Legalization of Polygamy in America

Demosthenes wrote:

we should dismantle the social safety net for all people because a small percentage/fraction of the people using it are abusing it.

40+% of the country would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Yonder wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

we should dismantle the social safety net for all people because a small percentage/fraction of the people using it are abusing it.

40+% of the country would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Only if they're ok with me calling them gigantic douchenozzles for thinking an appropriate response to a small minorities abuse of the social safety net is to make everyone else on the program starve, go homeless, etc...

nel e nel wrote:
Trophy Husband wrote:
Yonder wrote:

Polygamy can take forms other than one 40 year old man and 6 teenage girls.

Ideally in theory yes, but doesn't it generally invite that type of behavior? I'm genuinely interested in understanding if polygamy is successfully practiced on a broad scale. It appears to be one of those ideas that are good in theory, but terrible in practice.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/5HpKFCP.jpg)

Who's that playa?

obirano wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:
clover wrote:

I think the state should get out of the marriage business entirely, and just treat it all as straight contract. Religious and private organizations can then define marriage however they like; having government be the mediator here seems weird on a lot of levels.

I feel like that is the answer.

Agree.

I know this is well-intended, but I don't think you've scoped out the problems with this idea.

Hypothetically, let's say congress passes a law that reduces marriage licenses to basic contract law, under which the exact same legal rights, benefits, and agreements are bundled into a new, entirely secular, "civil union." For one, we're spending taxpayer money for legislators to put a law on the books that says, "This same exact thing still exists, but it's called something different now, look how awesome and hands-off your government is!" And if you think that every conservative who backs the law won't include in their campaign talking points how they helped steal the sacred act of marriage back from the hands of the government, I think you're sadly mistaken. It's giving a platform to politicians to create a cultural shift in the idea of marriage, and how some are actually married, while others are not.

Which leads to the next problem, creating a de facto cultural "separate-but-equal," not just for gay marriage, but for all secular marriages that have no interest in religious rites to solidify their relationship. Married vs. United. It allows the stringent, strident religious to ostracize anyone who doesn't get a marriage license from a church. And since churches are (rightfully, under constitutional law) allowed to refuse their religious services to those they see fit, you create, not a just a de-facto separate-but-equal standard, but an actual one. Marriages are granted legal standing under the law as something separate from civil unions, but not necessarily different than them.

You create an entirely new vector of discrimination. Suddenly, photographers and bakers don't have to refuse same sex couples because they're same sex, but because they're not actually getting married in a church. They can require a document from a specific set of churches and only serve those clients. They would get away with it in the exact same way many towns in the U.S. are getting away with restricting opening remarks at public meetings to Christian pastors within a mile of the city hall. "We only make cakes for marriages. We don't do civil unions." These aren't people, or protected classes. They're legal documents.

Call me alarmist if you wish, but people treasure their prejudices. It's just easier than thinking.

NSMike wrote:

Hypothetically, let's say congress passes a law that reduces marriage licenses to basic contract law, under which the exact same legal rights, benefits, and agreements are bundled into a new, entirely secular, "civil union." For one, we're spending taxpayer money for legislators to put a law on the books that says, "This same exact thing still exists, but it's called something different now, look how awesome and hands-off your government is!" And if you think that every conservative who backs the law won't include in their campaign talking points how they helped steal the sacred act of marriage back from the hands of the government, I think you're sadly mistaken. It's giving a platform to politicians to create a cultural shift in the idea of marriage, and how some are actually married, while others are not.

Which leads to the next problem, creating a de facto cultural "separate-but-equal," not just for gay marriage, but for all secular marriages that have no interest in religious rites to solidify their relationship. Married vs. United. It allows the stringent, strident religious to ostracize anyone who doesn't get a marriage license from a church. And since churches are (rightfully, under constitutional law) allowed to refuse their religious services to those they see fit, you create, not a just a de-facto separate-but-equal standard, but an actual one. Marriages are granted legal standing under the law as something separate from civil unions, but not necessarily different than them.

You create an entirely new vector of discrimination. Suddenly, photographers and bakers don't have to refuse same sex couples because they're same sex, but because they're not actually getting married in a church. They can require a document from a specific set of churches and only serve those clients. They would get away with it in the exact same way many towns in the U.S. are getting away with restricting opening remarks at public meetings to Christian pastors within a mile of the city hall. "We only make cakes for marriages. We don't do civil unions." These aren't people, or protected classes. They're legal documents.

Call me alarmist if you wish, but people treasure their prejudices. It's just easier than thinking.

