Sister Wives to petition U.S. Supreme Court to recognize plural marriage

[werepossum]

But we already have to face this problem. Not letting people get married has certainly not stopped them from reproducing, co-habituating, or mixing their finances with multiple partners. When things go wrong in those relationships the courts still have to figure out how to untangle it all. In the end it is not much different than any other divorce. The court decides who gets custody of the kids, who pays child support, and who gets what possessions. I hardly see how this could be a barrier to plural marriage.

We have SOME of this problem. However, when two people are married and cohabiting with a third and that third person leaves, he or she has no claim on the others' property except through palimony, same as with unmarried people. Extending formal marriage rights to more than two makes this a lot more complicated and requires that the legal system be rewritten, as palimony is inherently and intentionally a much weaker protection and marriage/divorce law is unequal to multiple partners.

I'm not saying that is an absolute barrier against polygamy/polyandry, just pointing out that gay marriage required only removal of artificial discrimination, not rewriting a significant amount of laws.

 

[werepossum]

Thanks for summing your viewpoint up. Conservatives *must* support plural marriage only because progressives don't and that would annoy them if they were brought to pass and thus it should be opposed. Because it's absolutely impossible to change our legal framework regarding marriage.

Let's be honest, there's no real moral reason to oppose plural marriage. I'm not in a plural marriage nor would I want to be (or my kids to be) but it's not something I have any reason to oppose for others. Ironically the main barrier seems to be total lack of imagination or interest by the the same people who supported gay marriage, and the likely reason is the same kind of appeal to tradition that conservatives used against same-sex marriage. There are some practical considerations in law but those aren't unsurmountable barriers to allowing plural marriage. Basically the easiest way to crack that nut is to undo the 1-to-1 binding of what's considered 'spousal rights' to marriage. For example there's no reason why only a husband or wife should be able to enjoy preferential inheritance rights instead of just any two persons by signing a contract. Citing other concerns like that it's supposedly "anti-woman" are simply excuses.

On the first point, I am neither supporting plural marriage nor opposing it, only pointing out that some of us are tweaking the left's collective nose by insisting they also support plural marriage when those same people support marriage only as one man, one woman. Assuming they got their wish, polygamy/polyandry would probably become legalized and those same people would have a definition of marriage to them even less palatable.

On the second, I think it's more complicated than that. Suppose two people are married and bring in another woman. Is she also to be married to the other woman? What if she wishes to be married ONLY to the other woman? If the original woman then leaves, what (if any) are the support requirements on the new wife, and what portion of that wife's property is subject to division? Assuming the children are of age to choose, the marriage was equal between all three, and the marriage is then subsequently totally dissolved and all three go their separate ways, are the children free to choose between all three parents or simply between their biological parents? If a man leaves a polyandrous marriage with issue and then joins a polygamous marriage with issue, on what formula shall child support be set? These are all non-moral issues that must be thought out and successfully legislated to make plural marriage legal. It simply isn't comparable to gay marriage. (Or to use the current term, marriage.)

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

So you're using an Alinsky tactic without even understanding what the hell you're doing. Do yourself a favor and go read the book "Rules for Radicals" so you know what you're doing and so people like myself can't justify calling you a tool. The proper term is "useful idiot". While I don't agree with you I don't hate you and I hope this encourages you to better understand the tactics you've been using and the underlying philosophy and motivations behind those tactics.

Again with an Alinsky tactic that you don't even know you're using.

Who gives a shit? My point remains, and you're still a moron for the reasons given which you haven't addressed.

 

[zinfamous]

And I really don't understand the benefit of conservatives saying "You accepted something I really did not want, so now you must accept something else I really do not want."

This.

(see--still way better than "likes"!)

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

And I really don't understand the benefit of conservatives saying "You accepted something I really did not want, so now you must accept something else I really do not want."

It's because mainstream republicanism has become more about stigginit to the libs than reasoned policy positions.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Imagine if every member of the mafia got married, so that nobody could be compelled to testify against any of his spouses.

For example there's no reason why only a husband or wife should be able to enjoy preferential inheritance rights instead of just any two persons by signing a contract. Citing other concerns like that it's supposedly "anti-woman" are simply excuses.

I could see this, if it comes to pass, as being seriously exploitable by certain groups of people, organized crime families included.

