Politics

[Bubbles]

I have to be honest, I just don't understand the marriage equality angle at all here. Those who are against gay marriage often use polygamy as a slippery slope, I just don't see it.

I guess if you think gay marriage destroyed marriage, then you will jump to that conclusion more easily. For me, polygamy is something completely different. Honestly they'd have a better argument with incestual marriages.

The difference between polygamy and marriage is obvious: two. Two people form a marriage. You aren't born a polygamist, you are born straight or gay. So two straight people can get marriage, or two gay people can. It seems pretty simple and I don't really have any doubts that courts would see it that way too.

From a purely biological/propagation-of-your-own-genes standpoint....not sure that's actually true.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Not every asset is divisible, and not every legal right that comes with marriage relates to property.

If one partner in a polygamous relationship dies and the rest want to split, who gets the child? If one partner gets in a crash and is unresponsive, who makes their medical decisions? You can go on and on with this...marriage is a set of rules designed to give legal rights to two people. You'd have to completely rewrite those rules to accomodate polygammy in a way that just wasn't true for gay marriage. It might have been different 100 years ago when the woman played a subordinate legal role in the marital relationship, but those rules have, for the most part, been displaced for completely unrelated reasons.

No matter how many times people bring up polygammy, it's just not a good or realistic argument. Maybe in 100 years marriage will have completely changed and it will make sense, but for the foreseeable future it's a non-starter.

No biggie...

 

[connor_in]

Not every asset is divisible, and not every legal right that comes with marriage relates to property.

If one partner in a polygamous relationship dies and the rest want to split, who gets the child? If one partner gets in a crash and is unresponsive, who makes their medical decisions? You can go on and on with this...marriage is a set of rules designed to give legal rights to two people. You'd have to completely rewrite those rules to accomodate polygammy in a way that just wasn't true for gay marriage. It might have been different 100 years ago when the woman played a subordinate legal role in the marital relationship, but those rules have, for the most part, been displaced for completely unrelated reasons.

No matter how many times people bring up polygammy, it's just not a good or realistic argument. Maybe in 100 years marriage will have completely changed and it will make sense, but for the foreseeable future it's a non-starter.

link?

 

[connor_in]

Oh sorry, I missed that I wanted to address the you aren't born a polygamist line as well.

Can you link to me where it is exactly that we are born monogamist?

 

[IrishinSyria]

link?

Are you being willfully dense?

See, e.g. 750 ILCS 65/3

Sec. 3. When the husband has deserted his family, the wife may prosecute or defend, in his name, any action which he might have prosecuted or defended, and, under like circumstances, the same right shall apply to the husband upon the desertion of the wife.

How would that law apply to a polyamorous marriage? Obviously, it will have to be rewritten to be gender neutral now, but the mechanics of the law don't change for gay marriage. The same doesn't hold at all for a polyamorous marriage.

See also 750 ILCS 65/14

Sec. 14. A husband or wife may constitute the other his or her attorney in fact, to control and dispose of his or her property for their mutual benefit or otherwise, and may revoke the same to the same extent and in the same manner as other persons.

How would this work in a polyamorous marriage? If A marries B and B marries C, can C dispose of A's property for C and B's mutual benefit? It's not clear, because the law doesn't contemplate that scenario. Once again, not true for gay marriage.

You can do this with basically every marriage related law in every state. Feel free to educate yourself on the law of the land, I gave you the cites you can dig deeper if you want.

 

[connor_in]

Are you being willfully dense?

See, e.g. 750 ILCS 65/3



How would that law apply to a polyamorous marriage? Obviously, it will have to be rewritten to be gender neutral now, but the mechanics of the law don't change for gay marriage. The same doesn't hold at all for a polyamorous marriage.

See also 750 ILCS 65/14



How would this work in a polyamorous marriage? If A marries B and B marries C, can C dispose of A's property for C and B's mutual benefit? It's not clear, because the law doesn't contemplate that scenario. Once again, not true for gay marriage.

You can do this with basically every marriage related law in every state. Feel free to educate yourself on the law of the land, I gave you the cites you can dig deeper if you want.

