talking about comparing them to, for example, polyamorous groupings that are equitable...

You need to control for other variables, there's improvement in monogamous couples, but it could be related to economic stability, less personal politics in the home, etc.

The question is whether the links are actually causal or just correlation. You would need to compare it to groupings of people in intimate relationships that are long term, stable and practice equality for the sexes.

I also don't understand how polygamy would reinforce inequality in society, particularly if its not restricted to polygyny. Would polyandrous or more varied groupings be reinforcing such inequality?

[geek tragedy]

46. as I said, if one wants to start a small-scale laboratory in Vermont

to test out these hypotheses, by all means they should lobby for it. If poly-advocates can prove that polygamy isn't as awful as human history has shown it to be, then they can make their case for changing the law.

[Humanist_Activist]

48. Why would that be necessary? These aren't theoretical people, there are members of DU who are poly..

some with children. Are you going to argue that they are damaging themselves or their children due to their living arrangements and how many lovers/spouses they have?

[geek tragedy]

49. because they have not shown that blowing up our current marriage laws to favor polygamous

households would be on balance beneficial for society.

every law has winners and losers. those seeking to transform the entire US legal system from a monogamous marriage one to a polygamous marriage one--and in the process redefining the marriage for every married American--need to make their argument via the Democratic process.

the reason same-sex marriage squeaked by at the SCOTUS is that there was no possible harm in allowing gays and lesbians to get married.

that showing has not happened with polygamy--quite the opposite, according to history.

[Humanist_Activist]

50. So all polyamorous people are harming society?

That's your argument?

Do you listen to yourself?

I mean, seriously, I thought I was on the NOM website for a minute there.

[geek tragedy]

51. you've misrepresented my argument several times now, is that an accident?

The argument is that changing the rules to benefit that vanishingly small group of people would likely be bad for society.

Not that their behavior actively harms society, but that changing the rules would harm society.

That argument is not trivial, discredited, or irrational. It is not rooted in discriminatory animus.

Your preference is apparently to abolish the current definition of marriage and replace it with one that caters to a very few members of society, thus redefining the institution of marriage for everyone else, against their will.

Better start organizing and lobbying, because that's the only path forward--to convince the rest of the country via the democratic process.

Do not expect the courts to legislate your personal preferences.

[Humanist_Activist]

52. OK, how would it damage society, people aren't going to be forced into polygamist marriages...

against their will, so where would the damage come from?

[geek tragedy]

54. I refer you to the prior posts about how fucking awful polygamy is.

You choose to reject them, acting as if human society should be measured like it was an engine part or chemistry lab.

That is your choice. But your choice affects your vote, not everyone else's.

If others decide to accept human history as more instructive than your personal idiosyncratic beliefs, you get outvoted and that is that.

[Humanist_Activist]

56. And again, you are conflating misogyny and patriarchy with polygamy, they do not have to be linked..

at all.


Most of human history showed the horrors of misogyny and patriarchy, polygamy practiced under this was and is awful, no argument there, but that isn't the fault of polygamy itself.

[geek tragedy]

57. that's your opinion. most people disagree

any social institution will be linked to patriarchy and sexism in a society where those structures still exist.

polygamous marriage has structural aspects that make it a magnifier of patriarchy and sexism in ways that monogamous marriage isn't.

those articles examining how those structural aspects magnify patriarchy have been provided for your benefit.

[Humanist_Activist]

58. Again, do you have any evidence for your assertions? n/t

[eggplant]

60. +1

"most" is a remarkably fuzzy word, and the go-to word of choice when one is trying to argue based on emotion, and not logic.

[geek tragedy]

64. I've provided evidence. You have chosen to disbelieve the evidence based

on some game of Calvinball where history doesn't matter because it didn't take place in a sterilized laboratory where people with white lab coats conducted a double-blind experiment.

What has not happened is that you--and the other people who have chosen to talk about poly stuff since the SSM debate began--have not shown that your preferred outcome would be better.

You just claim it would and leave it at that.

Which is not very persuasive.

Bottom line is that legally poly marriage is a nothing issue. Not a civil rights issue, not a constitutional issue. It's an issue that will only change via the democratic process.

Now, you're just repeating yourself by denying the relevance of history and claiming that changing marriage for everyone is worth it to benefit the .001% of the population who wants poly marriage.

So, last word is yours.