 

[master_shake_]

i put the blame exactly where it belongs.

people who watch this bullshit show.

remember when TLC meant the learning channel?

pepperidge farm remembers.

 

[Paratus]

Obviously you're wrong if the issue is headed to the Supreme Court. It's not at all settled. Interestingly, I can't imagine the current composition of the US Supreme Court opposing polygamy among consenting adults without contradicting their own arguments in Obergefell.

The government supported legal rights for marriage due to the benefits to the individuals and society.

Same sex marriage was obviously unconstitutionally denied (14th amendment) until Obergfell.

Plural marriage is not obviously being denied for unconstitutional reasons. Until SCOTUS rules otherwise, limiting the number of parties the government wants to allow in a marriage "contract" isn't unconstitutional. A major component of any legal contract is defining who is covered and who isn't.

As a supporter of plural marriage you'll have a much higher climb to prove that current laws should cover plural marriages than same sex marriage ever did.

Maybe you could start be specifying what part of the same sex marriage case you think applies?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The non-married partner(s) does lose the tax breaks and other benefits of marriage.

But breaks are meant for a household, not for individuals. That's marriage. If you could stack benefits then it causes all sorts of issues, and the question also becomes one of why government has an interest in benefiting polygamy beyond monogamy (if one man can marry three women and enjoy three times the tax breaks, then obviously that household is receiving excessive benefit). For example, I think one common reason explaining tax breaks for married couples is on the assumption that most will eventually have children, and that it will help raise them and reduce likelihood of divorce. Putting aside the reality of the current single-mother epidemic, I'd say that is a decent enough reason for government incentives. There's no reason to believe that three mothers is better than one, however (afaik).

If I were a polygamist today I'd be happy with gay marriage, though. I'd just marry the wife I trusted most to not divorce me, have my other wives marry each other in name only, and let them pass on their savings to me.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

The non-married partner(s) does lose the tax breaks and other benefits of marriage.



That is how it works now. I see no reason it would not continue to work that way. Even trying to be as inclusive as we can we will have to come up with some definition of marriage to figure out things like this, and that definition will be exclusive of some people. For example: is marriage singular in that all members must be part of a singular marriage, or can one person be a part of several different marriages?

In separations it works that way because there are two people, where at least one of them wants to separate. My question is there are 5 people, spouse #2 wants to divorce spouse #5 but wants to stay married to spouse #1, 3 and 4 or Spouse #2 never agreed to the marriage of spouse #5. Keep in mind most of these relationships have one man and several wives that don't have much discussion about who he chooses to marry.

 

[SMOGZINN]

The government supported legal rights for marriage due to the benefits to the individuals and society.

Same sex marriage was obviously unconstitutionally denied (14th amendment) until Obergfell.

Plural marriage is not obviously being denied for unconstitutional reasons. Until SCOTUS rules otherwise, limiting the number of parties the government wants to allow in a marriage "contract" isn't unconstitutional. A major component of any legal contract is defining who is covered and who isn't.

As a supporter of plural marriage you'll have a much higher climb to prove that current laws should cover plural marriages than same sex marriage ever did.

Maybe you could start be specifying what part of the same sex marriage case you think applies?

I know you are replying to Bart*Simpson's equal protection argument, but it is a strawman. The argument is not that denying plural marriage breaks equal protection it is that it denies religious liberty. The state needs to show that it has some reason strong enough to deny a group their religious liberty. That is a constitutional reason to allow plural marriage.

I think one common reason explaining tax breaks for married couples is on the assumption that most will eventually have children, and that it will help raise them and reduce likelihood of divorce. Putting aside the reality of the current single-mother epidemic, I'd say that is a decent enough reason for government incentives.

Perhaps we should reconsider tax benefits for married peoples. It is obviously not doing what it is intended, and we already have tax breaks for having children.

There's no reason to believe that three mothers is better than one, however (afaik).

And there is plenty of evidence that the more adult caregivers in a household the better off a child is. Remember the 'It takes a village' that is what it is referencing. There is little study specifically on poly households, but what little there is shows that the children do better than average.

In separations it works that way because there are two people, where at least one of them wants to separate. My question is there are 5 people, spouse #2 wants to divorce spouse #5 but wants to stay married to spouse #1, 3 and 4 or Spouse #2 never agreed to the marriage of spouse #5.