I am only playing devil's advocate, I actually don't have a problem with two people of the same gender wanting to be together...no reason to get snippy there skippy...this is simply an exercise

And if the definition of marriage can be interpreted to multiple people, why can't the quotes you posted have their meanings interpreted to multiples. Just because its not clear doen't mean it can't be interpreted. That's what the courts are for. Remember, DOMA was the law of the land too

 

[ACamp1900]

If I were a gay dude I'd be pissed right now... for years I had the ultimate, 'we should get married' trump card in all my relationships... now that's been taken away...


happiness they said, ... shit just got real.

 

[IrishinSyria]

I am only playing devil's advocate, I actually don't have a problem with two people of the same gender wanting to be together...no reason to get snippy there skippy...this is simply an exercise

And if the definition of marriage can be interpreted to multiple people, why can't the quotes you posted have their meanings interpreted to multiples. Just because its not clear doen't mean it can't be interpreted. That's what the courts are for. Remember, DOMA was the law of the land too

Every modern marriage statute that I'm aware of creates rules that basically are mirror image for the husband of the wife. In other words, you could change the words "husband" and "wife" to "A" and "B" without changing the substantive effect of the statute. That's interpretation. Adding "C", as I tried to illustrate, isn't interpreting the statute- it's fundamentally changing it.

DOMA was struck down not because it was unclear, but rather because the Court found that it went against a higher law of the land.

Which leads me to your next question, re: how we're born. I actually think the point that we're all born with polyamorous tendencies actually strengthens -not weakens- the case against polygamy being protected by the 14th Amendment. Marriage incentivizes people to go against their base instincts and bind themselves to one other. In return, they get to enjoy certain legal, economic, and social benefits. You can choose to get married or you can choose to turn down those benefits and pursue how many partners you want, but you can't do both. This applies to everybody. In contrast, until last week, gays were given a fundamentally different choice: in order to opt-in to marriage, they had to give up both their ability to pursue multiple partners (a choice we all have to make) AND their ability to be in a romantic relationship (a choice we don't all have to make).

In other words, it's not impermissible for a law to ask people to make sacrifices or trade-offs. It is impermissible for a law to ask certain people to make sacrifices without a compelling state interest.

 

[Cackalacky]

From a purely biological/propagation-of-your-own-genes standpoint....not sure that's actually true.

Well polygamy is an anthropological term for Consensual Non-monogamy. It is more common than monogamous societies (not by by population though)...Its not a genetic issue of being born, rather cultural for socio-economic reasons. Much like every marriage ever.

Globally, acceptance of polygamy is common. According to the Ethnographic Atlas, of 1,231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous; 453 had occasional polygyny; 588 had more frequent polygyny; and 4 had polyandry.[8] At the same time, even within societies that allow polygyny, the actual practice of polygyny occurs unevenly. There are exceptions: in Senegal, for example, nearly 47 percent of marriages are multiple.[9] Within polygynous societies, multiple wives often become a status symbol denoting wealth, power, and fame.

 

[IrishLax]

Every modern marriage statute that I'm aware of creates rules that basically are mirror image for the husband of the wife. In other words, you could change the words "husband" and "wife" to "A" and "B" without changing the substantive effect of the statute. That's interpretation. Adding "C", as I tried to illustrate, isn't interpreting the statute- it's fundamentally changing it.

DOMA was struck down not because it was unclear, but rather because the Court found that it went against a higher law of the land.

Which leads me to your next question, re: how we're born. I actually think the point that we're all born with polyamorous tendencies actually strengthens -not weakens- the case against polygamy being protected by the 14th Amendment. Marriage incentivizes people to go against their base instincts and bind themselves to one other. In return, they get to enjoy certain legal, economic, and social benefits. You can choose to get married or you can choose to turn down those benefits and pursue how many partners you want, but you can't do both. This applies to everybody. In contrast, until last week, gays were given a fundamentally different choice: in order to opt-in to marriage, they had to give up both their ability to pursue multiple partners (a choice we all have to make) AND their ability to be in a romantic relationship (a choice we don't all have to make).

In other words, it's not impermissible for a law to ask people to make sacrifices or trade-offs. It is impermissible for a law to ask certain people to make sacrifices without a compelling state interest.

