Polygamy and polyandry and other mixes

[gcal]

The personal freedom thread got closed, but not before the above got brought up. People seem to think they would be as simple to do as gay marriage, but they are not. Never mind religious issues. Not interesting at all. What is interesting is the changes and accommodations that would be required in the way we do things. Nationwide consistently would be required to have "equal protection under the law," which would not be achievable in one-off DIY agreements.

Let's assume consenting adults. Who is married to whom? Do all husbands and wives in the group have marital obligations to each other, or can they pick and choose? How many spouses would one spouse's employer be required to cover for health insurance? How many children? What ablout spousal pension and soci security benefits? How about inheritance laws? Which members are obligated for alimony or child support when a member quits or divorces the group? And more.

 

[Queen]

I'm betting we'll be looking at govt. involvement in the "marriage contact" pretty soon. The nuts and bolts of it all.

Personally, I never wanted to be married, too much of the patriarchal norm for my old separatist ass. But the govt. has attached so many rights and laws to marriage it became something I was willing to strive for, especially as I've aged. Now I'm digging being married, it makes me feel protected and more accepted in society. I imagine poly folks are feeling the same way.

So, we have a legal component and a social component, it's going to be interesting to watch.

 

[John_Camping]

The personal freedom thread got closed, but not before the above got brought up. People seem to think they would be as simple to do as gay marriage, but they are not. Never mind religious issues. Not interesting at all. What is interesting is the changes and accommodations that would be required in the way we do things. Nationwide consistently would be required to have "equal protection under the law," which would not be achievable in one-off DIY agreements.

Personally I don’t think implementation would be as "simple". I think the case for it is as simple. Big difference. The list of complications you mentioned are just details that need worked out not reasons to deprive polyamourous people of equal protection under law.

Let's assume consenting adults. Who is married to whom? Do all husbands and wives in the group have marital obligations to each other, or can they pick and choose?

Pure speculation, but I would guess the default contract would treat the group as a whole, but a pre-nup could stipulate any structure enforcable in court. Corporate law is very complex and would probably be the source of many ideas.

How many spouses would one spouse's employer be required to cover for health insurance? How many children?

I'd be surprised if there is still employer provided health insurance by the time polymarriage is legal.

What ablout spousal pension and soci security benefits?

This I've actually thought about, one idea was split the group earnings among the group for SS credit. But again I don’t think SS as a guaranteed retirement for healthy people will last much longer.

How about inheritance laws? Which members are obligated for alimony or child support when a member quits or divorces the group? And more.

I have no idea. But there are lots of minds on the problem and like I said at top this isn't a basis for denying people equal rights.

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

While this stuff isn't theoretically legal here, nobody says "boo" when some Arab sheik checks into an American hotel with multiple wives.

If I remember my comparative religions class, even ordinary muslim men are permitted four wives, though as a practical matter, very few can afford to support more than one.

I wonder how they handle some of these issues?

And then there's the Mormons.  Wouldn't surprise me if some of them went back to the old ways, citing religous freedom.

Regards
John

ps: Heinlein touched on some of this in his novel THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS.  A book that's well worth reading.

 

[Canine]

At age 70,I'm opposed.Don't think I could handle more than one now.

 

[ZoNiE]

The FLDS folks up in that northern Arizona / southern Utah community do it as such:

One man is *legally* married to one woman.
Other "unwed, unemployed women" (Who's children were sired by above married man) live in the same house.
Said man is "married in the church" to the other women, so he gets "time" with them.
Since the unwed, unemployed women have no income, they are on welfare, and the above married couple "Take them in out of the goodness of their hearts."
Also, said house is usually "unfinished" and as such, gets a property tax break. Usually all it is missing is siding or something simple.

So, there is a house full of people who are on welfare assistance, who pay very little in the way of taxes or into the social security system, but crank out little followers who grow up and: The boys are run off to be on welfare on their own, and the girls are coupled with other older men in the "church" (which also is tax exempt) to crank out more little followers to wash, rinse, repeat...

There you have it. Polygamy in a nutshell

Forget about any government agency dealing with this, it would be "offensive" to them.

...Only in America.

 

[gcal]

This I've actually thought about, one idea was split the group earnings among the group for SS credit. But again I don’t think SS as a guaranteed retirement for healthy people will last much 

That's  something I  had not thought about. How would they be taxed? At what rate? Right now, spouses get credit for their own earnings for social security, but pay a joint lower marital income tax rate. Spouses who file separately  pay a higher rate.

 

[WriterMs]

Ask most any realtor who works in parts of the country heavy with LDS (Mormon) churches (Utah, No. AZ, and down into parts of NV, for example) about the unusual number of homes with say...6 to 10 bedrooms. Polygamy is an "open secret" in those areas if one cares to notice. I ran a furniture retail store for a year for some friends in that region and at first was surprised by the number of women who came in with their "special friend" who happened to be a woman with children who lived in the same household. My first thought was lesbian couple but then they would chat about the husband's likes in furniture, etc.

I have no idea about the welfare cycle mentioned earlier in this thread. I do know at least one of the polygamist men in my town was a fairly wealthy lawyer.