That is what I was talking about. Do we have a singular marriage, so that if one person in 5 wants a divorce the entire marriage is over? Or is each person individually married? Or some hybrid between them? I'm more for the individual marriages, as I think it would accomplish what is wanted with the minimum legal problems, but I agree it is a tricky and touchy subject even in poly circles.

Keep in mind most of these relationships have one man and several wives that don't have much discussion about who he chooses to marry.

That is a myth. You think that because when a group is busted for polygamy it is almost always because there is abuse going on, and that usually means religious cults that are basically always patriarchal. In reality there are considerably more women with multiple men than the other way around.

 

[Cozarkian]

No matter what the spin is its not a gay marriage discussion no matter how you cut it. They are freely allowed to marry one person just like gays.

Gays were freely allowed to marry one person of the opposite sex just like straights.

I agree with the rest of your post as explanations of additiona public policy reasons for prohibiting polygamy while allowing gay marriage.

 

[Cozarkian]

In separations it works that way because there are two people, where at least one of them wants to separate. My question is there are 5 people, spouse #2 wants to divorce spouse #5 but wants to stay married to spouse #1, 3 and 4 or Spouse #2 never agreed to the marriage of spouse #5. Keep in mind most of these relationships have one man and several wives that don't have much discussion about who he chooses to marry.

Most likely the rule would be all or nothing. There is a single marriage where all participants are married to each other, so if you divorce one you divorce all.

However. That is the kind of rule that would need to be spelled out by statute, highlighting why this is not an issue that should be decided by courts.

 

[Cozarkian]

And what's your Constitutional basis for limiting marriage to just one person?

States' rights under the 10th Amendment.

 

[Cozarkian]

I think mocking anybody that's too stupid to see the difference between "everybody may only have one spouse" and "only males may marry females" is easily the most appropriate response. Congrats on being among those idiotic troglodytes, jackass.

You realize the rule now is that only unmarried persons can marry an unmarried female? That is discrimination based upon marital status.

There are arguments that discrimination based on sex is worse than discrimination based on marital status, but try not to insult people for ignoring obvious discrimination when you do so yourself.

Also, the gay marriage movement was focused on non-existent discrimination based on sexual preference rather than addressing the actual gender discrimination, whereas the polygamy movement is actually focused on the marital status discrimination. In other words, failing to notice the gender discrimination is more understandable than your own failings.

 

[Paratus]

I know you are replying to Bart*Simpson's equal protection argument, but it is a strawman. The argument is not that denying plural marriage breaks equal protection it is that it denies religious liberty. The state needs to show that it has some reason strong enough to deny a group their religious liberty. That is a constitutional reason to allow plural marriage.



Perhaps we should reconsider tax benefits for married peoples. It is obviously not doing what it is intended, and we already have tax breaks for having children.



And there is plenty of evidence that the more adult caregivers in a household the better off a child is. Remember the 'It takes a village' that is what it is referencing. There is little study specifically on poly households, but what little there is shows that the children do better than average.



That is what I was talking about. Do we have a singular marriage, so that if one person in 5 wants a divorce the entire marriage is over? Or is each person individually married? Or some hybrid between them? I'm more for the individual marriages, as I think it would accomplish what is wanted with the minimum legal problems, but I agree it is a tricky and touchy subject even in poly circles.



That is a myth. You think that because when a group is busted for polygamy it is almost always because there is abuse going on, and that usually means religious cults that are basically always patriarchal. In reality there are considerably more women with multiple men than the other way around.

While I am unaware of exactly how the laws are written, I would agree that there should be no law disallowing a church from performing a strictly religious ceremony for plural marriage.( Before SCOTUS approved legal rights for same sex marriage, a same sex couple could get a religious marriage)

However, since plural marriage and same sex marriage are fundamentally different there is no obvious constitutional right to plural marriage with legal rights.

If that's something you want you'll either have to hope SCOTUS finds one or more likely petition your representatives since plural marriage is a fundamentally new privilege.

 

[SMOGZINN]

While I am unaware of exactly how the laws are written, I would agree that there should be no law disallowing a church from performing a strictly religious ceremony for plural marriage.( Before SCOTUS approved legal rights for same sex marriage, a same sex couple could get a religious marriage)

However, since plural marriage and same sex marriage are fundamentally different there is no obvious constitutional right to plural marriage with legal rights.

