art, that's an argument? that everyone has a little "poly" inside? according to whom? there's nothing in that excerpt that is persuasive. is she trying to say that being polygamist is innate? she's got to do much better than that.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

Here is a more complete quote showing some foundation and a conclusion.

I don't know whether the according to whom has been answered yet, but if it hasn't, it will be soon enough. Someone will come up with similiarly credentialed psychologists armed with their studies to prove it.

I am not saying I agree. I am just saying this stuff is out there and it is not nonsense.

---

Up to now, gay-marriage advocates like Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch have dismissed the analogy between homosexuality and polyamory by arguing that homosexuality is a far more deeply rooted impulse than the superficial, even frivolous, desire for sex with more than one partner. By contrast, Emens offers a "continuum model" inspired by the radical lesbian thinker Adrienne Rich. In her famous essay, "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence" (which Emens's title deliberately echoes), Rich argues that all women, whether they identify themselves as lesbian or not, are in some respects lesbians. If women can just find the lesbian within, then, even for women who remain heterosexually identified, the prejudice against homosexuality will fall away. That, in turn, will make it possible for many more women to freely choose lesbianism.

Following Rich, Emens argues that everyone has a bit of "poly" inside. If we can just discover, nurture, and accept our inner polyamorist, then even for those who choose to remain monogamous, the prejudice against polyamory will disappear. This will allow everyone to make an unconstrained choice between monogamy and polyamory. So it's possible to see both homosexuality and polyamory as part of a complex continuum of human sexuality, says Emens. And when we begin to look at things this way, we can finally take down the legal, social, and cultural barriers to both homosexuality and polyamory.

But aren't at least some people at one end of the sexual continuum intensely homosexual? Yes, says Emens, but the very same thing is true of polyamory. According to Emens, whether for biological or cultural reasons, some folks simply cannot live happily unless they are allowed multiple, simultaneous sexual partners. And for these people, our current system of marriage and family laws is every bit as unjust as it is for homosexuals. A person with an intensely polyamorous disposition simply cannot be happy, says Emens, outside of a polyamorous family setting. For these people, argues Emens, our social hostility to polyamory imposes a vast range of unjust legal burdens.

Hello,

Leaving aside the gay marriage side of things, but substitute child molester, mass murderer, or any other illegal act that some people are compelled to do and she could make the same arguements. Just because something makes someone happy doesn't mean it should be legal.



Styrrell

every women has some lesbian in her? ok. i think there are a lot of guys out there that wish they did.

and her conclusion that some people "just can't be happy" without multiple wives/husbands as a basis for changing the laws is pretty weak. that's not the argument underlying gay marriage.

what is your source on this? it's not the emens' article directly, but rather someone reporting on it.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

I am not saying I agree with anything she presents, but your analogy to mass murderer and the like is very weak. Those obviously have unwilling participants and victims.

I also don't see how you can justify leaving gay marriage aside. It is not aside. It is a prominent issue from which she makes parallel arguments.

I really don't see much distinction between her arguments and those for gay marriage. There are probably some gaps, but those will be filled by the appropriate experts and studies and testimony over time.

I am pulling this from an article on National Review Online, all reprinted without permission.

She is the lawyer. She has put forward the people "just can't be happy" argument. You might be right in that it is weak now, but it would be weak only because it is presented without foundation.

As certain as the sun rises in the morning the appropriate psychologists with the appropriate studies and the appropriate experts and PhDs will emerge to "prove" this contention. Frankly, I think it would be easier to "prove" than the homosexual argument, but then maybe in ten years it will be explained to me that I have repressed my "poly" gene.

Why is pologamy bad?

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

Well there we have it. The fountain of wisdom has come forth with the obvious question.

I really can't give you an answer to that question that would be intelligent enough to convince you, if you were not already inclined to be convinced. My answer would involve family and children and commitment and the like.

If I gave that answer I would be reminded that I was a neo-Christian.

I finally figured out what that means by the way, if anyone is interested.

that's a good question. i think there are valid reasons to preclude polygamous marriage situations. with that said, i don't think there is anything inherently wrong with it. especially if we are talking consenting adults(vs. say, the polygamy that occurs amongst fundamentalist mormons). monogamy is a social construct. if one wants to go the "natural" route, then it seems to me that monogamy is in the minority amongst the other animal species. or at least, it's an even split.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

Hello, I leave the issue of gay marriage aside because it has nothing to do with polygamy. Its a common practice amongst people who want gay marraige banned. Tie polygamy, child molestation, beastiality and anything else to it. Basically try to convince people who might be on the fence regarding gay marriage that it opens the door to other unrelated issues.

If people want to look at weather or not polygamy should be legal, fine, but it has nothing to do with the issue of gay marriage.

As far as unwilling participants look up the history of polygamy in this country. It usually coerced.



Styrrell

What as a society do we do if homosexuality and polygamy are determined to be genetically and biologically driven? I mean that in an honest way, because I personally envision some "solutions" that segments of the population would put forth and I don't particularly like them.

But if homosexuality and polygamy are genetically driven that has some big impacts. How do we handle these types of issues given that the majority of Americans find both these _______ (behavior would no longer be the correct term there) to be morally reprehensible, and illegal? Should we make acts/behaviors that are genetically driven illegal? I can see how the answer would have to be on a case by case basis, which is thoroughly complex and muddled.

Obviously we would we only be talking about voluntary polygamy here.

You can say all you want that gay marriage has nothing to do with polygamy, but intellectually, that is just not the case. The exact same arguments apply.

These arguments are going to be well formulated, tested, revised and tested again. The various experts will do the various studies which, surprise, will all support the pro-polygamy conclusion.

You can try to dispose of people like this law professor with a wave of your hand, but they are simply not going to go away, nor should they. They have a reasonable, consistent, well thought out case that will get better and better intellectual support over time.

These arguments already have some strength as evidenced in the fact that you deflect them rather than address them in your responses.

This is all predictable and predicted as a direct consequence of the gay marriage/sodomy legal arguments.

Well, one idea might be to continue the practice of the past 10,000 years and have a married man and woman be the basic family unit of society.