From what I remember from Human Ecology at ND, this isn't accepted fact.

Some animals are naturally monogamous, others are not. Usually in nature it's very easy to determine which group a species falls into from simple observation. Humans are sort of strange in that there is a wide spectrum of behavior, but pair bonding is common among almost all humans.

Pair bonding in humans (both sexual and social) goes back as far as recorded history. There is strong evidence that humans are not naturally polygamous... and there is strong evidence that, if reasonably empowered, humans are biologically wired to be with multiple partners (as you said, "polyamorous"). In general, primates are sort of all over the place... it varies species to species. But humans exhibit very different behavior than the primates that don't pair bond and aren't monogamous (e.g. gorillas). When you observe gorilla behavior where a dominant male gets multiple females and actually physically imposes his will on the other males to keep them all for himself... that is a polygamous animal. For a counter-example, chimps do not act this way. Nor do humans. In every society that has ever existed at any time in any part of the world, there is evidence of pair bonding among humans... whether it's African tribes, or Native Americans in the pre-Colombian era, or Victorian England, or...

But what about polygamous societies? This is understandable, as humans can have multiple pair bonds. Second, it's important to differentiate between this kind of behavior (i.e. limited polygamy as the result of multiple pair bonds) and having hundreds of concubines (i.e. how men are biologically wired to want to "spread their seed" and move on regardless of any bonding).

 

[RDU Irish]

Is there a clause that states marriage has to include sex? Because I need to print that shit out and show it to my wife!

As the answer is no, what is the problem with relatives marrying?

 

[NDgradstudent]

Which leads me to your next question, re: how we're born. I actually think the point that we're all born with polyamorous tendencies actually strengthens -not weakens- the case against polygamy being protected by the 14th Amendment. Marriage incentivizes people to go against their base instincts and bind themselves to one other. In return, they get to enjoy certain legal, economic, and social benefits. You can choose to get married or you can choose to turn down those benefits and pursue how many partners you want, but you can't do both. This applies to everybody. In contrast, until last week, gays were given a fundamentally different choice: in order to opt-in to marriage, they had to give up both their ability to pursue multiple partners (a choice we all have to make) AND their ability to be in a romantic relationship (a choice we don't all have to make).

In other words, it's not impermissible for a law to ask people to make sacrifices or trade-offs. It is impermissible for a law to ask certain people to make sacrifices without a compelling state interest.

What about bisexual people who want to marry both a man and a woman in accordance with their sexual orientation, just as straights and gays do?

How does their marriage harm you?

 

[IrishinSyria]

What about bisexual people who want to marry both a man and a woman in accordance with their sexual orientation, just as straights and gays do?

How does their marriage harm you?

It doesn't harm me, but it harms the legitimate state interest of having marriage laws that make sense like any other polyamorous marriage. I want to marry lots of women (see, for example, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue) but I can't. No different for bi.

But maybe I'm wrong and you'll change my mind. If there's no legitimate state interest involved, than I would support polygamy. Like you point out, it doesn't bother me.

 

[IrishinSyria]

From what I remember from Human Ecology at ND, this isn't accepted fact.

Some animals are naturally monogamous, others are not. Usually in nature it's very easy to determine which group a species falls into from simple observation. Humans are sort of strange in that there is a wide spectrum of behavior, but pair bonding is common among almost all humans.

Pair bonding in humans (both sexual and social) goes back as far as recorded history. There is strong evidence that humans are not naturally polygamous... and there is strong evidence that, if reasonably empowered, humans are biologically wired to be with multiple partners (as you said, "polyamorous"). In general, primates are sort of all over the place... it varies species to species. But humans exhibit very different behavior than the primates that don't pair bond and aren't monogamous (e.g. gorillas). When you observe gorilla behavior where a dominant male gets multiple females and actually physically imposes his will on the other males to keep them all for himself... that is a polygamous animal. For a counter-example, chimps do not act this way. Nor do humans. In every society that has ever existed at any time in any part of the world, there is evidence of pair bonding among humans... whether it's African tribes, or Native Americans in the pre-Colombian era, or Victorian England, or...

