(Full disclosure: I have good friends who are in legally unrecognized three-person marriages; and my own living situation is arguably a three-way marriage.)
In my view, what marriage does is enable unrelated adults to become, legally, each other’s closest kin. I don’t see a single moral reason why three or more people who wish to shouldn’t be able to have their marriage legally recognized, and so become each other’s closest kin.
However, I see three practical reasons to not legally recognize polyamorous marriages.
First, legal questions. Two is a convenient number for closest kin; if Ken and Barbie are each other’s closest kin, that provides legal clarity, which is very useful from the state’s perspective. If Ken dies without a will, Barbie inherits; if Ken is in a coma, Barbie is his legal guardian and decision-maker; and so forth.
But what happens when Ken, Barbie and Steve Austin are all each other’s closest kin? If Ken is in a coma and Barbie and Steve Austin can’t agree on medical treatment, what happens?
Of course, “usually” avoided is not the same as “always avoided,” as the Terri Schiavo case proved. But more often than not, two-person marriage does succeed in establishing that A is B’s closest relative for such purposes; and the Schiavo case also illustrates exactly why it’s a nightmare when courts do not have that clarity.
There are other legal ambiguities created if we allow more than two to marry. If Barbie divorces Steve and Ken, is the whole marriage dissolved, or are Steve and Ken still spouses? Can Barbie divorce Steve but remained married to Ken? Can Ken marry G.I. Joe without Barbie’s and Steve’s permission? There may be a legitimate state interest in avoiding such legal muddles.
Second, polyamorous marriages, unlike same-sex marriages, actually would change the nature of already-existing legal marriages. Most married couples currently understand that when they got married, they were choosing a single sex partner for life – and for most, that’s an absolutely essential part of marriage. The legal possibility of adding new partner(s) would change that – suddenly the exclusivity they thought they were signing up for, isn’t necessarily exclusive. (What does a wife do if her husband wants to start dating – but he’s not cheating on her, he says, he’s just courting potential new partners?)
Legal same sex marriage doesn’t change anything about the nature of already-existing marriages – making claims that SSM is unfair to other married couples moot. The same can’t necessarily be said for legalizing polyamorous marriages.
Third, and perhaps most important, all too often polygamous marriages are a tool for oppression and abuse of women and children. It’s likely that legally recognized polygamous marriage could make such abuses more acceptable and more difficult to fight – a price that’s too high to pay. And, once again, a compelling state interest.
I don’t assume these problems are insolvable; but they’d have to be convincingly addressed before I could support legally recognizing polygamous marriage.
Line marriage, a la Heinlein, solves all these problems. The seniority system takes care of questions of precedent and legal authority. The “line” is the marriage entity – so if someone leaves or is kicked out, the line continues; if multiples decide to separate (2 and 3, for example) then new lines (or old-style couplings) are automatically generated. The fact that it’s a line marriage means that previous marriage contracts remain as they are; if a couple wants to switch their marriage to a line, they have to fill in the line document, or what have you. Oppression and abuse could be a problem, but that’s a cost of freedom; people who can act freely are able to act badly.
Polygamous marriages could be treated not as group marriages but as a series of simultaneously con-existing one-on-one marriages; that is, A marries B and B marries A. A can then choose to marry C and C marries A. The marriages between A and B and A and C do not form a relationship between B and C unless B separately marries C.
“It’s likely that legally recognized polygamous marriage could make such abuses more acceptable and more difficult to fight – a price that’s too high to pay. And, once again, a compelling state interest.”
By your own reasoning, that is a very poor argument. Saying this is not in principle different than saying that same-sex marriage should not be allowed because of what other marriages it might lead to. Why should people in non-abusive polyamorous relationships not be able to get married in order to prevent abuse by other people? Doesn’t this put the burden of preventing abuse on the non-abusive polyamorists, i.e. force them to give up their rights in order to prevent others from using a similar situation for abuse?
Actually, the best argument against legal polygamy is that in cultures where polygyny is present (and polygamy is nearly always polygyny), men tend to get competitive for mates in very destructive ways because there are not enough single females for every single male to find a mate. (It also sometimes leads to opportunistic homosexual behavior (i.e., like in prisons), making the men even more agiated by each other).
Of course, I don’t think it would work= quite that way in the US; I have a feeling that polyandry would be a lot more common in this day and age, for several reasons:
(1) If polygamy became acceptable, there would be a strong push for polyandry to be as acceptable as polygyny due to a desire for equality between the sexes. Despite whatever “institutional sexism” may exist, there is a strong desire in our society not to be overtly sexist, so very few would really campaign for “polygyny only.”
(2) Part of the reason why polygyny was so much more predominant is because historically, people wanted to have a lot of children, and women are the “limiting factor” in terms of the number of kids that are born (i.e. a man with a dozen wives can have twelve times as many children as a man with one, but a woman with a dozen husbands can have only the same number of children she could have ahd with one husband. Therefore, any man sharing a wife was allowing some of the children that would otherwise be his to be another man’s, whereas such a concern would not be as relevant to a woman.