But, hey, I am a neo Christian, so what do I know?

i hear what you are saying art, but doesn't the equation change IF these are genetically based behaviors? wouldn't that be penalizing someone based on something over which they have absolutely no control? wouldn't that be similar to stigmatizing someone that is suffering from down's syndrome?

or to use another comparison, if someone is insane(sanity being something over which the individual has no control), we don't hold that person criminally liable for their acts. wouldn't we be doing something similar if polygamy was kept illegal and it turned out to be a genetic behavior?

---

f/k/a mclamb6

I could be legally married with 3 girl friends or not married with 4 girl friends and I have broken no secular laws, right? So perhaps marriage is more about morality and who get's to define that for me? Oh, all those religious GIANTS that know what's right for all of us. If you want and can afford the love/time that goes with multiple wives and the women have no problem either do I. Same with one woman and multiple men. Let freedom ring.

---

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."

I see the argument, but I just don't buy it. Society determines the norms of behavior. It makes collective value judgments. Some groups are always going to have more trouble than others conforming.

That doesn't mean we should not be supportive and tolerant of those individuals, but we should make policy based on what is in the enlightened best interests of the most people.

Why did you leave out the obvious case of multiple women and multiple men?

Too much freedom ringing for you?

That's one view, although I don't think anyone has attacked you for that (yet) in this thread. Wouldn't that just be a Christian/Judaism/Muslim view? There's nothing "neo" about that view. What's the opposite of the prefix "neo"?

I was focussed more on the legal ramifications for laws like the anti-sodomy laws that exist, or the legal aspects of marriages (aka civil unions). Or the sudden impact on society that something it had viewed as abnormal was actually inate to the design of humans, especially if one believes in "intelligent design" or that humans are created in god's image.

It still makes no difference to me. Ring that freedom bell Art! C'mon, you can do it.

---

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."

It was very clearly explained to me that I was a neo Christian. That seems to be a fact. I am just going to have to deal with it. These are my views, so they must be neo Christian.

Seeing as no one else on this board has been called a neo Christian, I was finally able to figure out what it means.

A neo Christian is a Christian male with European ancestors, who is a conservative Republican and has done four IM over four years and has yet to break 13 hours.

This is what I am. There is just no getting away from it.

Your comments are beyond my level of knowledge of her theories.

I should have also noted that your objections mostly apply in the context of homosexual marriage as well. You speak of one opinion vs. another, no society based on her marriage model, crumbling of 1000s of years of law and tradition. Arguably, two sides of the same coin.

I will admit up front that the backup you look for might not all be there yet. Some of it is probably out there now. The rest will be, as I have described above.

Yes, it is perfectly obvious she speaks only of voluntary polygamy, but you know that.

There has to be more people like you out there. I think you should join a support group, you guys can meet once a week, someone special will lead the meetings. You'll have to donate some money though to keep the group working and pay for the special meeting place . . . ;-)



I work with and am related to too many neo Christians to understand why people ahve to be so angry at each other for having different religious, political or legal views. People disagree, big deal, it happens in life. I may not agree with you very much but I hope you keep sharing your views. Don't let crazy people like me get to you.

Amy I really stupid if I just noticed you spelled "polygamy" wrong in your subject line and original post?

Ouch. Hate it when I do that.

It makes no difference whatsoever if this woman's theories are correct or not. The point is that someone is already making the same arguments for polygamy as are currently being made for gay marriage. Gays say homsexuality is innate. She says polygamy is innate. Gays say that to keep them from marrying when they don't have a choice about their sexuality is wrong. She says the same about polygamy. Quite frankly, no one can prove either one of them wrong or right yet.

I'm pretty sure that I was told point blank before that this argument wouldn't be made by intelligent people and that polygamy had nothing to do with homosexuality. Seems someone was wrong.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Well, there is pretty good evidence that there is a genetic component to homosexuality. I've never come across anything similar for polygamy - probably because it's never been looked at.

---

_______________________________________________

"Well, there is pretty good evidence that there is a genetic component to homosexuality."

I was of the understanding that there is no evidence that homsexuality is genetic.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?Board=freespace&Number=148106

Interesting link to the "Gay Gene" debate.

---

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."

i think there are valid reasons to preclude polygamous marriage situations.

Such as? (And I sincerely hope you have a more compelling argument than "it will complicate intestacy laws.")

if one wants to go the "natural" route, then it seems to me that monogamy is in the minority amongst the other animal species.

I think, perhaps, you misunderstand what is meant by those who argue for the rule of natural law. It does not mean looking to the animal kingdom for examples of behavior to emulate, or for lessons about what's normal or moral.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I was of the understanding that there is no evidence that homsexuality is genetic.

No specific genes have been identified (and there certainly isn't a single "gay gene") but there is pretty good evidence of a genetic component. At least one study as posted in one of the previous gay marriage threads (ironically by an anti-gay marriage advocate) - I dont feel like searching for it, but the gist of the results is that the concordance of homosexuality runs like this: identical twins > non-identical twins > adopted (non-related) siblings.... ie for siblings living in the same household (environment) the more genetic similarities, the greater the concordance of homosexuality. Hopefully that makes sense.

---

_______________________________________________

but there is pretty good evidence of a genetic component.

That's arguable, to say the least.

But more importantly- so what? The argument that homosexuality is genetic, even if true, is unrelated to the question of whether gay marriage should be allowed.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Show me a polygamous society that worked in history.

Am I to understand that you don't think polygamy has ever been successfully practiced by particular societies, and that therefore we shouldn't experiment with it?

From wikipedia:

Polygynous societies are about four times more numerous than monogamous ones. In 1994, Theodore C. Bergstrom noted in his paper "On the Economics of Polygyny" [1] (http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/Evolution/polygyny3.pdf) (U. Mich. Center for Research on Economic and Social Theory, Working Paper Series 94-11) that "Although overt polygamy is rare in our own society, it is a very common mode of family organization around the world. Of 1170 societies recorded in Murdock's Ethnographic Atlas, polygyny (some men having more than one wife) is prevalent in 850.

Now show me a society in history that allowed gay marriage.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

That's arguable, to say the least.

If you say so, but sibling concordance studies are pretty common in science, and seem pretty sound to me.

But more importantly- so what?

Yeah yeah, I know. I'm not going to get into it - my point was simply to say that you can't say the case for gay marriage is 100% the same as the case for polygamy. I see no reason to buy the opinion that "there is a little poly in all of us".

---

_______________________________________________

my point was simply to say that you can't say the case for gay marriage is 100% the same as the case for polygamy. Of course not. The case for polygamy is much stronger on just about every ground.