But what about polygamous societies? This is understandable, as humans can have multiple pair bonds. Second, it's important to differentiate between this kind of behavior (i.e. limited polygamy as the result of multiple pair bonds) and having hundreds of concubines (i.e. how men are biologically wired to want to "spread their seed" and move on regardless of any bonding).

Gave you reps because this was actually really interesting. It doesn't change the basic argument though, which is that the institution of marriage (in a legal sense) was designed to get humans to stick with one pair bond.

 

[Cackalacky]

Is there a clause that states marriage has to include sex? Because I need to print that shit out and show it to my wife!

As the answer is no, what is the problem with relatives marrying?

It legitimizes inbreeding which in humans has serious an documented genetic defects that accumulate and spread rather quickly.

 

[connor_in]

New Bubble Wrap is losing its pop - CNN.com


Thanks Obama

didn't know where to put this

 

[Ndaccountant]

Continuing to play devil's advocate...why not divide by the number of members of the marriage? Why would that have any problems with legalities and rationality? By the way, in your example it would actually be 16.7% as 1 man + 5 wives = 6 members of the marriage. 100 divided by 6 = 16.7 (I know, I know, math are hard)

False.

Two of the wives are midgets and we all know they only count as half a person.

 

[connor_in]

False.

Two of the wives are midgets and we all know they only count as half a person.

Gol' dang heightist SOB!

 

[NDgradstudent]

It doesn't harm me, but it harms the legitimate state interest of having marriage laws that make sense like any other polyamorous marriage. I want to marry lots of women (see, for example, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue) but I can't. No different for bi.

Suddenly "having marriage laws that make sense" is a legitimate state interest that overrides the citizens' desires/need for love?

Prior to same-sex marriage being legalized, you could not marry a member of your sex, either. But surely you believe that this does not matter for you, as opposed to a gay person, for whom it matters a great deal more?

Most of the attempts to distinguish the cases in this thread seem to be rationalizations of the following:

Gay people are good, should get anything that they want
Poly people are bad, should not get anything that they want

 

[IrishinSyria]

Suddenly "having marriage laws that make sense" is a legitimate state interest that overrides the citizens' desires/need for love?

Prior to same-sex marriage being legalized, you could not marry a member of your sex, either. But surely you believe that this does not matter for you, as opposed to a gay person, for whom it matters a great deal more?

Most of the attempts to distinguish the cases in this thread seem to be rationalizations of the following:

Gay people are good, should get anything that they want
Poly people are bad, should not get anything that they want

Once again, I don't really care if polyamorous marriages are legalized. If you think this is some sort of trump card, you're wrong. I'm just pointing out that they are, in fact, fundamentally different things. Marriage's reason for existence as a legal (as distinct from social or religous) concept is to provide a set of default property and other rules for two people who decide to come together. Those roles are symmetrical: in the vast majority of modern jurisdictions, each married person has the same responsibilities, rights, and duties towards one partner as that partner has towards them. You don't need to use gendered terms to define those duties. If I gave you a hypo: (e.g. person A marries person B, B goes into debt and dies, what rights do B's creditors have over A's assets?) gender is irrelevant to the final answer. A could be a male or female, B could be a male or female and it doesn't matter even a little bit. It would matter hugely if a person C were to be involved, because the rule doesn't apply to that scenario. So even though you'd use the word "marriage" to describe a union between A, B, and C, it's a fundamentally different legal concept.

Now why is it not discriminatory to not allow for that A-B-C legal union? Because the rule applies with equal force to us all. I am genetically hardwired to want to marry multiple women. So are most men. But we can't. There's a clear social benefit to having people pair off and our rules have been built to encourage that behavior. There's no 14th Amendment problem.

There may be a case that there is actually a freedom of religion problem with the prohibition on polygamy. That's a different issue, and has nothing to do with Obergefell.

 

[Wild Bill]

It doesn't harm me, but it harms the legitimate state interest of having marriage laws that make sense like any other polyamorous marriage. I want to marry lots of women (see, for example, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue) but I can't. No different for bi.

