General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPolymarriage and its effect on laws. How significant?
Thinking about marriages that might be made up of more than two people, I wonder how such marriages would be handled within our state and federal legal structures. I'm sure I can't think of all the laws that would be affected and need changes, but here are some of the ones that occur to me, right off the bat. If you can think of others, please add to the list in replies to this thread:
Tax Laws - Joint filings and dependent deductions are one area that would require change. Our current tax laws don't cover more than two people being married to each other, and dependents are based on a two-person marriage and resulting children, for the most part, as well. This would probably require changes across a wide range of tax laws and forms.
Inheritance - Currently, married couples automatically inherit estates of a spouse who has died if no will exists. The current laws do not seem to include language that would apply to multiple persons in a marriage. A will, of course could deal with this, but a heck of a lot of people die without one.
Real Property - Real estate is another area where there is legal language involving marriage that doesn't consider multiple partners. Joint tenancy with right of survivorship is how my wife and I are listed on our deed. That might apply to multiple joint owners or not, depending on how the laws are written in each state. Title and ownership is a complex issue already, and would become more complex with multiple partners in a plural marriage.
Auto Titles - In both states where I have owned vehicles, there are just two lines for joint owners, who own a vehicle and can sell it with either two signatures or one. In most states, you can select AND or OR on the title. This area would be more complicated and would require creating new forms across the board.
Various Benefits - Social Security is one of those that would be affected by plural marriages. Currently, a spouse is entitled to receive payments, based on a spouse's earnings, in more than one scenario. Under current laws, there's no provision for multiple spouses, and many changes would be needed. Employment benefits, too, including health insurance, are also based on two-person couples and a couple's offspring. Changes here would result in increased costs to business and would probably be resisted. Pensions (where they exist) and many other benefits might also be affected. The military, too, has many areas where marriage is a consideration, without any provision for more than two people. The insurance industry, too, would see a large impact from plural marriages.
Banking & Finance - Pretty much everything involved with non-commercial banking, accounts, loans, etc. are currently structured for two-person relationships. I'm not familiar enough with this area to discuss what impact polymarriage would have here but it would certainly be significant.
Of course, there are plenty of legal options available, like corporations, limited partnerships, etc., that could be used to structure these things in a plural marriage, but that was one of the flaws of civil partnerships for LGBT couples. So many benefits and rights could not be dealt with on a simple contractual basis. Our laws offer multiple benefits to married couples, based only on their marriage. I believe the same issues would be there for plural relationships, but current language is broadly limited to two-person couples.
I think that many, many laws, regulations and more would have to be significantly changed to make plural or poly marriage a functional part of society. I know that I have only touched on a few issues. If you can think of other significant ones, please post a reply about them.
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)This whole polygamy thing may be the worst. I wish to fuck all of you would grow the fuck up and shut the fuck up about polygamy.
No one is born polygamous.
Polygamy more often than not means one more way to subjugate women.
Polygamy is not in any fucking way a progressive value nor a valid analogy to gay marriage.
Just knock it the fuck off.
JustAnotherGen
(31,811 posts)prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)MineralMan
(146,286 posts)This post is about why there's no real reason to even consider it. I am not in support of any sort of plural marriage. I don't care how people structure their relationships, but there is no right of polygamous marriages to be recognized.
As you say, nobody is born polygamous. It truly is a choice people make, not any kind of inborn thing.
This post is about all of the impacts it would have on our legal structures, not a defense of it in any way.
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)Over the years I have seen you as someone of reasonable opinion so i am sorry it was yours that triggered my outburst against the whole nonsense. Glad to see it was more an exercise in satirical commentary than an endorsement of the ludicrous.
:
randys1
(16,286 posts)"I thought they said this wouldnt happen"
and then of course it was about this.
Newsflash: "rightwingers hate Gay people and will use ANYTHING to deny them their rights as human beings"
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)issues and rights and that none of them ever advocated any of their sudden polygamist passions at any time in the past. So these are people who have not supported LGBT people but who now freely exploit us. It's disgusting.
The fact that there are many polygamist countries and all of them punish LGBT and 'polyamory' intensely, the level of dishonesty here is very high.
hamsterjill
(15,220 posts)I also think that the discussion of polygamy is exactly where the opponents of same sex marriage WANT the discussions to go. I've seen polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, etc. used so many times by those opponents as an argument NOT to legalize same sex marriage.