I see no reason to buy the opinion that "there is a little poly in all of us". And why not? Because you really don't think that people are attracted to/capable of loving/etc more than one person, and that there is evidently a strong observable drive to have intimate relationships with more than one person, or just because the idea of multiple marriage shocks your delicate sensibilities?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

we've had this discussion before on the reasons i believe polygamy could be validly outlawed. yes, it has to do with intestacy and divorce. also things such as spousal privilege. polygamy taken to an extreme will necessarily result in incest. biological/birth defect concerns arise from that.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

yes, it has to do with intestacy and divorce.

You've consistently thrown out the allegation that polygamy will result in such confusion to intestacy laws that we shouldn't allow it. You never actually make the case, though- I guess your allegation is enough, huh? Explain to me, exactly, how it presents an unsolvable problem.

also things such as spousal privilege. Problem being?

polygamy taken to an extreme will necessarily result in incest. Come again? Isn't that a little like me arguing that homosexual marriage, taken to an extreme, will inevitably result in pedophilia? Which is to say, it's ridiculous.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"I see no reason to buy the opinion that "there is a little poly in all of us"

Really? Then why do so many people cheat on their spouses, girfriends/boyfriends, etc. Obviously that is some evidence that people want to be involved with more than one person.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"polygamy taken to an extreme will necessarily result in incest"

How does polygamy lead to incest? What is your definition of incest? And how quickly do you think birth defects arise? Plenty of societies have had intermingled blood lines without everyone missing toes or whatever.

"yes, it has to do with intestacy and divorce. also things such as spousal privilege"

So for gays, it's ok to change the laws, but for polygamists it's just more toruble than it's worth to uphold their rights?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

The desire for a little variety on the side does not equate with the desire to be in a polyamorous relationship.

---

_______________________________________________

"The desire for a little variety on the side does not equate with the desire to be in a polyamorous relationship"

How do you know that? The contention is that the desire to be in a polyamorous relationship has been suppressed by societal conventions. Certainly it is conceivable that the inability of a large portion of our society to remain monogamous is an indication of that polyamorous tendency leaking out. Agree or not, the argument could certainly be made, and will be made by people who will use the gay marriage movement to advance their own cause as well. As predicted, many other causes will attempt to ride the coattails of the gay marriage movement.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

ok. man "a" has wives b, c, d. wife b has husband e, f. this could go on for a while. but suppose man a dies intestate, but with substantial possessions. typical intestate laws have inheritance going to spouse. if there is another child from a previous marriage, then that child is typically entitled to a specific share of the estate. but suppose no previous children. anyhow, so once mr. a dies, how is it divided? what if all he has is a house? wife b, c, and d all want said house. or alternatively, c and d want money from house, wife b wants the house. how do you resolve that? more importantly how do you write a coherent law such that this type of situation is resolved more mechanically without having to go through much litigation?

how would you treat marital property in case mr. a divorces wife b, but not c or d? typically, anything that is acquired post marriage is communal property subject to splitting upon divorce. so, is wife entitled to anything that mr. a acquired jointly with wife c or d? is mr. a entitled to property that wife b acquired in her marriages with hubbies e and f? again, how do you write a relatively simple, coherent law that permits easy splitting of assets?

as for spousal privilege(in case you aren't aware, spousal privilege means that a spouse can't be compelled to testify against the other spouse) in testimony, this is less difficult in most situations. the majority of jurisdictions hold that the testifying spouse holds the privilege. in some jurisdictions, it is jointly held, meaning that the defendant spouse can preclude witness spouse from testifying. now suppose in this latter case, mr. a is on trial. wife b had conversation with husband e--totally unrelated to her marriage with mr. a and this conversation would incriminate mr. a. can he then prevent her from testifying even though the conversation had nothing to do with mr a and wife b's marriage? can husband e testify?

the only reason my extreme polygamy argument is ridiculous is because with the population size as is, the chances are slim to none that everyone would end up related in some fashion and thus creating some level of incest. but if everyone just started taking multiple wives/husbands and having kids, eventually everyone would be directly related to everyone else.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

"but if everyone just started taking multiple wives/husbands and having kids, eventually everyone would be directly related to everyone else"

Nobody is saying that everyone will or that everyone has to marry mutltiple people. What makes you think everyone would be doing it? Especially if you disregard the idea that the tendency is in everyone.

"again, how do you write a relatively simple, coherent law that permits easy splitting of assets? "

As if divorces are simple now since there are only two people.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Actually, she is a proponent of polygamy and, I think, of gay marriage as well. I suspect she will be a very good advocate indeed.

Her point is not so much to make analogies between gay marriage and polygamy, her point is to make polygomy legal. She is using most of the same arguments.

Polygomy advocates will make it very difficult to intellectually justify approving of gay marriage but not polygomy. They will line up all the scientific justification as required in due time.

anyhow, so once mr. a dies, how is it divided?

Oh, no, and now there are wives b, c, and d who all have a claim to the house! The horrors! Whatever are we to do? Well, either we could say that wife b, being the senior partner, as it were, gets the house, or more likely, we could simply say that wives b, c, and d all have an equal claim on the house, and more or less hold it in common. I don't see the big deal here. Is it much different from a situation in which a sole surviving parent dies, and his/her children have to divide the estate?

how would you treat marital property in case mr. a divorces wife b, but not c or d? typically, anything that is acquired post marriage is communal property subject to splitting upon divorce. so, is wife entitled to anything that mr. a acquired jointly with wife c or d?

Yes, I don't see why she wouldn't be, and I don't see that this presents any bigger problems than we already deal with as a matter of course.

now suppose in this latter case, mr. a is on trial. wife b had conversation with husband e--totally unrelated to her marriage with mr. a and this conversation would incriminate mr. a. can he then prevent her from testifying even though the conversation had nothing to do with mr a and wife b's marriage? can husband e testify?

One could easily pass a law to whatever effect one wanted. Let's say we decide to say that the spousal privilege applies throughout the marriage, and no spouse within the group can be compelled to testify against someone else within the marriage, and also that any spouse within the marriage can prevent another spouse in the group marriage from testifying. Once again, it doesn't seem very complicated to me.

but if everyone just started taking multiple wives/husbands and having kids, eventually everyone would be directly related to everyone else.