However, in the modern day and age few women reproduce “to capacity.” Therefore, a woman might choose to only have one child with each husband, regardless of how many husbands she had; in such a case, there is less reason for the husbnads to feel jealous, because each child the woman has with another is not a child that she could have instead had with him.
Moreover, a woman who wants a lot of children but can only afford to have one with her husband might decide that having a second husband around to do chores or to add a second or third paycheck might make having a large family affordable.
The point is, I think that American polygamy would likely be different than historical polygamy. Not that I am for polygamy, but it is an interesting speculation.
I disagree too that legalized polyamorous marriages would make abuses more widespread; part of what makes it so easy to abuse women in illicit polygamous relationships is the very fact that it is NOT legitimate, and thus there’s a huge cloud of secrecy that they have on top of the usual familial iron curtain.
That argument is very similar to one I’ve seen in the anti-gay-marriage camp – that because some gays are promiscuous that they all must be, and thus aren’t really interested in marriage. It’s guilt by association.
How can you san that the reasons you give, specially the third, are not MORAL reasons to oppose polygamy, or polyamorous unions? The oppression of women is not simply “impractible”. It’s immoral.
sorry, i meant “how can you say…”
oops. and i meant “impracticle.” time for bed.
I’m entirely unclear what “all too often” means in this post.
I would agree that any frequency of underage or incestuous marriages other than 0 per 1000 is too often, but the addition of “all” carries the strong implication that the frequency is much greater among this particular type of relationship. Neither of the links carries any particular support for this argument. Furthermore, I remain unconvinced that the structure of religious leader marrying his underage subjects before sexually abusing them is either characteristic of religious leaders, or of polygamous relationships. Also, Texas currently allows 13 year old girls to be married with the consent of her parents (and of a judge) and 14 year oilds require no consent from anyone but their spouse to be married, so underage marriage is alivce and well even without legalized polygamy.
It is worth noting that the Utah and Nevada AGs (in dealing with the fundamentalist Mormon sects that practice underage forced marriage) have favored focusing prosecution on the underage and forced aspects, as well as the fraud and theft of government services aspects, and not on the incidental polygamy (which is illegal in Utah), although there have been polygamy prosecutions as well. While forced underage marriage (and underage marriage and forced marriage) should be illegal and prosecuted, it seems odd to push all of that on to polygamous marriage. Even among heretical mormons, arguably non-abusive forms do exist.
I think that the problem of abusive polygamy amongst cult-like religious sects is a real problem, but not one that should be used to tar polygamy overall.
The messiness of polygamous “next of kin” divorce rules do seem to me to be legitimate problems with legalizing polygamy. At the very least, they clearly require something other than simply repealing the bigamy laws. Basically, polygamous marriage would need to be created as a new institution, and all the issues of whether A-B marry C to form ABC, or whether A (already married to B) marries C, and of whether C divorcing B means that the entire marriage set is dissolved, or whether it leaves C married to A and A married to B, or whether C automatically divorces both A and B, etc would need to be resolved, or required to be explicitly defined in the marriage contract (with presumably the ability to revise and renegotiate later). It would definitely be a total legal mess, particularly since opening marriage to some types of poly marriage (say ABC marriages, but not A-B A-C marriages) seems less just than leaving it closed to all poly marriages.
I also agree that making poly marriage legal would radically change the institution of marriage in ways that SSM would not, and would fundamentally undermine social support for the concept of monogamy. Furthermore, even if we accept that SSM would also create radical changes in everyone’s marriages, number is not a constitutionally protected category, while sex is, so the standard of how much change is enough that we can simply say “Not worth it,” is much lower for polygamy than it is for SSM.
And I say that as someone effectively in a poly marriage who would certainly benefit from legal recognition of our status.
One last note: I don’t like the term polyamorous marriage for polygamy (although it does help to remove the confusion that people have between polygamy and polygyny). Polyamory has strong connotations of fluidity of relationship that run directly counter to the idea of marriage as an ideally life-time relationship. Polyamorous marriage would therefore involve an even more radical transformation of marriage, reducing the already weakened concept of marriage as a permanent relationship, a problem which polygamy does not bring by itself.
The legal muddles aren’t insoluble. Here’s how I’d set it up were I dictator for life:
People can be involved in multiple marriages, and marriages can involve any number of people. No two people can be married to each other without their explicit consent (i.e., no transitivity) – one partner marrying someone else creates a second marriage, not an enlarged one. Marriages can be split (the division of property is a pain, but it’s a pain in any divorce), with the default being that any two people remain married to each other unless they explicitly choose to divorce. In cases where a single person needs to be able to make a final decision, the rebuttable presumption will be that the spouse who has been in the marriage the longest has decision-making power. In the case of multiple marriages, each person would be required to designate a proxy for such decision-making.
If Barbie divorces Steve and Ken, is the whole marriage dissolved, or are Steve and Ken still spouses?
Yes, unless they choose to divorce each other as well.
Can Barbie divorce Steve but remain married to Ken?
Yes; this would create two marriages: Barbie/Ken and Ken/Steve, with separate marital property. (Ken’s proxy would be whomever he married first, or whomever he specified as such in a simultaneous marriage.)
