[Drlee]

I thought the USA's constitution protects freedom of religion. Surely that denies the gov't the right to restrict people's ability to marry whomever they wish.

This is quite true. The problem is that under US law, marriage is a state licensed institution. The states have reserved to themselves the right to regulate the legal aspects of marriage. There is nothing under US law to prohibit two people to live as a married couple in all but name only. They only thing they can't do is avail themselves of the governmental "advantages" of marriage. They can construct a legal document to resolve all of the issues surrounding property, medical permissions, etc.

Before this supreme court decision, churches could conduct "blessing" ceremonies but the minister conducting the ceremony could not call it marriage because that is a secular and regulated civil state. So the irony is that the reason the first amendment religious protection does not apply to marriage is that it is not a religious institution in the eyes of the law.

Ponder this. 'You can get married in the eyes of a church but you can't get divorced without the state'.

There have been poly organizations practicing Polyfidelity for quite some time. I had a good friend who worked for Abacus in San Francisco. It was the largest Apple reseller (until apple stopped that practice) in the country. It also offered technical support, peripherals and the like. It employed well over 200 people at its height. It was owned by a polyamorus church called Kerista. Members agreed to have sex only within the church group and on a strict rotating schedule and to practicing only heterosexual acts. This stuff is not new.

[MistyTiger]

I oppose polygamy first because it is disgusting. Secondly, I would pity the man with multiple wives...that is a suicide waiting to happen.

From a psychological perspective, a man or woman could create different identities. It just seems so twisted.

Also, if a person had multiple residences for each family, how would you find them if the person was running from the authorities? That would be a real challenge and drain on law enforcement resources. There would be way too many relatives to question.

[Quantum]

Polygamy is de facto legal as we have baby mamas and they receive child benefits, though nowhere near as much as the alarmists on the Daily Mail claim.

I agree with the sentiments here regarding abolishing civil marriage. I don't see why the state should provide differential treatment based on marital status. Historically, marriage was a private contract before the Catholic Church put their grubby hands on the institution and made it state sanctioned.

The institution of marriage is crumbling anyway since cohabitation and births out of wedlock have become the norm in the West. Reforming marriage due to whatever cultural fad is like trying to save a zombie.

A pre-nuptial agreement IS divorce insurance.

They are frequently nullified to make them worthless.

[mikema63]

oppose polygamy first because it is disgusting.

How on earth is that any sort of legitimate or logical reason?

[SolarCross]

Polygamy is de facto legal as we have baby mamas and they receive child benefits, though nowhere near as much as the alarmists on the Daily Mail claim.

I agree with the sentiments here regarding abolishing the civil marriage. I don't see why the state should provide differential treatment based on marital status. Historically, marriage was a private contract before the Catholic Church put their grubby hands on the institution and made it state sanctioned.

The institution of marriage is crumbling anyway since cohabitation and births out of wedlock have become the norm in the West. Reforming marriage due to whatever cultural fad is like trying to save a zombie.

It is true that polygamy is de facto legal, that started (or resumed) with the de-criminalisation of adultery and a relaxing of taboos on pre-marital sex. Cohabitation is just informal marriage. Though weirdly there are still laws forbidding multiple concurrent legal marriages ie: bigamy. I guess for the polyamorist having the bigamy laws revoked or reformed would be the target. One could do multiple marriages by private contract but with bigamy laws present on the statutes one would have to be careful or risk getting dragged into court and possibly imprisoned. There is something to be said for regulating marriage by law, it is probably the most important and risky transaction one can possibly make in an ordinary life and has very far reaching consequences for a person's well being and fortunes: good marriages are second only to paradise, bad marriages are hell on earth. The governors of a democracy take it upon themselves to regulate to excruciating detail even the most trivial and unimportant transactions or actions down to the proper method of buying and selling a penny sweet. As governors in the business of providing law and order it seems inevitable and possibly desirable that they will seek to regulate marriage. We should then ask for just and sensible laws in this respect or have anarchy.

[MistyTiger]

How on earth is that any sort of legitimate or logical reason?

I did not label it as logical or legitimate. However, it could be termed as cruel or unjust to all the spouses involved. What if wife A isn't getting fair treatment and wife B & C are allowed all the money and wife A gets only pennies? Perhaps wife A is being treated unfairly because she is "annoying" and can't bear sons? Money distribution and assets could be problematic as well.

Someone mentioned prenuptial agreement, well that could be disputed and even overturned if there was proof of undue influence or duress to enter into the prenuptial agreement.

[oscar]

Governments need to get out of the marriage business and instead deal with "civil unions" of which there can only be one (1) "partner" per person for legal purposes. Let the Religious cults deal with the definitions of "marriage" between one, two, three, however many partners of whichever sex(es).