Good grief. We agree that this is a ridiculous argument. (Though my analogy to gay marriage/pedophilia isn't appropriate, I guess, as I misunderstood your point here. It's more like saying that if everyone adopted gay marriage, we'd be extinct within a century.)

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Build your society that way, and property division will be the least of society's problems.

If man a in your case also went ahead and married man e and f, would they be entitled to a bigger cut? Would a and e be both husbands in law and husbands? Do you think we could all wind up married to each other?

I wonder why people think these situations would take all meaning from marriage.

I may have missed this in other responses, but have you noticed that the article and justification cover POLYAMORY instead of POLYGAMY?

There is enough of a difference in definition between the two, especially when it is done by a Yale Law School graduate. I imagine the choice of words is very intentional.

If you love more than one person, then you are polyamorous. It does not have to involve sexual relations.

---

_____________________________________
You're not stuck in traffic. You ARE traffic.

If you love more than one person, then you are polyamorous. It does not have to involve sexual relations."

Except that the article specifically refers to polyamory as being on the "sexual continuum."

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

domestic law is actually one of the simplest, conceptually speaking, areas of the law that there is. there are a few areas which create some complext situations, but generally speaking it's pretty cut and dry.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

I pulled only a select quote, but the author is an activist for legal polygamy. She is just laying the foundation here.

"here are a few areas which create some complext situations, but generally speaking it's pretty cut and dry"

And yet there are still frequent disputes. The point is that having to write new laws to cover something isn't reason enough to refuse to make it legal. The fact that it might be complicated isn't either, or we'd have to scrap SS and the income tax.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

If you want to go with the past 10,000 years of human history the "Leave It To Beaver" family is the exception.

Hello,

First my arguements had nothing to do with wether polygamy should be allowed or not. Just that the author in question had no proof what so ever that polygamy and gay marriage have anything to do with each other, socially or legally.

I haven't read the paper you reference, but I don't think it really applies. The definition of "society" is obviously different. I mean come on you expect me to believe that polygamy is common and that a reasonable survey found it prevalent in about 80% of the worlds societies?

Okay



Styrrell

and what if he married wife c two days before he died? still divide equally? just result?

here's another. suppose mr. a had his own business that he started while married to wife b and c. wife b is prominently involved and helps grow the business directly. wife c is less involved and more often than not is the care taker of the children, but in doing so made sure that mr. a and wife b didn't miss any opportunities to ensure the business grows. he then marries wife d who has no involvement in the business or in child rearing, yet while married, the value of the business doubles(and i should note that with laws today, divying up value added to a personal business is one of the areas that creates complexity in divorce law because it is unclear whether the "community" helped grow the business). mr. a dies. how do you divide up the value of the business in equitable fashion?

and another. you will likely think it's a flippant example, but for many, many people it wouldn't be. suppose mr. a bought a dog while married to b, c, and d. all 3 become firmly attached and want the dog afterwards. joint custody is not practical because of living arrangements(i.e. they live in different states). what result?

---

f/k/a mclamb6

don't confuse emotionally charged situations with legal complexity. the law is pretty cut and dried when it comes to divorce. people just get petty.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

Just that the author in question had no proof what so ever that polygamy and gay marriage have anything to do with each other, socially or legally.

In the context of the discussion, they have everything to do with each other. Every argument you can possibly make in support of gay marriage applies also to polygamy, at least equally, and probably more strongly.

The definition of "society" is obviously different.

Huh?

I mean come on you expect me to believe that polygamy is common and that a reasonable survey found it prevalent in about 80% of the worlds societies?

I expect you to acknowledge the plain fact that polygamy has been a common practice throughout history, yes. If you can find evidence to the contrary, feel free to bring it to my attention.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

don't confuse emotionally charged situations with legal complexity. the law is pretty cut and dried when it comes to divorce. people just get petty. "

Regardless, complexity is not reason enough not to make something legal.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

and what if he married wife c two days before he died? still divide equally? Uh, yeah. Just like is currently done.

just result? Why not? If, let's say, some 19 year old bimbo marries an elderly rich man today, and he dies tomorrow, doesn't she get his loot? Even if he has three kids who provided care for him for years and years? Is that a "just" result?

and i should note that with laws today, divying up value added to a personal business is one of the areas that creates complexity in divorce law because it is unclear whether the "community" helped grow the business). mr. a dies. how do you divide up the value of the business in equitable fashion?

That situation seems not fundamentally different from the situation we already face. In practice, it creates the same kind of complexity that you acknowledge currently exists. Not a particularly strong argument, I think.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Oops. You're right. I'll have to work on my reading comprehension.

---

_____________________________________
You're not stuck in traffic. You ARE traffic.

3 people with differing contributions(4 if you count husband), doesn't make a situation more complex than 1(or possibly 2)?

sometimes the bimbo would get the cash, some not. depends on whether there existed some undue influence. in addition, there have been cases in which a spouse was extremely wealthy and there was a short term marriage and the court didn't divide the assets according to the letter of the law.

suppose a "clan" of several husbands and wives. one of hubbies doesn't have a kid with any of the wives, although there are several kids floating around. childless hubby, fairly regularly, had helped support his wives and their kids. childless hubby divorces from the clan. is he required to pay child support?

one thing i can't recall for sure is whether debt acquired during marriage is community debt. i believe it is. would that still carry over in polygamous situations even if wife d had no hand in creating the debt?

suppose mr. a and wife b enter into a contract with an outside party. mr. a and mrs. b default on their contractual obligations. 3rd party sues for damages. could 3rd party go after the property of mrs. b and other husband(who wasn't a party to the contract) to satisfy the claim?

---

f/k/a mclamb6

judges often weigh the practical implications of overturning laws vs. the importance of the issue at hand when making decisions.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

3 people with differing contributions(4 if you count husband), doesn't make a situation more complex than 1(or possibly 2)?

In theory, no, not really. The same legal principles would apply in a polygamous marriage as apply to a marriage currently. In practice, it might be somewhat more complex, but as slowguy noted, this type of complexity isn't really grounds for denying someone their rights, is it? And really, how often do you think the situation would arise? Besides which, I have faith that the courts would prove every bit as capable of dealing with this kind of complexity as they are now.

sometimes the bimbo would get the cash, some not. <> there have been cases in which a spouse was extremely wealthy and there was a short term marriage and the court didn't divide the assets according to the letter of the law.