But maybe I'm wrong and you'll change my mind. If there's no legitimate state interest involved, than I would support polygamy. Like you point out, it doesn't bother me.

There are four state interests that were used consistently by states to defend traditional marriage - procreation, child rearing, tradition and interstate uniformity.

If SSM can overcome these four interests, what stops polygamists?

The last three interests are a wash - both polygamists and same sex couples can raise children, neither of them meet the definition of traditional marriage, and interstate uniformity is largely irrelevant once SCOTUS swipes their pen.

Procreation, the most commonly used argument by the states, would seemingly be much easier for a polygamist to overcome as they can biologically reproduce.

 

[Bluto]

So while everyone wrings their hands regarding Isis here is what goes on right next door in Mexico. Reading this gave me the chills.

How Dogged L.A. DEA Agent Hector Berrellez Unraveled the CIA's Alleged Role in the Murder of Kiki Camarena | L.A. Weekly

 

[IrishinSyria]

There are four state interests that were used consistently by states to defend traditional marriage - procreation, child rearing, tradition and interstate uniformity.

If SSM can overcome these four interests, what stops polygamists?

The last three interests are a wash - both polygamists and same sex couples can raise children, neither of them meet the definition of traditional marriage, and interstate uniformity is largely irrelevant once SCOTUS swipes their pen.

Procreation, the most commonly used argument by the states, would seemingly be much easier for a polygamist to overcome as they can biologically reproduce.

Interstate uniformity obviously cut in favor of gay marriage in Obergefell.

Child rearing- over 200,000 children are currently being raised by gay parents. How does a prohibition on gay marriage help them? Seems like it hurts, yes? So that cuts in favor of gay marriage.

Procreation- for this to make any sense, you'd have to assume that if gays can't get married they'll enter into procreative marriages. That's obviously nonsense in today's world.

Tradition- without any other interest, tradition can't stand alone. Slavery was a tradition at one point too.

 

[Wild Bill]

Interstate uniformity obviously cut in favor of gay marriage in Obergefell.

Child rearing- over 200,000 children are currently being raised by gay parents. How does a prohibition on gay marriage help them? Seems like it hurts, yes? So that cuts in favor of gay marriage.

Procreation- for this to make any sense, you'd have to assume that if gays can't get married they'll enter into procreative marriages. That's obviously nonsense in today's world.

Tradition- without any other interest, tradition can't stand alone. Slavery was a tradition at one point too.

Agreed. The only thing I'd add is that polygamists have a stronger argument with respect to procreation. So what stops them from challenging the courts?

 

[IrishinSyria]

Agreed. The only thing I'd add is that polygamists have a stronger argument with respect to procreation. So what stops them from challenging the courts?

No they don't.

First, you have to assume procreation is a legitimate state interest. I'm not sure that's true. But if it is, then it's not clear to me why polygamous marriages serve that interest. Imagine a town of 5 straight men and 5 straight women. If one man gets married to two women, then you're only going to have 4 potential procreative marriages instead of 5. Will the threesome have enough children to cover the gap? Probably not, so it actually hurts the states "legitimate" interest in procreative relationships.

Conversely same town, but two of the dudes and two of the girls are gay, it doesn't reduce the number of potentially procreative relationships (3) if they can marry. They're not going to be making babies either way.

 

[Wild Bill]

No they don't.

First, you have to assume procreation is a legitimate state interest. im not sure that's true. But if it is, then it's not clear to me why polygamous marriages serve that interest. Imagine a town of 5 straight men and 5 straight women's. If one man gets married to two women, then you're only going to have 4 potential procreative marriages instead of four. Will the 3 some have enough children to cover the gap? Probably not, so it actually hurts the states "legitimate" interest in procreative relationships.

Conversely same town, but two of the dudes and two of the girls are gay, it doesn't reduce the number of potentially procreative relationships (3) if they can marry. They're not going to be making babies either way.

It's well accepted that the gov't or state has a legitimate interest to encourage reproduction - the human race must go on.

One man marrying two women can produce just as many children, if not more, than two different men marrying those same two women. It's a flawed assumption that more marriages equals more children.