[Dystopian Darkness]

People saying the government should get out of marriage should take a degree in Law. Marriage is a contract, and like any other contract it is only possible because there's a law saying you can sign that contract. It has terms, conditions, clauses and requirements, and the government can and should discriminate if there is a compelling interest to keep. Any contract you can sign only exists because there's a law saying you can do it or at least that it's not illegal. If marriage could be decided in its substance by people, then it could mean anything. I can sign a purchase and sell contract and name it marriage, but that doesn't make it a marriage, get over it people.

I find no compelling reason to legalize polyamorous marriage as there is no benefit whatsoever for society. Gay marriage doesn't change much on the structure because rights, duties and requirements to marry are basically equal, only sex changes, but more than two people changes the structure and requirements of marriage. If anyone can come up with a solution to fix every issue that would come up in polyamorous marriages, they can bring that to courts of Law. If we are going to broad the definition of marriage to allow just about anything then I see no point in calling it marriage anymore.

In Law everything is a slippery slope. I want to marry my dog, is there a petition for it?

[Decky]

Why should marriage be a contract? You don't a contract when you make a friend.

[Dystopian Darkness]

Why should marriage be a contract? You don't a contract when you make a friend.

Because institutions need regulation, otherwise everyone is free to do whatever they please without restrictions. If you don't think there's a difference between lifelong commitment and making a friend, there's nothing else I can say to you.

[Decky]

If you don't think there's a difference between lifelong commitment and making a friend, there's nothing else I can say to you.

If you think marriage is a lifelong commitment than there is nothing I can say to you. Have you just stepped out of a time machine from the past or something?

[Dystopian Darkness]

If you think marriage is a lifelong commitment than there is nothing I can say to you. Have you just stepped out of a time machine from the past or something?

It needn't be, but legally it is - You can then call out the contract and ask for a divorce if you want, but while it lasts it is a contract that requires a commitment between people and provides both rights and duties. In practice some marriages last for a lifetime, while others end in divorce, but when you sign it is a requirement to accept the commitment towards the other party, and that's why there are legal benefits and entitlements for both ends. I have a right to inherit a part of my future wife's wealth. I don't have the right to sell our common property without her consent, etc. I see marriage as strategic for benefits, procreation and raising children and providing the stability of settling down and monogamy - I don't see it as love

[blackjack21]

I don't have it anymore, but once came across a very convincing analysis of the large weaknesses of legal polygamy. The chief one is fraud; tax fraud & benefits fraud.

Since that was the legal basis of the complaints at the Supreme Court--Justice Kennedy's probably MDMA influenced opinion notwithstanding--the court should have ruled against same sex marriage, since it was just a scheme to get out of paying estate taxes in the DOMA case. Back before he got re-married, my cop buddy and I used to joke that we could get married so I could get spousal benefits from San Francisco. Since Kennedy has already extended this to Social Security by extension as well, I see no reason why we shouldn't just collapse the Social Security system with sham marriages so we can all collect welfare from the mindless barbarians that populate this country.

Not really, this is where logic comes in. An individual has the right to get married. There is nowhere in the Constitution granting government the power to define marriage at all, its job is to recognize the relationship, that's all. If an individual can marry anybody he wants, man or woman, there is no legal nor logical reasoning to limit him to one partner, so long as those partners are themselves consenting adults.

If you use the purpose of marriage as a basis, there is certainly a reason. It's just not about some warm creamy feeling in a person's belly. The purpose is to optimize procreation, or reproductive fitness. The state has a compelling state interest to that end. The problem for the modern West is that people are so brainwashed into what they want as individuals, they have no historical concept of why marriage was set up as it was and why it persisted for so long.

The government should not senselessly hold onto past conventions, once they are no longer accepted by the general public.

You mean like black people attacking police officers being construed to be something likely to get you killed?

And even if there was no logic to the decision, we must be able to draw conclusions and extrapolate logically from that decision, or it's just haphazard nonsense and the Rule of Law no longer exists.

That's really where we are right now. Robert's affinity for ObamaCare and Kennedy's abandonment of reason to emotion has basically rendered the Supreme Court a parody.

So? It's just a fucking word. If I want to call my toaster a kettle who am I harming?

You've committed fraud if you tried to sell a toaster as a kettle.

Polygamy does not imply that any harm is done, but 95% of time there is a clear hard dominant-submissive relationship within its members, and it is pretty common to see some of those submissives to come to consider that this situation harmed them.

So now we're looking after other people's best interests again all of a sudden? There is a dominant-submissive relationship among homosexuals too. The BDSM community also has such practices. How are we supposed to be unconcerned about homosexuals, transgenders, and BDSMs, but suddenly express concern about polygamists?

Let's face it: if Europe were to allow polyamorous weddings, the vast majority of them would be contracted by radical muslims, assholes who mentally crush their wives.

And constricting cardinality somehow makes Muslim men nice husbands?