The idea isn't to get the state out of the marriage racket. The idea is to get religion out of the marriage racket. That's because there are a sh*tload of rights, benefits, and perks that married couples get and all of them are secular--not religious--in nature.

The idea isn't to create a civil union that's "separate-but-equal" to marriage. The idea is to reduce what we now call marriage to a legally meaningless religious ceremony that the government doesn't give two sh*ts about because it doesn't confer any rights, benefits, or official recognition outside of the four walls of the church where the ceremony was performed.

The only thing that should matter is that a couple gets a civil--and completely secular--union. Only then will the couple get any of the social recognition or benefits we now associate with marriage.

Religious couples can still get their church wedding, but it would be an completely meaningless affair in the eyes of the government.

Die-hard religious couples can eschew a civil union and only stick to their religious ceremony. And the government would treat them as single individuals who are completely unassociated with each other. They can forget about visiting each other in the hospital when they're sick, being covered by each other's health insurance, and every other civil right and benefit the government now confers to married couples.

Well, I was posting on my phone and trying to be pithy.

No seemingly simple change will be simple, because people. And I wouldn't advocate a change like that without other social context, like de-fanging the church issue you mentioned, but none of those things are going to happen anytime soon.

Which is why it's what I would like to happen, and what I think should happen, because I also like nice people, and folks who live and let live, and rainbows, and ponies. On some level I'm engaging in the same abstract intellectual bullsh*t that some people do in the feminism thread, and for that I apologize.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:
nel e nel wrote:
Trophy Husband wrote:
Yonder wrote:

Polygamy can take forms other than one 40 year old man and 6 teenage girls.

Ideally in theory yes, but doesn't it generally invite that type of behavior? I'm genuinely interested in understanding if polygamy is successfully practiced on a broad scale. It appears to be one of those ideas that are good in theory, but terrible in practice.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/5HpKFCP.jpg)

Who's that playa?

It's not a beach, it's Father Yod

OG, I see where you're coming from, and I don't think the actual law would or should be any different than what you're talking about, but can you honestly say that, in this country, the religious fundamentalists and politicians who take advantage of their base from these kinds of things wouldn't spin it exactly the way I describe, regardless of the truth of the legal situation?

Also, how likely would it be that a religious ceremony would be held without the underpinnings of the civil law present or shortly to follow?

What you're all proposing is generally a good idea, but this culture, here and now, would not accept it gracefully. Right now, the importance of marriage is too great. It's not just legal protection being sought, but a cultural acceptance that one is no different than the other. By making an "other" in the law, we restore that separation, and preserve discrimination.

Also, how likely would it be that a religious ceremony would be held without the underpinnings of the civil law present or shortly to follow?

In this country, probably pretty unlikely, though there is some cultural history of it, especially in the days of slavery. In other countries, it can be quite common. Many couples in developing and poorer countries do so due to the costs associated with the legal procedures. In Thailand, I know, most people consider the only "real" marriage to be a simple Buddhist ceremony, where the legal one is largely considered optional.

Which is while I would love for marriage to not be under the purview of the state (or a political football at all) society is probably better served by equalizing marriage as conducted by the state to be the equivalent of that, for everyone who wants it, rather than abolishing it altogether.

So, to relate back to the thread, more than two people? If they're all consenting adults, fine. Most of the problems cited with plural marriages are a problem with marriage as a general institution. And while it's true that some religious groups are more likely to engage in it because it already aligns with their beliefs, lack of state recognition isn't preventing anyone from living as such, just withholding legal protection from anyone not bound under the existing state document.

I suspect we mostly hear about the problematic situations, not the ones where things are going well enough.

NSMike wrote:

What you're all proposing is generally a good idea, but this culture, here and now, would not accept it gracefully. Right now, the importance of marriage is too great. It's not just legal protection being sought, but a cultural acceptance that one is no different than the other. By making an "other" in the law, we restore that separation, and preserve discrimination.

Yeah, much as I hate to admit it (by which I mean that I wish I could think better of our society), you've got the right of this.

Up until this point in history, plural marriage has been for the most part heterosexual, with 1 man and several women or on rare occasions 1 woman with multiple men. Has there ever been a marriage with 2 husbands and 3 wives? Even in the marriages with 1 man and several women, are the women considered married to each other? I can imagine the relationship dynamic will be very interesting with a lesbian marriage of 5 wives, or one with 4 guys married to each other.

Nomad wrote:

Has there ever been a marriage with 2 husbands and 3 wives?

They aren't married, but people do have that lifestyle.