I do not think Democrats should be falling into that trap. I repeat (for emphasis) your statement above: "Polygamy is not in any fucking way a progressive value nor a valid analogy to gay marriage."
Orrex
(63,203 posts)On Wed Jul 8, 2015, 11:46 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
Of all the stupid insulting bullshit things that have happened on DU over the last 14 years
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6951644
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
abusive, profanity laced, incivil
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Jul 8, 2015, 11:58 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: For the record, I'd like to state that I agree completely with CBGLuthier's sentiment here, but the post as written is over-the-top. Personally, I think that this recent uptick in pro-polygamy campaigning is a preposterous farce, and I can't wait for DU to get past it.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I honestly don't care about this most recent DU flame war. Just let it all burn like cornflake covered chicken at your local Olive Garden while Chuggo serenades you about breastfeeding pitbulls.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: While I agree with the basic content of the post, the profanity is excessive and unnecessary.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The comments are true...rude....passionate....but not personal....pass.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: poster has the language skills of a middle school boy or Jay of Jay and Silent Bob. However this is an adult board, so tho it's crude, post is not insulting any individuals.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
randys1
(16,286 posts)RWNJ bullshit and their stories, etc.
And that is all CBG did here
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)No one is arguing that how polygamy has been or continues to be practiced in much of the world is exploitative of women. But all that means is we need to push gender equality at every opportunity.
Also, I would argue its premature to state definitively whether polyamory can be inborn or not. I imagine it could be that we have wired in us a sliding scale of, and I'll be frank here, possessiveness and jealously towards are partners, and the same for them. Some people really don't care if the SOs go out and have sex with as many partners as they want, others it would bother a great deal. I don't know the extent of this is nature and the extent of it is nurture, but blanket statements such as yours have a tendency to be wrong.
ON EDIT: To be clear, I'm monogamous in that, and I'll be frank, I would be insanely hurt and jealous if my fiancee stepped out on me, but then again, she feels the same way, and we trust each other, so there's happiness for you. But having been immersed in all sorts of subcultures of the U.S. I realize that not everyone would feel the same way I do.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)in that sense. (And polyamorousness does not necessarily entail a sexual relationship, though plenty of people are capable of maintaining multiple sexual relationships, too.)
But if you want the legal recognition and benefits of a marriage, then you need to select one person to be married to. And there is nothing "inborn" that would prevent someone from making such a selection.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Thank you. Its all ridiculous, and revolting, at the same time. It needs to stop & go away to some dark corner of the interwebs where it belongs.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)MineralMan
(146,286 posts)I think the impact would be so widespread that it's an idea that will never happen. Since nobody is born polygamous, I'm just not seeing it as a right in the first place.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)One spouse is on life support and the decision is to be made about whether or not to take "heroic" measures or simply sign a DNR order. What about organ donations?
LOTS of legal, social and tax implications. I favor people doing what they will in their private lives, but, the key issue here that this IS a choice, so not a right.
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)laying out his or her wishes for such decisions. I have, and so has my wife. The decisions have been made and specified. Every adult should do this to help those they love from being forced to make those difficult decisions. We will all die. The details can be up to us. I can't understand not doing this.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)but many people don't and the legal system is set up a spouse that power. SpouseS, not so much.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)only 30 - 40% have a regular will.
These decisions are hard enough when there's just a single spouse (Terry Schiavo anyone?). I shudder to imagine 4 spouses arguing over what to do...
bklyncowgirl
(7,960 posts)All sorts of tricky stuff there. Can one of the wives divorce the other wife but not the husband? Can both wives dump the dude and marry each other? Who gets custody of the kids, house, pets?
Polygamy works best, IMHO, in societies where women have few if any rights. As imperfect as it is we're probably best off sticking with what we're used to.
It was making me think of all kinds of crazy storylines. Suppose one of the wives has an affair? Did she cheat on both of the other partners?
If you want to bring in a fourth person, both other people have to agree?