Can Ken marry G.I. Joe without Barbie’s and Steve’s permission?
Yes; this would also create two marriages: Barbie/Ken/Steve and Ken/Joe.
Reasons one and two are good reasons not to go changing the laws *yet*. There are a lot of tricky questions, a number of which you’ve outlined, which our culture needs to come to some sort of a semi-consensus on (most likely achieved by a widespread movement of people trying out “polygamous” arrangements without legal recognition.
Argument three, however, I don’t buy at all. It sounds to me like a slippery slope — if we allow consensual polygamy, then what’s to stop us from allowing (in practice if not in law) abusive polygamy? I would think that child abuse and age of consent laws would provide a pretty good brake on that slope.
A lot of the issues and ideas raised here are totally beyond me.
I think the same situation already happens, quite a lot, in situations where Ken is the child of Barbie and Steve Austin. There aren’t any insurmountable problems here. If this is a sufficiently reason for stopping people having two legal spouses then it’s an equally good a reason for stopping people having two legal parents.
Amp, what a fascinating discussion. In defending gay marriage, I’ve always dodged the question of polyamory/polygamy, largely because I saw it as a rhetorical distraction. You and your commenters have given me much about which to think!
Line marriage, a la Heinlein, solves all these problems.
Poly Phrase: “The idea of line marriage has always appealed to me.”
English Translation: “The idea of having sex with people younger than me has always appealed to me.”
(tip of the hat to the Poly-English Dictionary)
the division of property is a pain, but it’s a pain in any divorce
This reminds me of that cartoon where the scientist has a blackboard full of scribbed figures and formulae, and in a space in the middle is written “And then a miracle happens!” We have rules for property division; it’s a pain because it’s emotionally uncomfortable, people hide assets, and sometimes it’s not clear what category certain property falls into. But that’s nothing compared to what happens if you allow interlocking marriages.
Like Amp, I am not morally opposed to the idea, but I haven’t really seen a good legal model. Polygamy has traditionally meant many women being the property of one husband, not groups of intermarried people.
Plus, as a lawyer, I can think of oodles of ways to exploit “any number” marriage.
In certain African countries that recognize both monogamous and polygamous marriage, the marriage certificate states on its face whether the parties have contracted a monogamous or polygamous union. This means that the contract can’t be changed unilaterally by one of the partners and the woman knows going in whether the husband already has a wife.
As for inheritance, you would almost certainly have to modify current inheritance laws and provide, essentially, for a default inheritance of equal portions to each spouse, and with no spouse being disfavored beyond a certain level absent prenuptial agreements.
Basically, you would take what currently exists now for our serially monogamous culture and modify it so that all extant spouses are treated equally. It would not be that difficult to do.
Yes, it would, because what you’re omitting is that in those “certain African countries” (which ones, please?), there is no polyandry, only polygyny. One husband has many wives, period. None of those wives get another husband, nor are they married to one another.
Mythago, that dictionary was laugh-out-loud funny. Probably some of it is fair, and I know some of it isn’t, but the most accurate critique is rarely the best satire.
So what happens when Bill marries Mary, and then Bill (and Mary) marry Claire, and then Bill, Mary and Claire marry George? In other words, would you end up with marriages that are both polyandrous and polygamous?
You’d need to post a spreadsheet for the sleeping schedules ….
The countries that I am aware of include Cameroon and other west African nations that still have a significant presence of practicing animists. I looked at original marriage certificates issued in the mid-90’s. The same principles could apply to both polygamy and polyandry or whatever other arrangement includes third or fourth or more parties — no person contracting a marriage should have to guess whether his or her spouse plans to add another mate, whether male or female. It’s just a way of protecting the parties to the marriage.
How many of you out there are polyamorous? I am. I can tell you that even in the non-mormon poly community, there’s not a large movement waiting to get married to multiple partners at any time soon. For the most part, we’re pretty content to just have open relationships.
A note to the people who worry about abuse and competitiveness: Modern day non-mormon polyamory is *NOT* a breeding ground for abusive partners, child abuse, or any similar thing. Lots of us are also GLBT activists. We’re almost all feminists. Many of us are educated on fat-activism, disability activism, autism and aspergers activism, race activism, religious tolerance…
It’s hard to find a more enlightened bunch. Honestly, we’re sometimes so concerned about being sensitive to the abovementioned issues that we end up scaring interested monogamous people away.
Wander on to most any polyamorous support mailing list, and see what happens when a guy who claims to be poly asks where he can find another bisexual woman to complete his dream of a triad. I’ve seen it happen time and again. The ‘HBB’ (Hot Bi Babe) hunter gets torn to shreds.
I’d also be happy to answer any questions people have about what it’s like being polyamorous (from my perspective, at least) and how things work out overall in the poly community.
And no, most poly people I know don’t have ‘sleeping schedules’ (nudge nudge wink wink).
Limited Liability Corporations are how some people gain some of the rights of marriage in a group situation. But LLCs really are quite limited in what they give you (rights to transfer property, get group insurance, etc) and don’t get at the main things people are looking for like being able to file joint tax returns or make medical decisions.