NSMike wrote:

OG, I see where you're coming from, and I don't think the actual law would or should be any different than what you're talking about, but can you honestly say that, in this country, the religious fundamentalists and politicians who take advantage of their base from these kinds of things wouldn't spin it exactly the way I describe, regardless of the truth of the legal situation?

Of course those asswipes would spin it that way. Which is why you purposefully strip religious ceremonies of any legal meaning. They can wax on all they want about protecting the sacred ceremony of marriage because it would be absolutely meaningless in the eyes of the government and, eventually, in our broader society.

NSMike wrote:

Also, how likely would it be that a religious ceremony would be held without the underpinnings of the civil law present or shortly to follow?

The question is moot. The religious ceremony wouldn't matter in the least bit to the government. You could have one or not have one. It literally wouldn't matter. No couples would be legally recognized, though, until they had a civil union.

If anything, churches would begin insisting that couples get all the civil union paperwork completed before they dared proceed with a religious ceremony. After all, there'd be absolutely nothing legally binding between a couple that was only "married" by a religious ceremony and there'd be absolutely no penalties for them splitting up (outside of the disapproval of their fellow church goers).

NSMike wrote:

What you're all proposing is generally a good idea, but this culture, here and now, would not accept it gracefully. Right now, the importance of marriage is too great. It's not just legal protection being sought, but a cultural acceptance that one is no different than the other. By making an "other" in the law, we restore that separation, and preserve discrimination.

Our culture, here and now, isn't going to accept polygamy or polyandry gracefully, either. In fact, probably the only way those things would ever stand a chance is if our culture began to accept that "marriage" should purely be a secular legal contract and jettison all the religious baggage that comes with the concept now.

Making the state the only player that matters in marriage is the only way we can get beyond the petty ass sh*t that flows from some knuckle dragging preacher (or state supreme court judge) insisting that their flawed interpretations of what a Bronze Age religious text says about marriage is what marriage is.

Removing religion from the equation is the only way we could ever get to the point where we could legitimately say that marriage is whatever two or more truly consenting adults want it to be.

I would say the polyamory lifestyle has been around throughout history. I know people who have been in and out of such relationships, with all the successes and failures of monogamy, and just in the US, accounts go back quite far of experimental communities and private arrangements. They don't seem any worse off than my other friends, financially or emotionally.

That said, I don't think any of them would claim they did it for religious reasons. I do know a few strongly religious couples whose relationships were what I would regard as abusive, but most of them fell apart over time, as one would expect given the options available. Trying to actually enforce Levitican or even Paulite strictures on a marriage doesn't work all that well in a society where women can see others around them who have many more rights in life than they have agreed to themselves. The ones in the US that do work (again, in my experience) are ones where lip service is paid to the idea of female submission, but in reality, there's a lot less of it than the public face shows.

Nomad wrote:

Up until this point in history, plural marriage has been for the most part heterosexual, with 1 man and several women or on rare occasions 1 woman with multiple men. Has there ever been a marriage with 2 husbands and 3 wives? Even in the marriages with 1 man and several women, are the women considered married to each other? I can imagine the relationship dynamic will be very interesting with a lesbian marriage of 5 wives, or one with 4 guys married to each other.

There are all kinds of interesting situations that could come up legally. Is it a one-to-many arrangement? Is it a many-to-many like you mention with 2 women married to the same five guys but technically the women aren't married? Is it a all-to-all arrangement where everybody is attached to everyone? How does divorce work, can one person be severed from the group or does it make the entire group have to be remarried without the outcast?

Basically, divorce law would get hella more confusing and we would need way more divorce lawyers even under the assumption that the divorce rate wouldn't change.

Yonder wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Has there ever been a marriage with 2 husbands and 3 wives?

They aren't married, but people do have that lifestyle.

IMAGE(http://oyster.ignimgs.com/mediawiki/apis.ign.com/futurama/thumb/3/32/Oldman.jpg/468px-Oldman.jpg)

I don't see it as that potentially complicated. A new person can be brought into the contract with the express permission of everyone currently in the contract. Anyone can leave of their own volition, or a person can be forced out with the express permission of every other person in the contract. Boom! Problem solved. B)

Explicit marriage contracts might be a good idea...

To add some perspective from someone who is currently doing non-monogamous relationships, I have had a very bad polyamorous relationship and a very good one that's lasted six years and is still going.

I get the feeling that the reason first failed and the second is succeeding have very little to do with their exclusivity, and would have either failed or worked as monogamous relationships, were the people involved so inclined.