If you leave your cheating wife and now have just one wife, does that other wife get upset because things have changed. Everyone was happy with the original arrangement. Do they try to replace the other wife or just stay together as a couple? I guess they could do either.
bklyncowgirl
(7,960 posts)When a man can divorce his wife just by saying, I divorce you and she can do nothing about it, must leave the house and her children behind and has no right to property and must go back to her father's custody where she will no doubt be shunned or worse for disgracing the family then all these pesky little details just sort of go away.
You want to have a 'ménage a trois' and work out some sort of legal agreement to protect the legal rights of all involved, hey, knock yourself out but let's not call it a marriage.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)in these arrangements.
I want some of what they're smoking.
BKH70041
(961 posts)While I agree with you that many laws would necessarily need to be updated, I find the unwillingness to do that as an unacceptable excuse not to permit consenting adults to enter into a multi-person marriage should they so desire.
IOW, because it might be difficult to do is no reason not to grant those who desire that arrangement in marriage to be able to do so legally.
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)polymarriage is some sort of civil right are simply wrong from the start. Nobody is born polygamous. There is no right to polygamy that should be formalized by this society, in my opinion. I'm just not seeing it as related to LGBT marriage equality at all.
BKH70041
(961 posts)Since you mention it, hypothetical: I would go as far to say that even if were the case that "Nobody is born LBGTI", that STILL should not keep those who are LBGTI from marrying who they desire.
It has nothing to do with what one's birth, etc... It has to do with consensual adults having the freedom to marry who they love, and expanding the definition of marriage to include a number greater than just 2.
Look, it will happen in time. People here are rejecting it because it's being discussed on the heels of the recent USSC ruling and somehow they've decided that multi-partner marriage is a way of mocking same sex marriage. That's not the case, and those opposed probably wouldn't be willing to admit it is their reason for opposing, but it's more than obvious that what's going on.
But, as I mentioned to you yesterday, you gotta strike while the iron is hot. And that's what will happen in the real world over time until multi-partner marriage is the law of the land. May have to wait until some of those opposed die off, but like with same sex marriage, time is on their side.
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)So, it is related. However, there is no right to polygamous marriage. That right simply does not exist. It is a completely different institution. The marriage equality decision has to do with the right of two adults to marry, simply because they are people. It is completely separate from the idea of multiple people marrying each other.
That does not currently exist as a legal institution, so it is not a rights issue. It's a completely new institution. Establishing that is a different battle, entirely.
BKH70041
(961 posts)The desire for multi-partner marriages has always been out there, but the hope of making it legal has been enhanced by the recent ruling.
As to it being a "right," the Constitution is a living, breathing document whose interpretation on various issues has expanded over time. Can you imagine the ruling that just occurred happening in 1915, or in 1870? Me either. But the exact same words that were on the document then were expanded to included same sex individuals. I hold the viewpoint it will, in time, be expanded to view marriage as more than 2 as society continues to become more enlightened.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)But I don't think you are ever going to get it as a right or government involved in changing inheritance/property/tax/custody laws to sanction it. There are just too many cans of worms opened up by legalizing poly marriage. Family courts can't handle the case load as it stands with two partner unions. Adding to the number of participants just increases the legal problems exponetially.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)you're invested in it, tell us how that happens.
Otherwise it's just an exercise in futility.
"Society" isn't going to do the hard work for you. You have to do that.
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)you failed completely. Please knock it off.
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)If you think I'm being satirical with this, you're way wrong.
Then it's just a ridiculous post.
My mistake.
How is his raising questions about the legal mechanics of an issue "ridiculous"?
If it is that simple, please enlighten us with solutions, point by point, and no I am not being sarcastic. If you have genuine answers to the problems illustrated I would love to hear them.
bvf
(6,604 posts)composing an OP about the legal mechanics of allowing American restaurants to serve undercooked dogmeat, then coming out strictly against it.
There's your answer.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Got it.
bvf
(6,604 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)luvspeas
(1,883 posts)Oh this would need to be changed... oh that would need to be different...
How many things needed to be changed about any laws. To accommodate same sex couples? Nothing that wasn't illegal in the first place.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)down and dirty legaleese.
Official forms require adjustment (Spouse 1/Spouse 2 instead of Husband/Wife). The rest of it is pretty much about using gender neutral language.
But once you add additional people to the equation, things get VERY complicated.