Communal situations, outside of sexual relationships also bring up these issues. I am part of a partnership agreement with respect to the ownership of my home. There are just two of us in it at this time, but we stipulated the conditions for adding others later. However, the lawyer who drew up the agreement said that partnerships are made to be broken: this is a good thing, you don’t want to have people stuck in agreements they don’t want to be in. So we had to be sure to be clear about the conditions for leaving & what people’s writes were if they wished to do so. And still, even those could be broken if one of us tried to do so.
I’m an advocate for changing the way people look at agreements made between consenting adults about their economic & emotional unions, but the way law actually functions makes me doubt that current structures would support group marriage well. It may take a more fundamental re-structuring of these agreements and how we see them.
One such approach is advocated in the Canadian report Beyond Conjugality, is well summarized here:
The report advises taking each law that addresses a person’s marital or family relationship and analyzing it from the perspective of the law’s original intent. What is the purpose of the law and what is the best way to achieve that purpose? Does recognizing a person’s relationships contribute to that purpose at all? If so, would the purpose be better served by allowing a person to designate which relationships are most important to them, rather than assuming it to be those related by blood or marriage?
For most people with little net worth, state sanctioned marriage has relatively few economic benefits. You get to force your employer to extend health benefits to your spouse, for example, and your spouse gets to sue if someone kills or maims you. Forcing employers to recognize and extend benefits to multiple spouses could be problematic and would be a temptation to fraud; therefore, the law as applied to third parties would have to be modified to account for the possibility of multiple spouses.
One solution might be for the state to get out of the business of sanctioning relationships altogether.
This has been going on for time out of mind. I remember a triad that lived next to us when I was a child, in the 1950’s.
The burden of proof is on those who would refuse such alliances legal protection.
At the present time I am aware of two triads, both of long standing. One has two women and one man; one has two men and one woman. Both sets have several children, and are grandparents now.
So shoot them or something. Wouldn’t it make more sense to wake up and face reality?
I’m with Emily Care on this one.
Frankly, current Western marriage (at least in the US and Canada; I’m unfamiliar with the specifics of other countries, though I believe it’s pretty similar throughout the West) is based on outdated hierarchical, heterocentric notions that are still the “default” value because of so-called traditions. Sure, the current system would not be able to support polyamourous marriages, but which one is the problem: the loving and consentual group living situations, or a narrow view of what a “family” is?
Frankly, I think it’s high time to see more individual involvement in marriage contracts. It should never be assumed that a marriage is [x]; it should be a living contract drawn up by all partners involved to outline a situation that is right for them at the time. If Ken, Barbie, and Steve all love each other, then they should be able to work out issues like kin relationships, inheritance, etc. in a way that is agreeable to all of them.
The economic benefits area still remains prickly, but it’s not like we don’t have abuses of the current system of marriage in order to gain said benefits already. Maybe it would help us take a hard look at the kind of privileges we give different-sex couples that are denied to everyone else.
The economic benefits is, in my mind, a huge stumbling block. If Steve Austin dies, there is no way in hell the government is going to approve of doling out equal pensions to Barbie, Ken, Skipper, and whoever else is involved in the marriage. And dividing one pension among everybody in the Malibu beachhouse isn’t feasible, either.
Josh, I don’t claim “polyamorous” as an identity, but prior to my relationship with my wife, I never promised sexual exclusivity to any partner, nor did I request it. My wife and I are open to other sex partners, very occasionally, and only as a couple.
The same principles could apply to both polygamy and polyandry or whatever other arrangement includes third or fourth or more parties The same principles could apply to both polygamy and polyandry or whatever other arrangement includes third or fourth or more parties
No, it couldn’t. You’re looking at arrangements where one man is the husband and has multiple wives, each of whom is married to him only, none of whom are allowed to marry anyone else.
What happens if the law allows one of those wives to marry another husband? Or to marry one of her co-wives? Getting permission is a relatively small hurdle; figuring out property rights and so on is a lot trickier.
Trinary marriage? What a novel idea. Imagine my surprise when, after a period of time away from Alas, I find Amp mentioning trinary marriage. I’ll have to go back and read all the posts before commenting.
Mythago has a point about complexity.
I tend to think of these things as analogous to business combinations, too, and certainly there are structures to accomodate almost any relationship.
However, when complicated structures of businesses are created for financial engineering purposes (or for trusts and estates purposes), they are done by a bunch of financial professionals and transactional lawyers — the kind that bill time at $500 and even $900 per hour. And even then, it’s not rare that they make a mistake and one of these things ends up operating in a way nobody envisioned, or going completely haywire when someone tries to unwind it or add a piece to the puzzle.
So, in trying to replicate the complex, individually structured deals that exist in the business world in the context of family situations where there are more emotions, less expertise and fewer dollars to get professionals to do the planning —
Well, there’s a reason that marriage offers a one-size-fits-all package of default rights and responsibilities. And even then, people often misunderstand what they are getting themselves into.
I’m thinking that, if this could be done at all as a practical matter, it could only be done by the kind of people who have the wherewithal to do very complicated trusts and estates planning — and that solution is so elitist that I doubt it will find much support among progressives.