A same sex couple relies on the willingness of a third party to reproduce. It simply cannot be done without their assistance (and quite a bit of money). Polygamists can reproduce without the assistance of anyone. It makes their argument stronger.

 

[IrishinSyria]

It's well accepted that the gov't or state has a legitimate interest to encourage reproduction - the human race must go on.

One man marrying two women can produce just as many children, if not more, than two different men marrying those same two women. It's a flawed assumption that more marriages equals more children.

A same sex couple relies on the willingness of a third party to reproduce. It simply cannot be done without their assistance (and quite a bit of money). Polygamists can reproduce without the assistance of anyone. It makes their argument stronger.

Right, but the government interest is in the total reproductive rate of society, not in any single couple reproducing. Whether gay couples get married or not has no theoretical impact on total reproduction. Polygamous relationships might have an impact, but the point of my example is it's far from clear that it's a net positive effect on society's rate. I think if you could control for things like cultural background, it would either be neutral or negative, but without empirical data, it's impossible to say for sure.

Anyway, this isn't the point. The legitimate interests against polygamy are a: it hurts women, b: it hurts children, c: the prohibition against polygamy applies to and effects everyone with equal force and d: it would require a complete overhaul of our nation's laws because it is a completely different institution (as opposed to gay marriage, which simply involves neutralizing any remaining gendered language).

If you could show convincing evidence that a and b weren't true, then you'd have the case for decriminalizing polygamy. If you can show that a, b, and c aren't true then you might have an argument that due process demands that we legalize polygamy. In fact, I would support any such effort. But I don't think that case exists.

 

[Wild Bill]

Right, but the government interest is in the total reproductive rate of society, not in any single couple reproducing. Whether gay couples get married or not has no theoretical impact on total reproduction. Polygamous relationships might have an impact, but the point of my example is it's far from clear that it's a net positive effect on society's rate. I think if you could control for things like cultural background, it would either be neutral or negative, but without empirical data, it's impossible to say for sure.

Anyway, this isn't the point. The legitimate interests against polygamy are a: it hurts women, b: it hurts children, c: the prohibition against polygamy applies to and effects everyone with equal force and d: it would require a complete overhaul of our nation's laws because it is a completely different institution (as opposed to gay marriage, which simply involves neutralizing any remaining gendered language).

If you could show convincing evidence that a and b weren't true, then you'd have the case for decriminalizing polygamy. If you can show that a, b, and c aren't true then you might have an argument that due process demands that we legalize polygamy. In fact, I would support any such effort. But I don't think that case exists.

Protecting women by restricting their decision making? A woman, just like a man, should have free will to enter into relationships.

This argument is no different than the argument same sex couples faced and it seems they have shown (and courts have accepted) that a child is not hurt by being raised in a loving SSM household. What makes polygamists different?

I don't understand C.

You're oversimplifying law changes as a result of the SCOTUS's decision. It's going to have a huge impact across the nation. Polygamy would do the same.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Protecting women by restricting their decision making? A woman, just like a man, should have free will to enter into relationships.

This argument is no different than the argument same sex couples faced and it seems they have shown (and courts have accepted) that a child is not hurt by being raised in a loving SSM household. What makes polygamists different?

I don't understand C.

You're oversimplifying law changes as a result of the SCOTUS's decision. It's going to have a huge impact across the nation. Polygamy would do the same.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying it, but not as much as people who are saying polygamy is analogous to gay marriage are oversimplifying things.

As for c, read lax's post. Humans are naturally inclined to seek out multiple pairings. This is why porn sells- people are still attracted to other people after they're married. Marriage as an institution gives us certain legal benefits in return for us rejecting those urges. The requirement that you only be married to one person effects everyone with equal force, it doesn't actively harm people who were born with a certain sexual orientation.

Anyway, this article addresses some of the problems with polygamy. Maybe he's wrong, in which case, like I said, I'm all on board lifting the prohibition against it. It's weird to me how hard conservatives in this thread (not saying you, I have no idea what your political leanings are) are trying to convince me that it's a good thing, presumably they don't actually want to see polygamy legalized.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Greece and Puerto Rico Default, Inevitably | National Review Online

I hope we all learn the lessons from Greece (and some US cities) and change course very soon.