[Humanist_Activist]

82. Honestly, I think we are just talking past each other at this point...

the fact is that the way that polygamy has been practiced in the past is largely due to misogyny and lack of human rights for women and children.

This I agree with. What I don't think is that polygamy is a cause of this, but the way it was practiced is a symptom of the above injustices.

The evidence you bring about is comparing apples and oranges, and yes, I would concede that in societies where women and children are little more than property, polygamy is worse than monogamy.

However, it doesn't follow that all forms of legal recognition of polygamy would lead to such negative outcomes.

I find this very similar to the debunked Regenerus study on same sex parenting, its methodology was flawed for the conclusions its trying to draw. It was comparing stable opposite sex homes with homes that were less stable, and not necessarily due to one parent being gay.

In addition, you also are making claims, without evidence, about "changing marriage for everyone", to mollify a tiny fraction of the population, again, an echo of groups like NOM.

[geek tragedy]

85. feel free to post your scientific studies showing that radically overhauling

the law in this country to accommodate polygamists would produce a net benefit to society.

Oh wait, you don't have anything except chatter on that point. All you have is "maybe this time it would be different." Conjecture, guesswork, speculation.

You're going around comparing people who rely on history rather than your conjecture to the far-right bigots at NOM.

That's trolling.

Toodles. Last word is yours.

[Humanist_Activist]

90. Since when must it be a net benefit? Again, you are using the language of the homophobes...

the same arguments are used with the only differences being in the adjectives used.

Can you provide an example of this trolling?

On what basis do you have to claim I'm trolling, if you looked at my post history, I've only started commenting on this today, though I'm sure you can find I've made posts about polygamy in the past, you are also free to look up my previous username, Solon, and arguments I've made years ago on this board in support of polygamy, I'm sure there are a few. Oh, and if you wonder why that username was tombstoned, it was during the great LGBT purge.

[eggplant]

59. Wow.

"blowing up our current marriage laws"?

I would imagine that the only real difference would be adding extra lines on the marriage license form. It would in no way redefine the marriage of any existing married American, any more than changing the form from Husband and Wife to Spouse1 and Spouse2 blew up all those existing hetero marriages.

Nobody is "seeking to transform the entire US legal system" (hyperbole much?) -- nothing that was done to accommodate poly marriage would affect binary marriage.

As for your "according to history", it is the harm that is the issue, not the marriage. According to history, husbands never used to rape their wives. One could easily make the equivalent argument that binary marriage historically harmed women.

The legal construct of marriage is independent of the actors and how they interact with each other. Abuse is abuse. Marriage is marriage. Stop equating the two.

[geek tragedy]

66. "I would imagine that the only real difference would be adding extra lines on the marriage license"

You would imagine very poorly and very inaccurately. You would imagine a world in which tax law, property law, inheritance law, family law including child custody as well as spousal maintenance, hospital visitation and medical power of attorney don't exist.

In other words, as a factual matter your claims are indisputably false.

You should educate yourself on the legal system before making such absurd and offensive pronouncements.

[eggplant]

69. I'm quite educated, thank you very much.

These things already have sufficient foundations in law.

Tax law allows for incorporation. Property law allows for joint ownership. Inheritance law allows for wills, probate courts sort things out. Family law already deals with complex, blended families, including child custody. Spousal maintenance is a divorce court issue, and one of negotiation and arbitration. Hospital visitation would, with the stroke of a pen, extend to all of the spouses. Medical power of attorney is a legal construct that already has provisions in place to deal with contesting parties (spouse vs adult kids, etc).

In other words, as a factual matter, you are full of shit.

You should educate yourself on who you speak down to before making such absurd and offensive pronouncements.

[geek tragedy]

74. You didn't offer anything approaching an intelligent comment, you just engaged

in conclusory chatter.

Take, for example, this humdinger of banal nothingness:

Family law already deals with complex, blended families, including child custody.

In family law, there is a mother and a father. Or, two adoptive parents. There are not three, or five, or 21 legal parents all of whom have the right to make decisions on the child's behalf.


Or this one:

Spousal maintenance is a divorce court issue, and one of negotiation and arbitration.

A statement that means nothing. No fucking shit spousal maintenance is a divorce court issue. The problem is that the process would become insanely complex trying to track relative shares of assets and incomes across multiple marriages, over time. If person A marries person B, and then person B marries person C, how much of person A's property and income go to person C? What if person C marries persons D, E, and F.