Mythago, Flea, Thomas and others have pointed out the real sticky wicket with polyamorous marriages – the complexity. When a marriage involves two people, we have a pre-set package of rights, responsibilities, and precedents. But when Barbie wants to marry both Ken and Steve Austin, or Ken wants both Barbie and Midge, things get more complicated. Who inherits? Who pays child support? Is the government going to want to pay survivor’s benefits for Barbie AND Midge AND Skipper AND Hello Kitty when Ken pops his clogs? Considering that the Bushies want to “privatize” Social Security as it is, I think that Frosty the Snowman will take over Satan’s job as king of the hot place before the gov’t thinks it’s a neat idea to pay out multiple spouse’s Social Security. And that’s just for starters.
Another issue is consent. Will Barbie, already married to Ken, be able to say “Honey, I’m marrying Steve” without Ken’s consent? Even if Ken wants monogamy? Will Ken’s only choice be to get a divorce or suck it up? If the spouses are mismatched in their desire for polygamy, that can create problems. As it could if Barbie decided to blatantly favor Steve over Ken. Or, worse, if Ken, married to Barbie, decides to marry Skipper and then favors not only Skipper but his kids by her. Jealousy over the husband’s favored treatment of one wife and especially of one wife’ s kids is a real thorn in the side of many wives in traditionally polygamous countries. I think if polyamorous marriage is to be allowed, there ought to be something in place which prevents a spouse from marrying a second spouse without the consent of the first.
As for the abuse/underage issue, that can be easily solved by invoking laws against kidnapping, underage marriage, child abuse and so on. I think that raising the legal age of marriage to 18 in all states is an excellent idea. Other than that, someone who marries a 14-year-old should be nailed for child abuse and statutory rape, not polygamy.
That could be easily remedied by designating one as primary or secondary. Barbie and Ken are married, Ken wishes to marry Betty. He is allowed to do so with Barbie’s consent. Barbie is then designated primary, and Betty is secondary. There would have to be some restrictions, including the number involved if nothing more than for practical reasons. Also it would require, I think, a different marital contractual agreement, which would spell out the limitations and responsibilities of the parties involved. But there’s no reason that trianry marriage cannot be allowed.
Actually in one major respect it wouldn’t change, assuming we’re talking about opposite sex trinary marriage or OSTM. The law, except for Mass, presumes marriage to be a conjugal relationship. This concept would be preserved with OSTM, and any children born of such relationship would be legally and biologically connected to its mother and father. SSM eliminates marriage as a legally recognized conjugal based relationship and replaces it with a close itimate adult relationship.
As for children, wouldn’t it be better if their mother and father were married? Why would the fact that one’s father is already married, preclude him from marrying his/her single mother? We allow umpteen divorces and remarriages. It would seem to be a better arrangement for children to grow up in a house hold were mom and dad are present, and their half brothers/sisters, if trinary marriage were allowed, as oppossed to Mom and Dad divorcing and creating seperate secondary housholds.
Why does it automatically have to mean “abuse”? If three consenting adults enter into a legally recognized relationship, that doesn’t necessarily indicate abusive intent any more than two people entering into a legally recognized relationship.
Pingback: Unstable Thoughts » Gay marriage and the hierarchy of perversion
SSM eliminates marriage as a legally recognized conjugal based relationship
You keep pushing this lie, knowing full well that this definition of marriage was “eliminated” in the US years ago.
It’s easy to handwave and say “oh, we’d just have to change the contractual relationships a bit.” That’s like saying “oh, we’d just have to move this mountain over here.”
I’m not morally opposed to polyamorous marriages, or think they’re unworkable, but I’ve never seen a proposed model that would work.
I wish we could just abolish marriage as a legal entity. Since so much of what marriage is right now is about financial arrangements, I’d rather draw up my own agreements with people as I see fit and make them binding contracts as I choose.
If I have benefits, why can’t I assign them as I wish? Why can’t I give my health insurance benefits to my poor cousin; the right to pull my plug to my lover? On the other hand, a person might be married but still want their mother or sister to make that choice.
“Two is a convenient number for closest kin.” Well, if a person has 3 children, and no spouse what then? Who is the closest kin then? As we know, there are ways to arrange for estates and benefits to be distrubuted that could work the same way with two or more individuals in a sexual relationship.
I agree that the individual decision to enter a multi-person arrangement is not immoral in itself. The problem for me is that a legal sanction of such an arrangement will certainly alter the social understanding of marriage. IMHO, these changes would be bad for society. Not just because of legal complexity (although that would certainly be a problem), but because of emotional complexity. What if you start out agreeing to an arrangement that allows poly but then change your mind later (when you have kids, perhaps, or when a new partner becomes a reality rather than a theory)? Plus the “line” idea, while practical on one hand, has potential for some extreme emotional ugliness on the other. Who really wants to be “last in line”? Lastly, while many currently-existing poly relationships are perfectly good, even enviable, arrangements, I have also heard of much negative experience with them (i.e. emotional manipulation, jealousy, etc.). I suppose that’s not a real argument since there are plenty of bad 2-person relationships, but it should at least give some pause. Positive poly relationships may just be slightly more difficult (presumably, a bit more emotional work) than positive “couple” relationships. But *negative* poly relationships seem exponentially worse than negative “couple” ones.