OG_slinger wrote:

The idea isn't to create a civil union that's "separate-but-equal" to marriage. The idea is to reduce what we now call marriage to a legally meaningless religious ceremony that the government doesn't give two sh*ts about because it doesn't confer any rights, benefits, or official recognition outside of the four walls of the church where the ceremony was performed.

The only thing that should matter is that a couple gets a civil--and completely secular--union. Only then will the couple get any of the social recognition or benefits we now associate with marriage.

Religious couples can still get their church wedding, but it would be an completely meaningless affair in the eyes of the government.

Die-hard religious couples can eschew a civil union and only stick to their religious ceremony. And the government would treat them as single individuals who are completely unassociated with each other. They can forget about visiting each other in the hospital when they're sick, being covered by each other's health insurance, and every other civil right and benefit the government now confers to married couples.

If I'm reading this right, what you're suggesting here is essentially a role reversal between 'marriages' and 'civil unions', which, in my opinion is just swapping which types of unions get discriminated against. If you remove the state benefits from marriages only to grant it to civil unions and you think it won't mobilize the religious base even more against same sex marriages, you are taking crazy pills.

nel e nel wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

The idea isn't to create a civil union that's "separate-but-equal" to marriage. The idea is to reduce what we now call marriage to a legally meaningless religious ceremony that the government doesn't give two sh*ts about because it doesn't confer any rights, benefits, or official recognition outside of the four walls of the church where the ceremony was performed.

The only thing that should matter is that a couple gets a civil--and completely secular--union. Only then will the couple get any of the social recognition or benefits we now associate with marriage.

Religious couples can still get their church wedding, but it would be an completely meaningless affair in the eyes of the government.

Die-hard religious couples can eschew a civil union and only stick to their religious ceremony. And the government would treat them as single individuals who are completely unassociated with each other. They can forget about visiting each other in the hospital when they're sick, being covered by each other's health insurance, and every other civil right and benefit the government now confers to married couples.

If I'm reading this right, what you're suggesting here is essentially a role reversal between 'marriages' and 'civil unions', which, in my opinion is just swapping which types of unions get discriminated against. If you remove the state benefits from marriages only to grant it to civil unions and you think it won't mobilize the religious base even more against same sex marriages, you are taking crazy pills.

No one gets discriminated against in the proposed system. You seem to be under the impression that "married" people would no longer be recognized, which is not the case. Married people would all have civil unions. Right now you get "married" and fill out a "marriage license" to give to the county clerk. For a heterosexual couple that wanted to get married that couple would now get "married" and fill out a "civil union license" and give it to the county clerk.

"Taking religion out of government" would immediately become a Republican hot-button issue. I don't think that kind of change can occur short of 60's style marches in the streets...

Yonder wrote:
nel e nel wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

The idea isn't to create a civil union that's "separate-but-equal" to marriage. The idea is to reduce what we now call marriage to a legally meaningless religious ceremony that the government doesn't give two sh*ts about because it doesn't confer any rights, benefits, or official recognition outside of the four walls of the church where the ceremony was performed.

The only thing that should matter is that a couple gets a civil--and completely secular--union. Only then will the couple get any of the social recognition or benefits we now associate with marriage.

Religious couples can still get their church wedding, but it would be an completely meaningless affair in the eyes of the government.

Die-hard religious couples can eschew a civil union and only stick to their religious ceremony. And the government would treat them as single individuals who are completely unassociated with each other.They can forget about visiting each other in the hospital when they're sick, being covered by each other's health insurance, and every other civil right and benefit the government now confers to married couples.

If I'm reading this right, what you're suggesting here is essentially a role reversal between 'marriages' and 'civil unions', which, in my opinion is just swapping which types of unions get discriminated against. If you remove the state benefits from marriages only to grant it to civil unions and you think it won't mobilize the religious base even more against same sex marriages, you are taking crazy pills.

No one gets discriminated against in the proposed system. You seem to be under the impression that "married" people would no longer be recognized, which is not the case. Married people would all have civil unions. Right now you get "married" and fill out a "marriage license" to give to the county clerk. For a heterosexual couple that wanted to get married that couple would now get "married" and fill out a "civil union license" and give it to the county clerk.

Uhhh, the bolded is kinda saying that 'marriages' would no longer be recognized, and that only the civil union license would. Again, if you think religious folks won't throw a sh*t storm at their government for that, you are taking crazy pills.

Freyja wrote:

To add some perspective from someone who is currently doing non-monogamous relationships, I have had a very bad polyamorous relationship and a very good one that's lasted six years and is still going.

I get the feeling that the reason first failed and the second is succeeding have very little to do with their exclusivity, and would have either failed or worked as monogamous relationships, were the people involved so inclined.