So, yes, legal or not, it exists. If a family like that wants the legal protections of marriage, then rules will have to be worked out. In my opinion, you'd have to be a special sort of .. ummm.. non-thinker to want to get embroiled in a legal mess like that. But, frankly, I do not care who gets legally married or does not.

I also have seen references to the government "getting involved in marriage?" What? Marriage IS a legal contract. The whole religious thing and ceremonies are separate issues and you can believe about that as you wish.

But, when you get "married," you enter into a legally binding contract with another person according to the laws of the state you are in. Laws of the state meaning the rules citizens want their government to enforce (property rights, inheritance, medical decisions, retirement benefits, etc., etc.) Are there some folks who have not noticed that in all of modern times you go to a courthouse or county offices to get a marriage "license?"

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

I also have seen references to the government "getting involved in marriage?" What? Marriage IS a legal contract. The whole religious thing and ceremonies are separate issues and you can believe about that as you wish.

But, when you get "married," you enter into a legally binding contract with another person according to the laws of the state you are in. Laws of the state meaning the rules citizens want their government to enforce (property rights, inheritance, medical decisions, retirement benefits, etc., etc.) Are there some folks who have not noticed that in all of modern times you go to a courthouse or county offices to get a marriage "license?"

But, it wasn't always that way.  When, exactly did marriage licenses become required?  Did George Washington need to get one to marry Martha?  And when and where did the idea of "civil ceremonies" - that you could get a mayor or some city clerk to marry you instead of a priest or minister in a church?

I haven't done any real research on this.  I suspect that the whole marriage license thing may be related to the miscegenation laws - the idea that blacks and whites were not legally permitted to marry.  The civil ceremony thing smacks of anti-clericalism, sounds like something from France following the revolution, although I've no idea how it spread here.

And aren't common law marriages still perfectly valid in some states?  No marriage license there.

Regards
John

 

[Milk Hauler]

Ask most any realtor who works in parts of the country heavy with LDS (Mormon) churches (Utah, No. AZ, and down into parts of NV, for example) about the unusual number of homes with say...6 to 10 bedrooms. Polygamy is an "open secret" in those areas if one cares to notice. I ran a furniture retail store for a year for some friends in that region and at first was surprised by the number of women who came in with their "special friend" who happened to be a woman with children who lived in the same household. My first thought was lesbian couple but then they would chat about the husband's likes in furniture, etc.

I have no idea about the welfare cycle mentioned earlier in this thread. I do know at least one of the polygamist men in my town was a fairly wealthy lawyer.

So, yes, legal or not, it exists. If a family like that wants the legal protections of marriage, then rules will have to be worked out. In my opinion, you'd have to be a special sort of .. ummm.. non-thinker to want to get embroiled in a legal mess like that. But, frankly, I do not care who gets legally married or does not.

I also have seen references to the government "getting involved in marriage?" What? Marriage IS a legal contract. The whole religious thing and ceremonies are separate issues and you can believe about that as you wish.

But, when you get "married," you enter into a legally binding contract with another person according to the laws of the state you are in. Laws of the state meaning the rules citizens want their government to enforce (property rights, inheritance, medical decisions, retirement benefits, etc., etc.) Are there some folks who have not noticed that in all of modern times you go to a courthouse or county offices to get a marriage "license?"

I'm 40 and been single 11 yrs. I lost most of my wealth in a nasty divorce. The hell I went through was similar to what Bob wrote about in his book. Its safe to say I won't have to ponder this dilemma ever again. I have a few close female friends.. That's good enough for them, so its good enough for me

Life is good I'm telling ya! [emoji41]

At age 70,I'm opposed.Don't think I could handle more than one now.

 

[Seraphim]

The FLDS folks up in that northern Arizona / southern Utah community do it as such:

One man is *legally* married to one woman.
Other "unwed, unemployed women" (Who's children were sired by above married man) live in the same house.
Said man is "married in the church" to the other women, so he gets "time" with them.
Since the unwed, unemployed women have no income, they are on welfare, and the above married couple "Take them in out of the goodness of their hearts."
Also, said house is usually "unfinished" and as such, gets a property tax break. Usually all it is missing is siding or something simple.

So, there is a house full of people who are on welfare assistance, who pay very little in the way of taxes or into the social security system, but crank out little followers who grow up and: The boys are run off to be on welfare on their own, and the girls are coupled with other older men  in the "church" (which also is tax exempt) to crank out more little followers to wash, rinse, repeat...

There you have it. Polygamy in a nutshell

Forget about any government agency dealing with this, it would be "offensive" to them.

...Only in America.

Being more than a little stereotypical there - polygamy in a nutshell.  So legalize polygamy and the siding will fall off houses, little girls will be paired off with old men, there will only be one breadwinner in the family and everyone else will be welfare...

What about three high paying executives who wish to be polygamous? They going to fall into that lifestyle as well lol? 

When it comes right down to it, there's no religious nor legal argument against polygamy. There's cultural bias as demonstrated by ZoNiE's post; but that's it. Just read an article by a gay author denying there was a similarity between the gay marriage judgement and one for polygamy. He advised if polygamy were legalized, the higher income men would all have multiple wives, and the lower income men would have none;  implying all women are gold diggers. Somehow, no one has actually mentioned the possibility of a woman having multiple husbands. Rather sexist, doNt you think?