And by the way, this is just my opinion right now. I still think it’s good to explore the question.
Amp – I appreciate that you brought this topic up, because it goes deeper into a point I was trying to make on an earlier post. BTW, I also want to know why consentual incest (e.g. adult, consenting brother & sister) is bad legally, aside from the fact that the idea creeps me out.
I don’t buy the argument from “complexity”.
The only reason there are “legal ambiguities” associated with polyamorous marriages is that there isn’t any law dealing with them. So, of course, the current law isn’t going to know how to treat these situations. You could make exactly the same argument against binary marriage if it didn’t exist. I don’t see any problems that can’t be easily resolved.
People will bring up the idea that it would be genetically damaging to any child, but in any other circumstance suggesting that this should be a legitimate reason for preventing people marrying would make you a pariah. Another reason is that people would use it for tax avoidance (tax avoidance that they don’t approve of, that is).
Pingback: Family Scholars Blog
I’m willing to let people who are interested in these arrangements fend for themselves, legally speaking. There’s no reason for the state to come up with a standard package of dispensations for threesomes or foursomes.
nik is right that the only reason there is legal ambiguity at this point is that there currently isn’t any law.
It seems to come down to needing to decide which benefits and responsibilities accrue to the individuals involved in a given marriage, and which accrue to the marriage itself. I wouldn’t presume to try to list them all, but some of what seem more obvious would be that, say a pension or other death benefit would be related to the individual, to be divided among any spouses at the time of death (if that isn’t enough to live on, then they make other arrangements, just as is true today.) Any children born (or acquired) during the marriage are the legal responsiblity of all the adults in it, regardless of actual parentage.
In the event of a divorce, the settlement handles things like property, child custody, child support, etc.
It seems to me that the cleanest way to handle things is that there is a new contract for each marriage, voiding all previous contracts. If Ken and Barbie are married and want to marry Steve, then the current marriage is dissolved, resolving any necessary issues, as a part of the process of creating the new one. If Ken later decides he wants out, the divorce settlement paperwork process would include, if desired, the new contract for Barbie and Steve going forward. The divorce of the triple ends the marriage. If the couple wants to stay married, they would have to start a new one. Since the addition or subtraction of any spouse is going to result in some form of paperwork and registration, adding the forms to create the new relationship to the ones ending the old one doesn’s add complexity.
That way, just as now, each individual can only be in one marriage at a time. The idea that Steve could marry Ken and Barbie, and then additionally marry Midge without her also marrying Ken and Barbie as well, would get too convoluted. And forcing each person into only one legally recognized marriage is no different than it is today and hardly seems to be a hardship. After all, today, Steve would have to choose between being married to either Midge or Barbie.
There would need to be a provision of some sort for whether the death of one spouse automatically ends the marriage of the remaining spouses. Shouldn’t be hard to work out either way — either it does, and they just remarry, or it doesn’t and if they don’t like it they divorce.
As far as ties on issues that next of kin determines, the observation was made that currently having two parents creates the same potential issue with children. If necessary, a provision can be made that in the marriage contract each spouse designates a primary in the case of disagreement.
Prenuptual agreements should cover everything else.
There would need to be a legal or societal decision whether employers would have the option of charging differently for insurance purposes. Some already do this on an incremental per child basis. I would assume that they would not be able to refuse to cover more than one spouse if they cover any, but they might be able to charge more.
quote from Hellcat:
Umm…no it doesn’t, pretty much regardless of how you define “conjugal.” I assume you are (incorrectly) choosing to have it mean “sexual” — which most same-sex couples certainly meet.
If it is about children, then either the current marriage model is not inherently conjugal, or same-sex couples with kids are.
Actually, “conjugal” only means having to do with marriage. Is same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then their relationships will be just as conjugal.
And, even if your comment were true, so what?
Bill Ware said:
But you’re in favour of legal rights for two-partner relationships? How is that any less or more arbitrary than putting the number to three, four, five, etc?
Frankly, I agree with Heidi that we should be able to assign our benefits as we see fit. If I want my mom to have the ultimate authority to pull my plug, but my sister to have first go at my estate, and all my lovers to have spousal rights if I am incapacitated in the hospital, then that should be my right. If I decide I have no interest in romantic/sexual relationships, and live the rest of my life with a friend then I should be able to give any spousal benefits to that friend.
What, exactly, is it about heterosexual couples that makes them deserve special treatment?
I agree with Hellcat, Amp. The abuse potential as an argument against polygamous marriage is a red herring. Does anyone seriously believe what happens to these girls in Utah would not happen in a dyad-only marriage? Frankly, I think some of the folks who bring this particular objection up are simply bothered by the idea of men availing themselves to more than one female sex partner. It’s a real bugbear for the people I know who oppose legalized polygamy.
Mythago:You keep pushing this lie, knowing full well that this definition of marriage was “eliminated” in the US years ago.