One of my partners currently is currently in a long term poly relationship. We discussed why (and how) one of the members left the relationship and it was pretty clear that the person that left was just a gigantic sh*tbag. It had nothing to do with how the person identified at the time.

My parents have been exclusively married for 39 years and have remained that way largely as a function of their faith. While it has been a struggle, they have made a choice to remain that way. Incidentally, the majority of the congregation they belong to have been divorced and remarried (some multiple times). When I hear about Christians defending their commitment to marriage, I usually just snicker.

I respect my parents' choice but I definitely see the ways in which they've made themselves miserable by staying together and also the ways they really complement each other.

I pretty much don't talk to my parents about my relationships. They would be aghast.

nel e nel wrote:

Uhhh, the bolded is kinda saying that 'marriages' would no longer be recognized, and that only the civil union license would. Again, if you think religious folks won't throw a sh*t storm at their government for that, you are taking crazy pills.

Marriages would no longer automatically convey any legal rights or governmental benefits. All those are secular things and should not be in the realm of religion to begin with. Seriously, why in the hell does it take a religious ceremony to trigger the ability to get secular tax breaks, grant the legal right to property, or to the ability to make medical decisions for your spouse? That's flipping madness.

All of those things fall firmly in the world of the state, not the church. Consequently, the only way people should be allowed to get "married" is through the state. It's literally "render unto Caesar" territory.

People can still have religious marriage ceremonies, but those ceremonies will be absolutely meaningless to the government. They wouldn't create any legally recognized bond between two people and they wouldn't automatically confer state-granted rights or benefits. If people want those things then they have to go before the state.

Religious folks will throw a sh*t fit over anything. But the idea behind this thread that those same religious people wouldn't throw a sh*t fit over polyandry or polygamy is laughable. Literally the only way we could reach a point in our society where those things would be openly accepted is to completely strip religion from marriage as we now know it. Then we'll finally be at the point where marriage can be treated as what it really is--a legal contract between two or more consenting adults that gives them extra rights and benefits--and we can avoid all the religious bullsh*t and moral handwringing.

OG_slinger wrote:

People can still have religious marriage ceremonies, but those ceremonies will be absolutely meaningless to the government. They wouldn't create any legally recognized bond between two people and they wouldn't automatically confer state-granted rights or benefits. If people want those things then they have to go before the state.

Isn't this the exact situation we have right now?

I mean, when you get married in a church, that *is* irrelevant in the eyes of the government until you file the paperwork with the state.

dp

OG_slinger wrote:
nel e nel wrote:

Uhhh, the bolded is kinda saying that 'marriages' would no longer be recognized, and that only the civil union license would. Again, if you think religious folks won't throw a sh*t storm at their government for that, you are taking crazy pills.

Marriages would no longer automatically convey any legal rights or governmental benefits. All those are secular things and should not be in the realm of religion to begin with. Seriously, why in the hell does it take a religious ceremony to trigger the ability to get secular tax breaks, grant the legal right to property, or to the ability to make medical decisions for your spouse? That's flipping madness.

All of those things fall firmly in the world of the state, not the church. Consequently, the only way people should be allowed to get "married" is through the state. It's literally "render unto Caesar" territory.

People can still have religious marriage ceremonies, but those ceremonies will be absolutely meaningless to the government. They wouldn't create any legally recognized bond between two people and they wouldn't automatically confer state-granted rights or benefits. If people want those things then they have to go before the state.

Religious folks will throw a sh*t fit over anything. But the idea behind this thread that those same religious people wouldn't throw a sh*t fit over polyandry or polygamy is laughable. Literally the only way we could reach a point in our society where those things would be openly accepted is to completely strip religion from marriage as we now know it. Then we'll finally be at the point where marriage can be treated as what it really is--a legal contract between two or more consenting adults that gives them extra rights and benefits--and we can avoid all the religious bullsh*t and moral handwringing.

Except that often times, polyandry and polygamy also have religious roots to them as well. I just don't agree that stripping any meaning from a word is a solution to the current problem. What it boils down to is a semantic issue and we all know how well those get worked out.

Ultimately, it's not about stripping whatever privileges are already in place, it's about extending those same privileges to everyone else.

nel e nel wrote:

Ultimately, it's not about stripping whatever privileges are already in place, it's about extending those same privileges to everyone else.

Which isn't going to happen as long as people can say that their interpretation of what their god has to say about marriage is totally against extending those privileges...

And that doesn't solve the bigger issue that religion shouldn't play any role in granting or bestowing purely secular rights and benefits.