Tax law allows for incorporation

Again, a chattering statement that doesn't prove anything. Tax law does allow for incorporation, which is neither here nor there for how people file their taxes as actual human beings--either single, or married joint, or married separate.

It is beyond dispute that it would mean more than changing the lines on a form. That's just a claim founded in willful ignorance.

[jberryhill]

80. "Inheritance law allows for wills"

It also allows for not having wills, and intestacy in the context of plural marriage most certainly does NOT have "sufficient foundation in law".

[jberryhill]

78. "I would imagine that the only real difference would be adding extra lines on the marriage license"

That's high-grade horseshit right there.

Nobody else thinking these things are related will answer me, but you appear to have a good imagination.

So I guess I'll ask you, since it is so obvious.

Person A is the hypothetical bi-sexual person in the OP. Person A is male.

Person B is a straight woman.

Person C is a straight man.

Now, are you saying you want person A to marry person B and person C? Or are you saying that you want all three of them married - i.e. by implication then that person C and person B are also "married".

If so, then tell me the outcome of this situation.

I'll give them names - Andrew, Barbara and Charlie.

They all get married in 2015.

In 2017, Barbara has a child, Bill, by Andrew.

In 2035, a week after Bill turns 18, Barbara dies.

Do Barbara's personal assets go to Andrew and Charlie jointly? Or do her assets go to Bill? Normally, in most states, her assets would go to her spouse first, so I am going to assign her assets to Andrew and Charlie jointly.

In 2036, Andrew dies. All of his assets go to his spouse Charlie.

In 2037, Charlie dies. Charlie is not the father of Bill. His assets presumably go to other relatives of his.

Is that right? Is that how this works? Does intestacy law in your state provide an answer to any of these questions?

Once you work your way through that, I will throw in another child of Barbara's by Charlie, and a different death order. Then throw in a sequence of divorces and re-marriages.

It's not as simple as you and others seem to believe. Interestingly, these problems don't crop up with "let's allow two same sex people to get married on the same terms as everyone else", but there is a huge CLASS of problems that crop up with any number beyond two.

And none of the people bringing up the question seem to have any answers to the ensuing legal problems.

[get the red out]

41. All this crap is troll driven

Trolls are trying to split liberals apart with the polygamy discussions right now.

[Humanist_Activist]

43. I'm just responding to slanderous posts who seem to paint all poly groupings in a negative light.

Honestly, I don't get this malicious, irrational hatred that many people are expressing on this board.

[get the red out]

45. I meant to respond to Greek Tragedy

I missed my mark, apparently.

[geek tragedy]

53. there are a number of glibertarian types who think that any law that disadvantages

anyone in any way is tyranny and should be abolished.

they don't have much regard for democracy.

[eggplant]

61. Wait, what?

So now people who are pro-poly marriage don't have much regard for democracy?

And you base this insult against me on what, exactly?

Or are you once again painting anyone who disagrees with you with the same broad brush?

[geek tragedy]

67. The vast majority of society does not want their marriage redefined such that

they're no longer committed to each other as a unique bond, wherein they vow to place the other person before all others. Where they now have not really committed to anything other than "you're the only one for me, for now."

They do not want marriage defined as "tied for first in my heart."

They do not want the Warren Jeffs model to become legal.

They do not want the already too complex areas of family, divorce, custody, tax, property, and inheritance laws to become exponentially more complex.

So, no, the claim that courts should come in and wave a magic wand and obliterate the current system in order to make life more convenient for those who don't want to commit to one person is not consistent with democracy.

It is a free country, and you are free to start a movement to persuade voters to change their minds.

[eggplant]

70. This is the EXACT argument that was made opposing gay marriage.

In no way would legalizing poly marriage affect anyone interested in a binary marriage.

Your same arguments could be made against divorce. Against civil marriages. Against marriages of convenience.

The Warren Jeffs model would never become legal -- Warren Jeffs committed criminal acts of violence. Just like some binary spouses do.

[geek tragedy]

81. No, it's not. You are not understanding the issue.

it would be an entirely different institution with polygamy vs monogamy. Completely different. As anyone who's actually worked in the legal field would tell you.

That stands in marked contrast to allowing same-sex couples to participate in the same institution that heterosexual couples participate in.


The problem with your factual claims is that they are factually false bullshit wherein you make the exact argument made by the wingnut opponents of same-sex marriage--that there's no real argument for same-sex marriage that doesn't apply to polygamy.