Peter: Umm…no it doesn’t, pretty much regardless of how you define “conjugal.” I assume you are (incorrectly) choosing to have it mean “sexual” … which most same-sex couples certainly meet.
According to the Random House College Dictionary, Revised Edition:
“2. Pertaining to the relationship of husband and wife”. Now when was this eliminated years ago, Mass excepted? The law still presumes marriage to be a sexual union of the two sexes.
And, even if your comment were true, so what?
Isn’t that the state’s interest in marriage? The sexual procreational aspect of sex, as in sexual intercourse, or as various state courts have refered to it as “marital relations”. If you eliminate this aspect of marriage, what business does the state have regarding who lives with who, or who is intimate with who.
As to trinary marriage, much like same sex marriage, it does exist, although not legally recognized, Mass the lone U.S. exception for SSM. People are engaged in such relationships, complete with children. If marriage is seen as benefiting the children of SSC’s, certainly it could also be a benefit for children of trinary relationships. Ken lives with Barbie and Skipper, and has fathered a child with each. All three cohabitate as a family. Should their relationship receive legal recognition? If children are a reason why SSCs should be allowed to marry, why then shouldn’t we allow trinary marriages?
According to the Random House College Dictionary, Revised Edition:
“2. Pertaining to the relationship of husband and wife”. Now when was this eliminated years ago, Mass excepted? The law still presumes marriage to be a sexual union of the two sexes.
Yes, but what is definition number one? Oh, here it is:
1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of marriage: conjugal vows.
But that’s irrelevant, isn’t it? Try again.
Actually, the “husband/wife” distinction is pretty much legally dead.
What rights are legally given to a husband but not a wife, or vice versa?
So, legally, a husband and a wife are basically two married persons.
So adjusting definiton two to match current legal concepts of married people, we get “Pertaining to the relationship of two persons married to each other.” Sounds like it fits SSM just fine.
I belive that there is no reason that allows the state to prohibit multiple-party marriages. In my view, marriage is the closest life-time union for a live in common, and nothing prevents that several persons wish to life toghether as spouses. However, I still belive in the unity of marriage, i.e. that one person cannot have several simultaneous marriages, simply because that would mean that one marriage would be closest than the other, there would be a rank of marriages and a rank of spouses. Therefore, I disagree with some of Jeff’s answers:
I’d say no – If Barbie divorces, then Steve and Ken should either reaffirm their marriage (basically, remarry) or the full marriage definitevely is disolved. This “reaffirmation” could take place in the course of the divorce proceedings.
I’d prefer that if Barbie divorces Steve, that divorce disolves the marriage in its entirety, thus affecting also Ken. If Barbie and Ken what to reaffirm their marriage without Steve (basically, remarring withouth Steve), they should be able to do so.
My answer is no. Having a new spouse in a marriage should be something that requires permission of the existing spouses, as it essentially alters the structure of that marriage.
Jake Squid:Yes, but what is definition number one? Oh, here it is:
1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of marriage: conjugal vows.
But that’s irrelevant, isn’t it? Try again.
Jake
Let’s consider that for a moment. Marriage is defined throughout the land, Mass excluded, as a conjugal union of husband and wife. The word “conjugal” for most people would mean “sex”, like say in “conjugal” visits. Also considering an overwhelmingly heterosexual population whose frame of reference is opposite sex marriage, “conjugal”, is another way, as with “marital relations”, of refering to sexual intercourse.
Charles: Actually, the “husband/wife” distinction is pretty much legally dead.
Where, other than “Party A”, and “Party B” Mass? Certainly not in NYS where a couple must, in front of witnesses, take each other as “husband”, and “wife”.
What rights are legally given to a husband but not a wife, or vice versa?
I’m not arguing rights here, simply that OSTM, unlike SSM does not change the conjugal nature of marriage, and by conjugal I mean joining of the sexes including sexually as practicing “marital relations”.
Both SSM, and OSTM represent significant changes in marriage. How can one honestly argue otherwise. Look you gentlemen support, and advocate for SSM. Fine, but you can’t say that SSM doesn’t alter the legal, cultural, and yes, traditional, concept of marriage as an opposite sex conjugal union. If you want to argue that, “it does change marriage, but…[fill in the blank]” , we can debate the “blank”.That’s different.
Now OSTM changes the legal, cultural, and traditional binary concept of marriage, yet maintains it’s conjugal nature. Most SSM advocates, and OSM only advocates, think the number two is sacred. Trinary marriage, or polyamorous marriage is commonly viewed with contempt. My contention is that considering our current state of marriage, including increased non marital cohabitaion, decreasing marriage rates, greater acceptence of homosexuality and gay couples, a high divorce rate, blended families, etc, is the idea of a trinary relationship that inconceivable? Granted there is no where near the clamor or support for OTSM that there is for SSM, but as we found out in Mass, all it takes is one judge to swing, no pun intended, a vote in favor.
Do you seriously believe what you’re saying? Surely you don’t.
What do you suppose would have happened if the Massachusetts S.C. had ruled in favor of same-sex marraige in 1950?
