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

[stlc8tr]

The Texas Hiker false equivalency wagon teeters on.

That being said, if the courts and IRS and state laws iron out the hereditary rights issues, visitation, inheritance, and all the other headaches that are and would be entirely unique to the issues of plural marriages (remember: marriage is expressly recognized by government--not by religion--hence the stink-up TH has always had about legality of marriage), and can effectively determine a means through which all parties individually agree that a life of sperm-swapping and baby-incubating is in their mutual interest, and arrived at through sound mind and legal age of consent, then I can't see a problem with this.

Yup. I don't care what consenting adults do as long as they aren't harming others.

So as long as the various sticking points about rights are worked out, I would support polygamy.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Come on. That's the same thing as saying that homosexual men were just as free to marry a woman as any other man.

Look, children! A total moron! Let's all point and laugh at his abject stupidity.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I see no relevant reason why it should not be allowed.

I haven't put a great deal of thought into the consequences of plural marriage, and never having been married myself I'm not particularly familiar with the details of what changes in terms of tax filings and stuff. I suspect that there must be some maximum number of spouses that becomes problematic for our legal framework.

Imagine, for example, if the entire city of Stockton, CA got married. Does that mean the entire city can file one federal tax return? Imagine if every member of the mafia got married, so that nobody could be compelled to testify against any of his spouses.

I guess the point is that if we can decide that there is a compelling governmental interest to limit the number of spouses, i see no reason why that limit can't just be 1 anyway.

I allow that there may yet be ways to resolve the problems I alluded to above, however. If the institution of plural marriage can be implemented in a non-problematic way, I don't really have anything in principle against it.

 

[bshole]

Government shouldn't be in the business of selling religious sacraments, errr - 'marriage licenses.' That being said since they are then it should be open to all including those who want to marry more than one. Tax and legal benefits that accrue to spouses may not apply to second and beyond spouses (that would need legislative changes that won't be forthcoming) but there's no reason of social policy or morality why one person = only one spouse should be the only standard.

The laws are complicated enough with just two people in a marriage. They would be a nightmare if more were added.

Also given the demonstrable fact that the VAST and OVERWHELMING majority of these relationships are nothing more than a way to abuse and subjugate women, I would be very strongly against them. Remember, in almost every single on these relationships, the women are prohibited from having sex with each other. They are there for the pleasure of the man.

 

[Bart*Simpson]

No its not, they're free to have one spouse of choice is not the same as saying to a gay man he may have any female spouse he chooses.

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

 

[Fanatical Meat]

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

I'm not going to chase you down the rabbit hole of insanity. The discussion is about discrimination.

 

[Bart*Simpson]

Look, children! A total moron! Let's all point and laugh at his abject stupidity.

Hey, look! It's another stupid fucking asshole who thinks he's the only person in the world who's read Rules for Radicals.

With that out of the way how about coming up with a cogent argument to support your opinion instead of mocking mine because if all you have is mockery then you're ultimately a mockery of yourself.

 

[Bart*Simpson]

I'm not going to chase you down the rabbit hole of insanity. The discussion is about discrimination.

So what's your Constitutional argument to justify discriminating against people (gay or straight) who want to have more than one spouse?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

So what's your Constitutional argument to justify discriminating against people (gay or straight) who want to have more than one spouse?

Rabbit hole btw polygamist have been trying for decades or longer. I feel its a pretty settled issue.
The original question was framed where are the gays and aclu people.
Problem is they have the exact same rights as any other married couple. There is nothing else to talk about.

 

[Bart*Simpson]

Rabbit hole btw polygamist have been trying for decades or longer. I feel its a pretty settled issue.

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.

 

[werepossum]

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.
Whether Government should be saying this is a different question but I have to question what the value to society is and:
Rich guys having 8 wives, all of them super hot unlike the traditional polygamists where 2 wives work, 2 wives make babies and one wife is the young hot wife.
How is divorce handled, assets are shared between husband & wife but wife #3 didn't marry wife #6 or have any say in the matter
Food stamps & housing how do you handle a family of 6 adults and 15 children all needing assistance
How about Citizenship if 3 wives are from different countries
Life insurance and health insurance does it scale
The list is nearly endless

Exactly. I have no dog in the polygamy fight either way, but it unarguably presents complex social and legal issues that gay marriage does not. Divorce among three people with six kids is infinitely more complex than between two people (of any persuasion) with six kids.

