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...)