As for the other weddings, they would just be equivalent to a socially acceptable form of prostitution while escaping labor regulations and putting those women in a very troublesome situation.

Why should prostitution concern us if women are ostensibly equal?

There is no such problem with homosexual wedding: both partners are on equal foothold.

Why do you assume that a cardinality restriction establishes equality?

There is nothing under US law to prohibit two people to live as a married couple in all but name only. They only thing they can't do is avail themselves of the governmental "advantages" of marriage.

It used to be unlawful. It's still considered unlawful in some Southern states. Florida had a case as recently as 2011.

Polygamy is de facto legal as we have baby mamas and they receive child benefits, though nowhere near as much as the alarmists on the Daily Mail claim.

That's an interesting point. It's another one of the situations where for whatever reason, as long as someone can produce a writing instrument, some how it vitiates statutory law.

I agree with the sentiments here regarding abolishing civil marriage. I don't see why the state should provide differential treatment based on marital status. Historically, marriage was a private contract before the Catholic Church put their grubby hands on the institution and made it state sanctioned.

Octavian Caesar beat them to it.

The institution of marriage is crumbling anyway since cohabitation and births out of wedlock have become the norm in the West. Reforming marriage due to whatever cultural fad is like trying to save a zombie.

It's basically now a way to sue or get sued for money, and a way to side step estate taxes and collect benefits after a spouse dies.

I find no compelling reason to legalize polyamorous marriage as there is no benefit whatsoever for society.

Either way, polygamy still meets the definition of marriage--in case you didn't know, "marriage" means heterosexual sex. For that reason alone, I think same sex marriage should be considered evidence of mental illness since it literally parses as "homosexual heterosexual sex" and therefore makes no sense.

I find no compelling reason to legalize polyamorous marriage as there is no benefit whatsoever for society.

California has separate statutes, because marriage can be voided if a contracting party cannot perform the marital act--in case you didn't know, "marital act" means heterosexual sex. So a "gay marriage" in California would be void at its inception under California law, because homosexuals cannot perform the marital act by definition.

If we are going to broad the definition of marriage to allow just about anything then I see no point in calling it marriage anymore.

Sign me up, because I can't consider myself part of Western civilization with this type of thing out of order.

[MistyTiger]

Why should marriage be a contract? You don't a contract when you make a friend.

Actually, there are implied contracts. A contract can be made without actually laying out explicit terms. Usually it's accepted that if you hurt or kill your friend's mom or brother that the friendship is over. It's things like that that are implied in the contract.

Going back to marriage contracts, I see marriage being recognized by the government as a universal standard that exists. So no matter where you are, the government recognizes your legal status and they don't think you're delusional and a crazy person who is only married in their head. Let's face it, I can say I'm married when I'm really not. An official from town hall can say that I never applied for a marriage license and there is no proof that I signed a legal document verifying a marriage. The certificate is legal proof of marital status. It's not just a piece of paper, there is force behind it.

[Decky]

I know. My point is that there should be no force behind it. The state has no business having anything to do with it.

[Saeko]

I know. My point is that there should be no force behind it. The state has no business having anything to do with it.

You need to lay off the Nationstates, Decky. It's having a negative effect on your politics.

I know you're only pretending to be a Rothbardian there, but how long until the mask becomes the face? Think about that...

[ReallyBig]

The government has no business telling people who they can or can't marry. So long as the people entering the marriage contract are doing it willingly and are old enough then its their business.

The sad and predictable thing is the same people who were advocating for gay marriage are standing in the way of multi person marriages. They argued that it wasn't right to tell people that they couldn't get married but then they turn around and say no to polygamy. Talk about hypocrisy.

[mikema63]

Considering that one of the major arguments that opponents to gay marriage put forward to scare people was that polygamy would then become legal because of it, it is hardly surprising that gay rights activists pointed out that this was retarded. Gay rights activists work for gay rights, not polygamous rights, expecting them to do so and make their actual goals harder is ridiculous.

[Decky]

I know you're only pretending to be a Rothbardian there, but how long until the mask becomes the face? Think about that...

That's always been my opinion. I am fine with the workers state destroying the idle rich and sending people to gulags that's fine. Having state enforced contracts about how much you like someone on the other hand... Makes no sense at all.

[ReallyBig]

Considering that one of the major arguments that opponents to gay marriage put forward to scare people was that polygamy would then become legal because of it, it is hardly surprising that gay rights activists pointed out that this was retarded. Gay rights activists work for gay rights, not polygamous rights, expecting them to do so and make their actual goals harder is ridiculous.

Actually it was a foregone conclusion that polygamy would be legalized if gay marriage was legalized. The entire linchpin was predicated on marriage being specifically defined as one man and one woman. Now that the definition of marriage has been expanded there is no logical reason to prevent groups of people marrying.