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."

 

[nickqt]

Come on. That's the same thing as saying that homosexual men were just as free to marry a woman as any other man.

The easiest part of mocking conservatives come when conservatives say inherently incorrect things such as this and play it like they just hit a homerun.

Come back when you have an understanding of the issue that isn't able to fit on a bumper sticker, champ.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Divorce among three people with six kids is infinitely more complex than between two people (of any persuasion) with six kids.

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.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

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.

Can any partner start the divorce process with any of the partners, what if the others don't agree?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Hey, look! It's another stupid fucking asshole who thinks he's the only person in the world who's read Rules for Radicals.

I have no idea what you're blathering about here.

With that out of the way how about coming up with a cogent argument to support your opinion instead of mocking mine because if all you have is mockery then you're ultimately a mockery of yourself.

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.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Hey, look! It's another stupid fucking asshole who thinks he's the only person in the world who's read Rules for Radicals.

I have no idea what you're blathering about here.

With that out of the way how about coming up with a cogent argument to support your opinion instead of mocking mine because if all you have is mockery then you're ultimately a mockery of yourself.

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.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Stupid forum software caused me to double post because it was timing out during the refresh after submitting, and now it's timing out when I'm trying to edit it.

Did somebody forget to feed the hamster or what?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

You could easily rephrase things as "Everybody may marry one member of the opposite sex". While that might invite the obvious fact that such a law is inherently exclusive of homosexual marriage, it's equally as exclusive of polygamous marriages. I don't see any logical inconsistencies in that argument. The real difference is that when gay marriage is forbidden, homosexual couples cannot enjoy any of the benefits of marriage, whereas when polygamous marriage is forbidden, there is nothing stopping cohabitation with non-married partners, nor do they lose tax breaks or etc.

 

[glenn1]

Exactly. I have no dog in the polygamy fight either way, but it unarguably presents complex social and legal issues that gay marriage does not. Divorce among three people with six kids is infinitely more complex than between two people (of any persuasion) with six kids.

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."

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.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

I agree almost entirely. I believe there is a plausible moral reason to oppose plural marriage in that most communities that practice it that I've seen are pretty exploitative of women. That's pretty shitty. That being said I see no reason to keep plural marriage illegal just because some people are assholes. So long as all parties are consenting adults I say marry any way you want.

 

[glenn1]

I agree almost entirely. I believe there is a plausible moral reason to oppose plural marriage in that most communities that practice it that I've seen are pretty exploitative of women. That's pretty shitty. That being said I see no reason to keep plural marriage illegal just because some people are assholes. So long as all parties are consenting adults I say marry any way you want.

If keeping plural marriage illegal would somehow help the women in those communities that exploit them I'd consider that angle. However the most logical answer is that its legality wouldn't impact their treatment whatsoever. Which is sad but the probable reality.

 

[SMOGZINN]

The real difference is that when gay marriage is forbidden, homosexual couples cannot enjoy any of the benefits of marriage, whereas when polygamous marriage is forbidden, there is nothing stopping cohabitation with non-married partners, nor do they lose tax breaks or etc.

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

Can any partner start the divorce process with any of the partners, what if the others don't agree?

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?

 

[glenn1]

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?

Good question. I had thought of plural marriage as being a "1-to-many" set relationship when in reality it could be "many-to-many". The later would obviously require a lot more thought into how you managed the legalities unless you split the relationship between "spousal rights" and being a legal spouse like I suggested earlier.

 

[Bart*Simpson]

I have no idea what you're blathering about here.

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.

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.

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

 

[werepossum]

The laws are complicated enough with just two people in a marriage. They would be a nightmare if more were added.

Also given the demonstrable fact that the VAST and OVERWHELMING majority of these relationships are nothing more than a way to abuse and subjugate women, I would be very strongly against them. Remember, in almost every single on these relationships, the women are prohibited from having sex with each other. They are there for the pleasure of the man.

If they are there for my pleasure then they certainly aren't going to prohibited from having sex with each other.