And this somehow couldn't be done in cases of polygamy?

one thing i can't recall for sure is whether debt acquired during marriage is community debt. i believe it is. would that still carry over in polygamous situations even if wife d had no hand in creating the debt?

I believe you're right, and that part of marriage as currently understood includes assuming responsibility for a spouse's debt, whether or not an individual had a hand in creating said debt. And I don't see why this should be any different for polygamous marriages, either.

suppose mr. a and wife b enter into a contract with an outside party. mr. a and mrs. b default on their contractual obligations. 3rd party sues for damages. could 3rd party go after the property of mrs. b and other husband(who wasn't a party to the contract) to satisfy the claim?

Again, I completely fail to see how you think the situation is or might be any different from the current situation. If I (husband a) enter into a contract with an outside party, and then default on my contractual obligations, can the outside party sue Mrs. Vitus (wife a) for damages? Legally, I don't see that there needs to be a distinction.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

the difference in the debt and contract issues is that with only two people involved, the likelihood that one of the parties was unaware of what was occuring or at least tacitly approving of the contract/debt accumulation decreases dramatically. in fact, knowledge could almost be presumed. depending on the size of the clan, the chances that there was no knowledge increases substantially. the problem of an equitable result arises.

now, i can anticipate a couple counter arguments to my position above(not trying to create straw men or put words in your mouth, just anticipating some possibilities):

1) if you are going to enter into a polygamous relationship, you assume the risk of these things occurring. buyer beware, so to speak. this would be a pretty good argument and frankly i don't have a specific rebuttal.

2) the courts could hear evidence and determine case by case whether debt or contractual obligations apply to each and every member of the clan. or what would be the most equitable way to distribute marital assets/estates. the problem arises of the already over-worked courts getting completely bogged down with these types of cases and not having time/resources to address other pressing issues.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

the difference in the debt and contract issues is that with only two people involved, the likelihood that one of the parties was unaware of what was occuring or at least tacitly approving of the contract/debt accumulation decreases dramatically. in fact, knowledge could almost be presumed.

You're the lawyer, but I don't know if that's exactly true. I don't think that the debt or the contractual obligations arise out of the assumed fact that the uninvolved spouse had knowledge of the transactions, but rather out of the fact that society deems a married couple to be a unit, as opposed to two individuals, in this type of case. And we certainly cannot presume that simply because the marriage only includes two people, that both spouses are somehow aware of the contractual obligations of the other, or approves of the transactions. Just as an example, family lore has it that my great-grandfather had a habit of buying new cars without informing his wife. He'd just show up with a shiny new Model T parked in the driveway. Does that mean that my great grandmother was immune from the contractual obligation to pay for the car? Or if Mrs. Vitus goes nuts and spends $34,000 at the mall this afternoon, am I not obligated to carry through on the credit card payment because I didn't know she was going shopping?

if you are going to enter into a polygamous relationship, you assume the risk of these things occurring. buyer beware, so to speak. this would be a pretty good argument and frankly i don't have a specific rebuttal.

This is the argument I'd make, especially as I think it's the argument that currently applies to marriage anyway. No change here, as far as I can see.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"judges often weigh the practical implications of overturning laws vs. the importance of the issue at hand when making decisions."

And how would that be different in a polygamy case? Look, i understand that it might generate some intersting and even difficult legal questions. but none of them are unsolvable, and the idea that the legal issues are tough to tackle isn't reason enough not to do it. This issue doesn't make polygamy any less deserving of legalization than gay marriage.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

So, where stand we?

As I recall, opponents of gay marriage have continually asserted that if gay marriage is allowed, it will inevitably lead to calls for other marriage arrangements, including polygamy. And it looks like we were right about that- in fact, the call for polygamy has started even before gay marriage has been allowed.

We also asserted that gay marriage proponents would have no grounds to oppose arrangements like polygamy, and as far as I can tell, that's also been proven true.

Am I getting this right?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

That sounds just about right. The slippery slope is really a cliff.

As I keep trying to tell my 16 year old daughter: Actions, consequences.

i still disagree regarding the second point/question. i will admit that some of the hypos i raised you answered in fairly short order. i wasn't convinced regarding debt, contracts, and other forms of marital property. moreover, i do believe that the courts would be extremely bogged down with polygamy cases(unlike gay marriage, polygamy is something that, if legal, people would choose to give a try) over the issues discussed such that prohibition would still be justified.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

"polygamy is something that, if legal, people would choose to give a try"

What makes you think that? Why do you think that if it's legal, all sorts of people, besides those already into it, will want to try it?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

because i know there is an element, at least of guys out there, who don't want to get married because they don't want to be tied down to one person. now, it most certainly could be just an immature response, but there are some guys out there who are chronically single because of the finality of being with the same person all the time. (yes, i know the girl still has to agree). polygamy would mean it was go time all the time. essentially people'd have free license to constantly flirt and attempt to develop relationships. because of that, i think more people than just the "hardcore" would give it a whirl.

moreover, at this point, i have no reason to believe that polygamy is a genetic issue. thus people can choose to try it. that's all it is--choice. thus, in my opinion, there is the potential to have a growing subset, vs. something like homosexuality which i believe is determined at birth and thus more of a "fixed" group(i.e. most people won't simply opt into the group because the genetic factors aren't there).

---

f/k/a mclamb6

"polygamy would mean it was go time all the time. essentially people'd have free license to constantly flirt and attempt to develop relationships"

Polygamy isn't about unlimited wives or husbands or flirting or sex. It's about comitted relationships with more than one person. So a comitted relationship with 2 girls. Those two girls are willing to share in the comitted relationship, not to share you with every girl out there. On top of which, giving it a whirl would be probalematic because they have to legally get married.

"moreover, at this point, i have no reason to believe that polygamy is a genetic issue"

Why not? It's plausible that people are genetically predisposed to like the same sex, but not plausible that people are genetically predisposed to prefer multiple partners?