In this debate, you are playing the role of Justice Alito, and I am playing the role of Ms. Bonauto. See the transcript of the Obergefell oral arguments at 17:17 - 20:6

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-556q1_7l48.pdf

We're done here.

[smirkymonkey]

108. +1000

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

79. Women's rights have advanced in monogamous societies

While the rights for women in societies that endorse polygamy are still in the dark ages....for a reason. Polygamy is not conducive to equality..despite a few polyamory folks making it work.


There's just no comparison.

Live with whomever you want. Have sex with whomever you want, but you can only have real equality in a relationship with two people.

[Humanist_Activist]

83. Much of European society didn't practice polygamy for 1500 years, women's rights didn't really...

advance until about the second half of the 19th century.

It seems to me that the two aren't related.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

86. But women's rights DID advance in "monogamous" societies

And I'm pretty sure a woman in 1800 in Kentucky could drive her own damn horse and buggy regardless of how "backwards" society might have seemed back then.

I get that some poly relationships are not comprised of "1 man and multiple women" but if any one really believes that model wouldn't be the vast, vast majority of relationships, they are not living on the same planet I am.

It's bad for women and children; therefore, the government shouldn't endorse it.

[Humanist_Activist]

88. You have to remember, some of the first things that first wave feminists had to do...

was redefine monogamous marriage to allow them to own their own property, a right to custody of their children and for the right to initiate divorce.

To be honest, there hasn't been a widespread survey of poly relationships in this country that are comprised of the entire country and not religious nutcases like polygamist Mormons and Muslims, so you can't say definitively that most poly relationships in this country are one man with many women. Of the poly people I know, I know of 2 triads, one all male, the other all female. I can't say anything definitive based on this, and neither can you.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

89. "Consenting adults" - Progressive argument for regressive idea.

It's a progressive argument for a very regressive idea. Sorry, but polygamy is going backwards for women.

I'm not buying the bullshit.

Sleep with whomever you want, but a married woman does not equal 50% of a relationship with three or more people in the marriage.

[Humanist_Activist]

91. Are you arguing that marriage itself is a regressive idea?

Because it seems like you are.

I also don't understand your last sentence.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

94. "Consenting adults" is being used as a progressive phrase

"Consenting adults" is a progressive catch phrase to defend legal poly marriage, but it's a regressive idea where women and children are concerned.

[Humanist_Activist]

96. How is it anymore a regressive idea than monogamy? n/t

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

99. Monogamy = two equal partners

Polygamy cannot have that equality, protestations to the contrary.

In a polygamous marriage, he gets all of my me while I get a fraction of him, his sexual energy, his time, his resources. My children also get a fraction of him if there are other children.

So why should most women be in favor of this?

[Humanist_Activist]

101. Your argument makes little sense, because you automatically assume polygyny...

also, you seem to assume you wouldn't have a choice.

What are you arguing against?

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

103. Don't be obtuse. I'm using myself as an example. Nothing more.

And believing that consenting adults have a right to do what they want is surely a progressive value. Wouldn't you agree?

However, using the "consenting adults" argument is using a progressive argument for a regressive idea, and polygamy is a very regressive idea for women's rights.

[Humanist_Activist]

104. Evidence that polygamy is a regressive idea for women's rights? You keep asserting this...

and have yet to produce evidence for it.

ON EDIT: Using yourself as an example, couldn't it be that you could choose to marry a second husband?

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

93. Seriously?

I'm pretty darn sure I'm right. Most heterosexual men will not agree to sharing his wife sexually with another man; I don't care how progressive he seems.

[Humanist_Activist]

95. You seem to be creating an assumption based on your own prejudices.

The fact is that I doubt most heterosexual men want more than one wife, I know I don't. But others may feel differently, male and female, I don't think its my place to criticize that when no harm is done.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

97. Harm IS done when society accepts it.

A group of poly folks living together may be a positive thing for them as individuals , but it is a backwards move for women's rights in society.

Women have made far superior gains in monogamous societies. I comprise 50% of my marriage, so it is natural that I should yearn for equality in society, and that society should recognize my rights and value within it. How does society move to acceptance of equality and my intrinsic value when I am one of my husband's three wives? I am certainly not "equal" to him, protestations to the contrary.