The contractual arguments could be worked out: a standard arrangement unless modified by prenup.  Inheritance law wouldn't really be different, just the possibility of multiple initial inheritors. Insurance companies are going to do what insurance companies are going to do. Again, the assumption there will be only one breadwinner in the family is naive. Insurance rates may go up for larger families, but the insurance companies will figure that one out.

There's no real impediment to legal polygamous marriages other than societal bias, passed down from generation to generation, thanks largely in part to the Roman Empire

 

[ZoNiE]

Being more than a little stereotypical there - polygamy in a nutshell.  So legalize polygamy and the siding will fall off houses, little girls will be paired off with old men, there will only be one breadwinner in the family and everyone else will be welfare...

What about three high paying executives who wish to be polygamous? They going to fall into that lifestyle as well lol? 

When it comes right down to it, there's no religious nor legal argument against polygamy. There's cultural bias as demonstrated by ZoNiE's post; but that's it. Just read an article by a gay author denying there was a similarity between the gay marriage judgement and one for polygamy. He advised if polygamy were legalized, the higher income men would all have multiple wives, and the lower income men would have none;  implying all women are gold diggers. Somehow, no one has actually mentioned the possibility of a woman having multiple husbands. Rather sexist, doNt you think?

The contractual arguments could be worked out: a standard arrangement unless modified by prenup.  Inheritance law wouldn't really be different, just the possibility of multiple initial inheritors. Insurance companies are going to do what insurance companies are going to do. Again, the assumption there will be only one breadwinner in the family is naive. Insurance rates may go up for larger families, but the insurance companies will figure that one out.

There's no real impediment to legal polygamous marriages other than societal bias, passed down from generation to generation, thanks largely in part to the Roman Empire

One spouse is enough!

 

[John_Camping]

One spouse is enough!

For you, for most people. But for some it's one too many, for others it leaves loved ones outside the legal protection of legally recognized marriage.

 

[Seraphim]

Optimistic ParanoidWhile this stuff isn't theoretically legal here, nobody says "boo" when some Arab sheik checks into an American hotel with multiple wives.

If I remember my comparative religions class, even ordinary muslim men are permitted four wives, though as a practical matter, very few can afford to support more than one.

I wonder how they handle some of these issues?

And then there's the Mormons.  Wouldn't surprise me if some of them went back to the old ways, citing religous freedom.

Regards
John

ps: Heinlein touched on some of this in his novel THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS.  A book that's well worth reading.

Isn't THEORETICALLY legal? Bigamy is definitely illegal, punishable by jail time. And Heinlein also wrote Stranger in a Strange Land, and several other books with polygamous type setups

 

[Seraphim]

One spouse is enough!

That's your opinion. Others will disagree with you.

 

[Seraphim]

Optimistic Paranoid

And it wouldn't just be Mormons going back to the old ways. Jews were largely polygamous before, during and after Jesus' time. Roman citizens couldn't be polygamous, and they had a rough time trying to make Jews citizens. Near then end of the Roman Empore, one emperor finally issued a blanket decree making all Jews citizens, and he turned a blind eye to the fact most were polygamous. It was the Roman Empire which began the tide of monogamy in the region, and which eventually influenced many - not all - leaders of the Christian church. Well after Jesus' death.

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

And Heinlein also wrote Stranger in a Strange Land, and several other books with polygamous type setups

Preaching to the choir, bro.  I've read everything Heinlein ever wrote, including his 50s travelogue, TRAMP ROYALE and his posthumous GRUMBLES FROM THE GRAVE.

Regards
John

 

[akrvbob]

I take a very different view of the marriage and it's "contract." Since the rise of domestication and civilization people abandoned the tribes and seperated and moved onto small parcels of land. Women stopped being equal contributors and became property.

Marriage wasn;t a contract between the husband and bride, it was between the woman's father and the grooms father to transfer ownership of the female from one to the other. There are lots of places in the world today where it is still exactly that.

Today we like to think we are enlightened and that is long since gone, but there is a remnant that lives on in most of our brains.

Christians say they hate gay marriage because the Bible tells them to, but the truth is they see it as a threat to their ownership over women, which is just as fundamental a Bible truth as Sodomites are going to hell.

"Thou shall not covet thy neighbors wfe!" Why? Because she is his property and you would be a thief.
It used to be standard in every marriage vows was the wifes promise to "Love and obey" like the property she is
Why does the brides father give her away? he's delivering the property to the new owner.
Why does the grooms father pay for the wedding? new cattle are expensive.
Why has it been perfectly fine in most places to beat your wife, but not another woman. You can only beat your own property but not another mans.

Polygamy is no more than collecting a herd of cattle. You just write up a new contract.

The roots of marriage are dehumanizing women. It should be made illegal.
Bob

 

[highdesertranger]

well I am not going to argue for or against any marriage. I did read somewhere today that a group of polygamist today tried to get a marriage license. we will see. highdesertranger

 

[John_Camping]

There is more to polyamoury than polygamy.