"thus people can choose to try it"

People "try" homosexual experiences all the time. People experiment with all types of sexuality.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

i know that it is about committed relationships, but unless you meet your multiple wives at the same time, there is an element of always being receptive to another person as a potential second, third, or fourth mate.

people do experiment, but unless they are genetically disposed in that direction(in my opinion), it won't "stick". i could try it, but i know that it wouldn't be something that would have any permanence.

first, polygamy, in the truest since of the word, can't be genetic because it pre-supposes marriage. there is no genetic imperative to marry(not for men at least--kidding). i won't say that it's impossible that there is genetic coding that says one person prefers/needs to be with one person and another needs to have multiple partners, but i don't see any evidence of it. at this point, i see it(polygamy vs. monogamy) as a social construct.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

"people do experiment, but unless they are genetically disposed in that direction(in my opinion), it won't "stick""

I don't think polygamy would be any different. People try threesomes and find it ruins their relationship. i certainly don't see any reason to believe that tons of people would all of the sudden give marriage to multiple people a try when they weren't willing to committ to marriage to one person.

"first, polygamy, in the truest since of the word, can't be genetic because it pre-supposes marriage"

No, polygamy couldn't be genetic, just like being a gay married person isn't genetic. However, if you assume being homosexual is genetic, I don't see any reason to think being polyamorous isn't as well.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

true, there isn't genetic coding for gay marriage. however, where i see a distinction(legally speaking) is that a polyamorous person can marry, obtain all the benefits of marriage(i.e. legal benefits), while still being true to their polyamorous ways(i.e. the mormon fundamentalist concept of 'spiritual wifery'). so they aren't "missing out" on anything. gays, on the other hand, don't have an option of gaining the benefits of marriage while being true to their nature.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

"however, where i see a distinction(legally speaking) is that a polyamorous person can marry, obtain all the benefits of marriage(i.e. legal benefits), while still being true to their polyamorous ways(i.e. the mormon fundamentalist concept of 'spiritual wifery'). so they aren't "missing out" on anything"

Well they are missing out on sharing a legal marriage with multiple partners, so no, they aren't getting everything.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

that's all priorities. is it about the act of marrying more than one person or simply knowing that you are sharing the same person with other folks?

---

f/k/a mclamb6

Why is the legal right to marry who you want important for gays, but the legal right to marry who you want is not important for polygamists in your eyes?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

because of the concomitant rights associated with marriage that a polygamist can receive regardless of whether he has a ceremony with his/her other mates that a gay person can't receive in any situation.

further, it can be argued that polygamists could still have legal ceremonies with other mates under the notion that it's only illegal if you get caught. can't really fool anyone when it comes to same sex marriage.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

You can live with a group of women without being married to them, right? God love them if they could get along, and you could stand all that PMS, but you could do it if everybody was willing. Doesn't that actually finesse the anti-polygamy statutes?

P.S. This Poster has not read any of the other posts in this thread.

i still disagree regarding the second point/question. By which I take it that you're at least convinced now of the first, that gay marriage will, in fact, lead to calls for still further modifications of how we define marriage. Yes?

i will admit that some of the hypos i raised you answered in fairly short order. i wasn't convinced regarding debt, contracts, and other forms of marital property.

I don't understand. All of the hypotheticals you raised were about debt, contracts, and marital property. And in each case, it seems pretty obvious to me that there would be no difference between a polygamous marriage and monogamous marriage. None of the issues you raised seems to present much of a problem for the legal system, since the legal system already copes adequately with the very same issues.

i do believe that the courts would be extremely bogged down with polygamy cases(unlike gay marriage, polygamy is something that, if legal, people would choose to give a try)

That's dubious. Even in cultures that have traditionally condoned polygamy, it isn't often practiced by the majority of people. In the US, where polygamy doesn't enjoy broad cultural approval as of yet, I think it's quite safe to say that a very small minority of people would seek to join a polygamous marriage- certainly not a large enough minority to "bog down" the court system, even if it were somehow more legally complicated than monogamous marriage. Which it isn't.

Any other supposedly compelling reasons why polygamy must be banned, if gay marriage should be adopted?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

where i see a distinction(legally speaking) is that a polyamorous person can marry, obtain all the benefits of marriage(i.e. legal benefits), while still being true to their polyamorous ways

Uh . . . unless you're wife "c," right? What about her rights?

Besides, legally speaking, gay partners have virtually the same benefits as a married couple in California right now. But they're still suing, aren't they? Do you support that action?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

because of the concomitant rights associated with marriage that a polygamist can receive regardless of whether he has a ceremony with his/her other mates that a gay person can't receive in any situation.

Can you run that by me again, this time in English? I need to know if it's as meritless as it sounds in high falutin' lawyer lingo.

Ah, what the heck, I'll take a stab at it as written. ;)

What marital rights does a polygamist have with his/her other spouses? None, as far as I know. They have legal rights only with one spouse.

further, it can be argued that polygamists could still have legal ceremonies with other mates under the notion that it's only illegal if you get caught.

Again, you're the lawyer here, but I think I'd advise you not to use that particular legal argument in court anytime soon.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"Well there we have it. The fountain of wisdom has come forth with the obvious question."




"I really can't give you an answer to that question that would be intelligent enough to convince you, if you were not already inclined to be convinced. My answer would involve family and children and commitment and the like. "



"If I gave that answer I would be reminded that I was a neo-Christian."

DEEEEEEAM! Come on Franke where is the love my man? I swear what ever happened I am very sorry about it. :-)



"I finally figured out what that means by the way, if anyone is interested."

What does that mean? I rank it up there with neo conservative. A snotty remark made by leftist who can't relax and see the other side.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

"because of the concomitant rights associated with marriage that a polygamist can receive regardless of whether he has a ceremony with his/her other mates that a gay person can't receive in any situation."

You're really arguing that " at least polygamists get to marry one person."
Somehow the ceremony isn't that important for the second or third spouse, but it is important for gays. It just doesn't follow.

"further, it can be argued that polygamists could still have legal ceremonies with other mates under the notion that it's only illegal if you get caught. can't really fool anyone when it comes to same sex marriage."

And now you're arguing that we don't have to make it legal because they can get away with breaking the law. You're really reaching now.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

the ceremony is more important for gays than polygamists because without it, gays get nothing.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

not if she married husband d. she might not have legal rights with mr. a.

and what about the rest of the country?