[Humanist_Activist]

98. Evidence? n/t

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

100. The world around us. Human nature.

Common sense.

[Humanist_Activist]

102. You asserted that polyamorous groups are damaging women's rights, where is your evidence...

for that?

And no, common sense will not cut it, its not common sense, in fact it the very opposite of that.

Please bear in mind that there are DUers in poly relationships, are they damaging women's and children's rights?

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

105. Do you understand that certain individual choices and lifestyles

should not be encouraged because they aren't good for society as a whole?

Studies show the damage polygamy does to society, to women, to children. Some have been posted here, so I'm not going to repost, but if you have any interest in the subject, you'll read them. You don' have to agree with their conclusions, but they are compelling, nevertheless.

Individual freedom to live in peace as one wishes should not be confused with society's validation and endorsement of one's lifestyle if that lifestyle is shown to harm women and children, in general.

[Humanist_Activist]

106. Yes, and those studies were limited to countries and cultures that already have piss poor records...

in human rights for both women and children. Where is your evidence that poly relationships, in general, harm women or children?Particularly those relationships that secular and progressive people engage in.

http://www.livescience.com/27125-5-myths-about-polyamory.html

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

107. Canada is not a regressive society.

I'm done.

If an individual woman wanted to live in a poly relationship, that's her business, and I hold no judgment since I'm not particularly religious, but in general, it's bad for women and children.

Have a good evening.

[Humanist_Activist]

109. So, when faced with contrary evidence, you cut and run?

Why, what was the point, you say you pass no judgement while judging, that seems both dishonest and downright cruel. Why not just admit you don't know what you are talking about and comment no further?

[riderinthestorm]

111. Polyamory is not polygamy. But you know that

Polygamy is not like SSM and trying to hitch your wagon to that is homophobic and wrong.

The OP has much to say about the legal problems with trying to equate them. Try reading it again.

[Humanist_Activist]

112. I don't see an issue with legal recognition for polyamorous relationships.

I don't necessarily equate it to SSM, as its not exactly the same, but I find it illuminating that the exact same arguments used against SSM are also used against poly relationships and legal recognition of the same.

[riderinthestorm]

113. I never heard SSM was bad for women. You'd have to link to that for me

I heard it was bad for traditional marriage. Bad for Bible thumpers etc.

But bad for women specifically? Hmm. No.

This thread is about the ridiculousness of legally trying to lump polygamy in with SSM. It's a valid viewpoint that is worth discussing but instead funnily enough, people seem to want to keep veering away from the substantive OP and onto these side tracks.

Don't be surprised when people stop trying to be derailed. There's a million OPs out there dealing with the sociological and emotional points of polyamory. This one is about the legal battle...

[Humanist_Activist]

114. I've heard the argument that SSM screws up gender roles so damages women...

somehow(generally never explained). Its not a rational argument, just like the arguments against recognition of polyamorous relationships are irrational.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

22. "The fact is that plural marriage is a non-sequitur to Gay Marriage."

Here ya go:

http://server4.whiterosesociety.org/content/malloy/MalloyMemories/How_The_Homosexual_Agenda_Destroyed_My_Marriage.mp3

[Humanist_Activist]

29. The issue is that it is people looking down on polyamory, indeed, making prejudiced generalizations.

that are obviously false, and applying them to all polyamorous relationships.

I object more to that than the rest of your post, because I generally agree with it.

[eggplant]

34. Exactly.

This is the same as arguing that all porn denigrates women. Really? Even gay porn?

LDS Polygamy DOES NOT EQUATE to polyamory. People can't seem to get past this part.

As for poly marriage not being related to gay marriage, if more than two people want to marry each other, at least two of them are of the same sex. Deal with it.

[Humanist_Activist]

38. Yeah, its really silly, I mean, apparently 3 men triads exploit women.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

[eggplant]

44. They do, but only on alternating Thursdays.

It's in the charter.

The worst thing about all these inane threads is that the people who are shouting and ranting and claiming "bigot!" and "right wing troll!" are the ones who seem to have completely lost it.

Those of us who are a bit calmer can see that polyamory has nothing to do with spousal or child abuse, any more that marriage itself does. There are assholes who are single, there are assholes who are married, there are gay assholes who are married, and there are assholes who are poly.

It isn't the poly that makes them assholes.

[Humanist_Activist]

47. People bring their own shit into all their relationships, that doesn't condemn the form...

of the relationship.

