General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumspolygamy is completely legal...
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
(8,352 posts)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
(1,883 posts)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.
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
(45,319 posts)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
(8,352 posts)gay marriage who were concerned about the slippery slope of marrying pets and toasters?
pnwmom
(109,024 posts)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.
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
(109,024 posts)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
(8,352 posts)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
(16,020 posts)It might be traditional but that does not make it rational.
pnwmom
(109,024 posts)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
(16,020 posts)which is not what is being discussed. Religious cults like those in the news can only operate in the shadows.
pnwmom
(109,024 posts)based on religion and are not repressive.
And are not a pipe dream.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)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
(109,024 posts)MattBaggins
(7,905 posts)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
(8,352 posts)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
(35,345 posts)luvspeas
(1,883 posts)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
(1,587 posts)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?What about step children and second or third marriages?
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).
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
(1,883 posts)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
(8,352 posts)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
(1,883 posts)simplistic logic does not always apply.
TM99
(8,352 posts)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
(1,883 posts)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
(8,352 posts)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
(1,883 posts)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
(1,883 posts)You really need to let it go. You just keep contradicting yourself.
TM99
(8,352 posts)If it violates the 14th Amendment then yes, it is a constitutionally protected right.
luvspeas
(1,883 posts)pnwmom
(109,024 posts)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
(7,905 posts)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
(7,670 posts)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
(1,883 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)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
(1,883 posts)That's why it's a stretch
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)And that's just nuts!
Skittles
(153,298 posts)oh wait, I don't need them, do I?
luvspeas
(1,883 posts)the law was being illegally applied.
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)Peace.
luvspeas
(1,883 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)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
(8,352 posts)are no longer truly left, liberal, or progressive.
That sad reality has punched me in the face the last few days. Fuck it.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)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
(8,352 posts)and it disgusts me. I am done with it and them.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)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
(8,352 posts)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
(9,610 posts)Stay safe out there, conservadems don't like real progressives at all.
I am amazed at the comments I am reading
luvspeas
(1,883 posts)not me.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)luvspeas
(1,883 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)luvspeas
(1,883 posts)You like to argue more than you like to think things through.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)luvspeas
(1,883 posts)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
(9,610 posts)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.