---

f/k/a mclamb6

no, i don't think it NECESSARILY follows that legalizing gay marriage will lead to calls for polygamy other re-definitions of marriage.

where it comes down for me, at this point, is that polygamy/polyamorous behavior is a choice. a conscious decision. i see nothing to indicate that it is a genetic behavior. this presents a huge distinction for me, in that there are many things that a person might "like" to do, but laws preclude it. yes, there is a choice involved with gay marriage, but, in my opinion, the root behavior, being gay, is genetic. thus, we are denying something to them and stigmatizing gays based on behaviors over which they have no control.

you simply dismiss all legal issues associated with polygamous situations as being no more legally complicated than monogamous ones. while that is true for some of the hypothetical situations i raised, i wasn't persuaded as to all of them.

make no mistake, though, you'd never see me on the front lines of an anti-polygamy battle. if a group of consenting adults want to go that route, that's up to them. i just see reasons why there would be laws against it.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

I have not read every post in this thread ... but I do find it entertaining-peculiar that homosexuals do not want any groups (polygamists in this case) to piggy-back them on this issue or to be conjoined with any other groups seeking their "civil rights" ... all the while they (homosexuals) seem to be associating or conjoining or piggy-backing the civil rights situations of the past involving persons of color.

Talk about having your cake and wanting to eat it to.

The cat's out of the bag (or the closet) and it is fairly obvious what the real issue is ... and it does not seem to have much to do with "civil rights" pertaining to marriage.

-----------------------------

This is where I put on the broken record and say that if the fdefinition of marriage is changed, do it in such a way that allows for everyone's civil rights to become fulfilled ... just don't change it so that one, very loud, but small minority group gets added to the "discriminating group".

I am looking forward to addressing and re-addressing and re-addressing and re-addressing this issue many times of the next 50 years. (<--- sarcasm)

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

Calls for gay marriage have already lead to calls for other forms of marriage. How can you deny that?

I also don't understand your comment about laws against polygamy being appropriate. I had a long dialogue with a rather formidable attorney on this board who explained that such things were already baked into the Constitution. No laws were applicable since it was an equal protection issue.

I was about to suggest that you go back and read it, but I just remembered it was with you. Imagine that.

This lady is laying the same foundation for the same reasons. No, her arguments and proofs aren't fully assembled yet, but we both know they will be. All it will take is a half dozen or so activists with the right PhDs, a few bucks and some predetermined "studies" and you will have the whole package.

I'm curious as to what could possibly lead a presumably sane and intelligent person to spend her time being a polygamy advocate or theorist. I think she needs a hobby. Someone has daddy or mommy issues, I think.

Paging Dr. Freud.

I am probably stating the painfully obvious, but I suspect she already has a hobby.

i've seen one article that you posted discussing polygamy. even if gays are a small, vocal minority, there is no denying that gay marriage is very much in the national conscious as an issue. polygamy is not.

as for equal protection. here's how it works. equal protection means equal protection. however, if it was literally applied, then a substantial chunk of laws would go by the way-side as nearly every law discriminates against one group or another. the courts have attempted to strike a balance between permissible discrimination and impermissible. their analysis is as follows: they examine the purpose of the law and whether it is intended to discriminate against a particular group. they then decide whether such group is a "suspect class" entitled to a higher level of equal protection scrutiny. if the class is not suspect, they apply a "rational basis" test. this means, essentially, that so long as the gov't can come up with any old justification outside of pure discrimination, the law is ok. if the class is "suspect", different levels of scrutiny are applied. to date, only classifications based on gender and race have been labeled "suspect classes".

racial classifications are subject to "strict scrutiny". this means the state must have an overwhelming need for the discrimination, the discrimination is the only means of achieving this end, and the discrimination must be narrowly tailored to achieve only this end. it is a difficult standard to meet, to wit, no one has been able to satisfy its requirements.

gender classifications receive a middling level of scrutiny somewhere above rational basis but beneath strict scrutiny. for a law that differs between genders, the state needs a pretty compelling reason for the discrimination, the discrimination must be a means to achieve this end, but it doesn't have to be as narrowly tailored to achieve the end(i.e. it doesn't have to be the "least restrictive" means of achieving the end). this middle level of scrutiny makes gender discrimination based on something like intellect no good, while recognizing that there are still valid reasons for distinguishing between sexes.

now, with respect to gay marriage, the fight will be over what type of "class" gays are. my gut says it will get "suspect" status, and thus a higher level of scrutiny. as such, the state will need a pretty compelling justification to discriminate against gays. justifications based on morality and religion, which forms the basis for every justification i have seen against gay marriage, have not held up in court. if the court finds gays aren't a suspect class(which i think would be more likely if the courts decide being gay is simply a choice), then just about any old justification will do(i can't recall a situation where the court struck down a law based on a "pure" rational basis test.

the same analysis will apply to polygamy. if polygamists receive suspect class status, again, better justification is required. whether or not the court(or the court of general public--yeah, that's you vitus) will find this compelling, one CAN argue that there are secular, non-religious based justifications for precluding polygamy. for me, it's a much more open question of whether polygamists are a suspect class, and thus there is a likelihood that rational basis would apply. in which case, the rationale discussed previously would most definitely pass judicial muster.

that's how equal protection rights are determined and whether they are "baked" into the constitution.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

"The ceremony is more important for gays than polygamists because without it, gays get nothing."

Are you really telling me that it's ok to leave out polygamists because at least the've got a little bit of rights? First, that isn't accurate. they have the same potential gripe as gays. The gripe goes like this:

"We aren't allowed to marry who we want to. We aren't allowed to codify our comitted relationships."

Would it have been ok to disregard a women's rights movement by saying, "well it's more important to work on the rights of blacks, because at least women have some rights already, and blacks have none" ? Of course not. If you are going to argue that people should have the right to marry who they want, and that decision should not be based on morality, then you have to extend that argument to everyone, not just the homosexual community.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I have been thinking about this. Would Pologomy be that bad??

I know a few women who would like a second husband and a few guys who would be willing to share a woman with another man.

I also know a few women who have flat out said "I need a wife" - meaning help out around the house, shared duties of raising the kids. And there are men who would like more than one wife.

On Extreme Home Makeover TV show last week, the wife's Sister came to live with them to help out with their disabled child - she is acting as a second wife - but she is not getting any "wifely" benefits (and for the ignorant out there -- women get sexual urges as much as men - and long for sexual pleasure just like men)

In the past when Men ruled - they would "take" wives - that is bad. Women losing thier rights, etc. And it was always one man with many wives.

But if consenting adults want to get together - why not?? Two men who agree to have one wife and she agrees - why not?? Two women who want one man and all three agree - why not??

AND I bet this situation would remain rare - most of the time there still would be only one man and one woman.