I made a comparison earlier, that groups such as polygamist Muslims or Mormons no more are a cause for condemning polygamy as the Quiverfull(think the Duggars) movement condemns monogamy.

[eggplant]

55. Yep.

It's nice having a conversation with a calm and rational person, for a change.

[Humanist_Activist]

62. The thing is that I'm mostly neutral towards polygamy, I'm not poly myself...

and have little interest in it, but the hysterics surrounding the issue is just too much to leave unanswered.

[eggplant]

65. Agreed.

I'm very happy in my binary marriage. But I have many good friends who are in positive long-term poly relationships, as well as poly friends who are not in any sort of relationship at the moment.

It pains me to hear people on DU speak as if my friends are something other than thoughtful, caring, nurturing adults.

If this hysteria continues, we're going to have to order a whole lot more fainting couches for this place.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

110. "Duggar Sister Wives"

Imagine if Duggar had four wives?

Reality tv at it's finest!

[Starry Messenger]

36. k&r

[get the red out]

39. Good post

I wish people wouldn't feed the trolls, the RW has been using this argument in a very sly way against the marriage rights that gay people should have long been acknowledged to have.

This whole game is to divide liberals and to boost conservatives. People can get caught up in it without meaning to and play right into their hands. I have come close a couple of times but think "Don't feed the trolls, they are fat enough as it is".

[Tatiana La Belle]

68. The gay marriage decision was about dignity

"Dignity" can also be used to support the legalization of polygamy, according to Jonathan Turley.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-trouble-with-the-dignity-of-same-sex-marriage/2015/07/02/43bd8f70-1f4e-11e5-aeb9-a411a84c9d55_story.html

...But Kennedy’s moving language was more than just aspirational thoughts on dignity. He found a right to marriage based not on the status of the couples as homosexuals but rather on the right of everyone to the “dignity” of marriage. The uncertain implications of that right should be a concern not just for conservatives but also for civil libertarians. While Obergefell clearly increases the liberty of a historically oppressed people, the reasoning behind it, if not carefully defined, could prove parasitic or invasive to other rights. Beware the law of unintended constitutional consequences.

For the record, I have long advocated the recognition of same-sex marriage. But the most direct way the justices could have arrived at their conclusion would have been to rely on the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. It, along with the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, holds that all citizens are entitled to the same treatment under the law, no matter their race, sex, religion or other attributes known as “protected classes.” Kennedy and his allies could have added “sexual orientation” to the list of protected classes, making the denial of marriage licenses an act of illegal discrimination. This approach would also have clarified the standard in a host of other areas, such as employment discrimination and refusal of public accommodations.

Instead, Kennedy fashioned the opinion around another part of the 14th Amendment, holding that denial of marriage licenses infringed on the liberty of gay men and women by restricting their right to due process. As Justice Clarence Thomas correctly pointed out, liberty under the Constitution has largely been defined as protection against physical restraints or broader government interference — “not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.” While Kennedy makes a powerful case for an expansive new view of due process, he extends the concept of liberty far beyond prior decisions..

...Dignity is a rather elusive and malleable concept compared with more concrete qualities such as race and sex. Which relationships are sufficiently dignified to warrant protection? What about couples who do not wish to marry but cohabitate? What about polyamorous families, who are less accepted by public opinion but are perhaps no less exemplary when it comes to, in Kennedy’s words on marriage, “the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family”? The justice does not specify. It certainly appears as if Obergefell extends this protection because same-sex unions are now deemed acceptable by the majority. The courts may not be so readily inclined to find that other loving relationships are, to quote the opinion, a “keystone of the Nation’s social order” when they take less-orthodox forms. But popularity hardly seems like a proper legal guide to whether a relationship is dignified.

...Other groups outside the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community could invoke this precedent, since the reasoning does not concern a protected sexual-orientation class but rather a citizen’s right to dignity. Could employees challenge workplace dress codes as intruding upon their right to “define and express their identity”? Could those subject to college admissions preferences raise claims that race or gender classifications deny their individual effort to “define and express their identity”? Kennedy’s approach has only deepened the uncertainty over how courts will handle such cases...

[luvspeas]

76. I guess there are lots of people with nothing better to do

They certainly aren't in a relationship with anyone. Except maybe their hands lotion and a box of kleenex

[Skittles]

87. being a bigot ain't easy

it is not like they are known for their critical thinking skills