If that's something you want you'll either have to hope SCOTUS finds one or more likely petition your representatives since plural marriage is a fundamentally new privilege.

SCOTUS and Congress has on multiple occasions noted that civil marriage has a religious basis. Giving one religion's version of marriage legal rights while denying those rights to another religion's version is making a law respecting an establishment of one religion over another. It is like giving tax breaks to people who are baptized.

Also I should note that right now it is illegal to get a plural marriage even as a purely religious ceremony because the laws against bigamy are pretty extreme. Almost all the bigamy cases you hear about is not a legal marriage but a religious one.

 

[Cozarkian]

Also I should note that right now it is illegal to get a plural marriage even as a purely religious ceremony because the laws against bigamy are pretty extreme. Almost all the bigamy cases you hear about is not a legal marriage but a religious one.

Would you provide an example of that? I find it really hard to believe a successful legal case would be based on the mere fact of a religious recognition of multiple spouses. I suspect they relate to abusive or deceptive treatment of those spouses, not the occurrence of the religious ceremony.

 

[piasabird]

I think that polygamy is already going on. If you look at other religions like Sharia Law, Polygamy is an accepted practice by some Muslims for up to 3 wives.

However, this has a lot of implications under the law in the areas of Marriage, divorce, child support, Federal and Stat taxes, Filing income tax with the supreme court, and other legal and monetary requirements.

In the area of law, the marital status Married and the status of Legitimacy is very important. For instance when a person dies and they have multiple legally recognized partners, their estate could be subject to be split up even further. Then there is the problem of people being abused under any kind of system where polygamy is practiced legally or otherwise.

On thing that could be done if Polygamy was legitimized by the Government, is that the practice could be regulated and requirements laid down concerning its use. It should not be legal to marry a second or third wife without the consent of all adult parties. It should not be one adult dictating who is allowed to marry and the age of the women and men involved can also be regulated. Then maybe a different taxing model could be used for multiple wives also. For instance, under the law is this one house hold or does each wife deserve recognition as a separate and distinct household? If you have multiple wives can you claim them on your taxes and get lower taxes because you have more exemptions?

Just because a man can have multiple wives in theory, it doesnt mean that is a good idea.

Why aren't the marriage equality groups and the ALCU helping the Brown family? If someone is truly for marriage equality then you have to support the Brown family.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...preme-court-to-recognize-plural-marriage.html

Personally I hope the Brown family wins.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Would you provide an example of that? I find it really hard to believe a successful legal case would be based on the mere fact of a religious recognition of multiple spouses. I suspect they relate to abusive or deceptive treatment of those spouses, not the occurrence of the religious ceremony.

Carrick v. Snyder is a current case dealing with this exactly.

 

[Cozarkian]

Carrick v. Snyder is a current case dealing with this exactly.

No, not exactly. In fact, almost the opposite. That is a case where somebody sued the State claiming he could be prosecuted for conducting a religious marriage that isn't intended to be legally binding. The court dismissed on grounds the plaintiff had no proof he intended to conduct such a non-legally binding ceremony.

If he could prove he intended to perform such a ceremony, it seems certain the court would interpret the statute to find it would not apply to non-legally binding ceremonies.

I was looking for an example where the government was going after people for non-binding ceremonies, not an example where someone falsely suggests the government would.

 

[MrPickins]

That is a myth. You think that because when a group is busted for polygamy it is almost always because there is abuse going on, and that usually means religious cults that are basically always patriarchal. In reality there are considerably more women with multiple men than the other way around.

* Citation needed

 

[Bart*Simpson]

States' rights under the 10th Amendment.

That was also the original premise behind the USSC overturning the US DOMA. And then the state's rights were overturned saying it was a Constitutional matter...therefore the 10th Amendment doesn't apply to limiting marriages anymore.

 

[SMOGZINN]

* Citation needed

It is purely anecdotal but I know hundreds of poly people and my experience is that it is female dominated.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Polyamory isn't the same thing as polygamous marriage (although fwiw I do think that there is likely a biological predisposition towards promiscuity for certain people that could be used to argue discrimination in the same way gay marriage is defended).