PS - I see no reason why gays should not marry.

Pss - I do not think the Government should be meddling in marraige - and I do not think married people should bet any tax benefits

Thank you for that fine summary of how the courts view these things. It all sounds very well thought out and reasonable, at least in the abstract. In practice, it probably comes up with pretty good answers most of the time.

Of course, none of what you described is in the Constitution.

The other missing piece is that nowhere in the analysis does it say that the courts should be extremely hesitant to, on a 5-4 vote, overturn democratically enacted laws, created by a coequal branch of government, supported by a large majority of the population and supported by a long tradition of existence in perfect harmony with the Constitution, all on a theory of discovering new meaning in old words that the authors certainly never intended.

The polygamists will eventually offer arguments and "proof" on equal basis to that being offered on behalf of gays today, and they will argue persuasively for inclusion in the same class and for the same rights. There will be no intellectual distinction between the two that will not be under persuasive attack.

Of course, if you just let the legislatures do their job and make their choices, life is very simple. The courts would lose power and probably invitations to Washington cocktail parties though, so we can't have that.

i am making no morality based judgements on polygamy. if consenting adults want to go for it, then go for it. just pointing out what i see as potential distinctions.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

Well, that's a pity then. I was going to suggest we start a collection to buy her a tri bike, to give her a hobby.

so now a 5-4 vote is less legitimate? close votes mean less? that's not how it works in our system. that's like saying "shouldn't we be hesistant to enact a bill because it was 51-49 in the senate".

ok, then, if you want to remove that analysis from the equation, that would mean that every law that is intended to discriminate against a specified group would be no good. are you honestly going to tell me that the constitution need also spell out the process by which it is to be applied? or that everything in the constitution is so self-evident that no decision making calculus is required to determine whether the constitution applies to certain issues?

---

f/k/a mclamb6

I guess you misunderstand. I find no fault with that process of drawing distinctions. I can not offer a better approach. Various rights are inevitably going to wind up in conflict at times. The Courts are there to make the tradeoffs. My point is that there is more to the story than just that.

Certainly a 5-4 vote is less legitmate. You probably don't remember, but it used to be a tradition in the Court to find a way to rule unanimously on important cases. Civil Rights cases and the various Nixon impeachment rulings come to mind.

Brown v. Board of Education was held up for one year and reargued on some pretense in order to find an opportunity to get a 9-0 vote rather than an 8-1 vote.

If the Court has sufficient reason to change the plain intentions of the authors of the Constitution after 200 years, go against the preferences of a large majority of the public and the legislatures they select, and change major policy decisions on major issues, it ought to have sufficiently persuasive reasons to muster better than a 5-4 vote. My concept is one of showing deference to the voters and the other branches of government. The courts used to be pretty good at that, but those days are over.

A 51-49 vote in Senate is a completely different matter. Majority rules. If the voters don't like, it won't take much in the next election to redress the grievance. No such check exists on the Judiciary.

not if she married husband d. she might not have legal rights with mr. a.

Err . . . Let me state the obvious, and point out that such a situation isn't polygamy at all, but entirely separate monogamous marriages.

and what about the rest of the country?

Don't know what you mean by this.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

you referenced the rights of gays in california. my question is, what about the rest of the country?

sorry, she wouldn't be in a polygamous relationship. she'd be in a polyamorous one.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

you referenced the rights of gays in california. my question is, what about the rest of the country?

Ah, OK. But you're evading the point of my question. If gays can enjoy the same legal rights as married couples without being married, do you think it's somehow still important to allow gay marriage?

sorry, she wouldn't be in a polygamous relationship. she'd be in a polyamorous one.

Semantic abuse.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"semantic abuse"

you started splitting hairs first. you know what i meant earlier.

sure there is symbolic value that applies to the act/marriage license and i am sure there are polys who would make that argument. i do believe that the bulk of the issue, especially in states without more progressive/amoral(depending on your view) laws, revolves around not having legal rights that are afforded to married heteros.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

you started splitting hairs first. Did not!!

you know what i meant earlier. I really didn't. That's why I asked what you meant. Really.

sure there is symbolic value that applies to the act/marriage license and i am sure there are polys who would make that argument. Is it just me, or are you starting to talk in non sequitors? Polys would make the argument that the symbolism of a marriage ceremony is important? No, they'd make the argument that their legal rights are being violated, in that they cannot enjoy any legal rights within the realtionship they've chosen. (And in neither case- gay or polygamist- is it a case of simply wanting the ceremony of a marriage for symbolic reasons. Anybody can have a purely symbolic ceremony with anyone they want right now. Gays already do it all the time. It's a question of whether that ceremony is followed by the legal rights of marriage, and ALSO a question of whether the state officially sanctions that ceremony as a real marriage.)

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

i stated that poorly. what i meant was that polys would want their second marriage codified/recognized by the state for the symbolic reason that it would mean acceptance of their lifestyle. as i had mentioned before, anti-bigamy/polygamy laws don't stop people from practicing "spiritual wifery", but it lacks the validation of state sanction. so i didn't mean symbolism in the sense of merely having a ceremony committing themselves to each other in the clan, but rather the ceremony/state sanction as symbolic approval of polygamy. is that clearer?

by the way, how would you address a terri schiavo type of situation in the case of polygamy where the husbands couldn't agree on the best course of treatment? who gets to be the surrogate decision maker?

---

f/k/a mclamb6

what i meant was that polys would want their second marriage codified/recognized by the state for the symbolic reason that it would mean acceptance of their lifestyle.

Which is exactly why gays are fighting for gay marriage. (Not to mention that it would also carry the legal benefits of marriage, which polygamists don't have now, and have no prospects of getting through some sort of "civil union" arrangement.)

how would you address a terri schiavo type of situation in the case of polygamy where the husbands couldn't agree on the best course of treatment? who gets to be the surrogate decision maker?

That's an interesting question. Let me ask you this- in the case of a single surviving parent with two kids who can't agree on the question, what happens?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

i honestly don't know what the law says on that issue(children of a sole surviving parent) or even if kids are next in line as a surrogate decision maker(they likely are). maybe the court has a hearing to appoint a guardian ad litem, i don't know.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

maybe the court has a hearing to appoint a guardian ad litem, i don't know.

I don't know either, but once again, I think it's clear that polygamy wouldn't present any new challenges to the legal system. There must be cases like this all the time.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."