First of all, they never would have – courts don’t act that wildly out of sync with the larger culture. Second, even if they had (perhaps gay space aliens radio-controlled the judges’ brains), the legislature and executive would have utterly refused to honor the Court’s decision. The idea that judges are all-powerful gods, able to create vast change regardless of the culture around them, is a right-wing myth, with absolutely no relation to how things work in real life.
Jack Balkin (a Yale prof of constitutional law) has a two part post here on how social movements interact with courts; the crux of it is that Courts are reactive to social movements, not totally independent of them. Unless there’s at least substantial elite support for OTSM, there is zero chance the courts will suddenly impose it.
As Balkin wrote in another post, following the Laurence decision:
Of course, Balkin is discussing the Federal Supreme Court; but similar processes apply at the state level. It’s not a coincidence that the movement for SSM is finding some traction in courts at this time, rather than even 10 years ago. The fact is, the gay rights movement has been very successful in moving public and elite opinion in their favor (at least, compared to the situation only a generation ago). Polls show that as much as a fourth to a third of the country supports same-sex marriage; that number is probably higher among elites (more educated people tend to be more supportive of gay rights). Without the gay rights movement coming first, a decision like Goodridge would not – could not – have happened.
The idea that “all it takes is one judge” is a myth; in reality, the social movement must come first.
Important tip, Hellcat: you will not figure out a state’s laws by reading an online dictionary.
Most states have eliminated the marital rape exemption. If ‘conjugal’ were a requirement of marriage, this would not be the case. Also, if you believe that childbearing is a requirement of marriage, please point me to a state’s laws that still requires prospective marrieds to affirm they are capable of having intercourse.
By the way, that elimination of marital rape is a huge departure from millenia of tradition and practice.
and by conjugal I mean joining of the sexes including sexually as practicing “marital relations”.
Do you know what the phrase ‘circular reasoning’ means?
Fine, but you can’t say that SSM doesn’t alter the legal, cultural, and yes, traditional, concept of marriage as an opposite sex conjugal union.
I can certainly say that the “traditional” concept of marriage has already been significantly, and enormously, altered from its honored and ancient roots, so unless you’re also willing to toss out those changes, pointing back centuries is a dishonest argument.
This isn’t really a serious comment, but I remember a rather charming image someone once made for a discussion like this on another forum that I’m reminded of.
Here’s my take: we don’t really know what poly marriage would mean right now, in terms of the specifics. Poly types can develop informal institutions and rules on their own, without state recognition. When they come up with something equitable, practical, and compatible with a free society, then maybe poly marriages would be given legal status, so long as 1) existing mono marriages would not be effected (i.e., spouses can’t marry new spouses just because poly marriages are legalized: possibly there could be a mutual renegotiation of the terms of the marriage, switching it, or, if worse comes to worse, the mono partners who want to go poly can get divorced for an hour and remarry in a formal courthouse procedure) 2) future marriages will have a mono option which won’t be effected.
I haven’t read all the comments, so someone else may have pointed this out, but I don’t see why your #2 point is an issue. Legalizing marriage between two or more people doesn’t change a marriage that IS contracted between two people; and if a partner in such a marriage starts dating, then it *is* cheating, given that they have a two-person marriage, unless there is an explicit agreement that they are *open* to a marriage that includes more than two people. Just like the situation nowadays.
I think the #1 point is a good one, but easily solved by the suggestions other commenters make–marriage could easily be between two people, but one person could have more than one marriage (so three people who want to all be married to one another would have four marriages between them, not one), and folks who are married to more than one person could, perhaps, as a condition of the second marriage, be required to explicate who has “primary” decision-making power and who “secondary.” Or whatever.
The third point bothers me, too, but in terms of purely theoretical argument, which is what this is, it isn’t relevant. In terms of practical reality (which matters more to me, in the end, than theoretical argument) it’s a huge problem.
Dr. B,
I think post 49’s charming image shows why the “each marriage involves 2 people, but each person can enter into more than one marriage” system is probably the least workable of options from a legal standpoint and social standpoint, as it creates groups of people with very unbalanced responsibilities towards each other. I think the “a marriage is a collective, you are either part of it or you aren’t, and if you are part of it, you have the same official relationships to every other member” structure is much more workable.
Maybe you are right, maybe I am right. The fact that the group of people on this thread who conceptual support polymarriage can not agree on even the very basics of how poly marriage would be structured (there is the second disagreement of whose approval you need: just your new partner’s, or the approval of everyone else, or maybe polymarriages are formally fixed, and must be dissolved and reestablished to incorporate new members) points to the fact that Polymarriages are not simple, and the best legal structure for them is not simple (and probably isn’t single either, your polymarriage may need a different legal strucutre than mine, so polymarriage contracts will have to come in several different flavors).
My friends who are in a polymarriage tell me that it is extremely time consuming and, as someone in a poly structure (although not a sexually poly structure), I have to agree.
Also, I think you are underestimating the importance of point #2. Even if we assume that mono and poly marriages are contracted differently, there would need to be a process for converting forms, at least at the beginning (I assume that there is a substantial number of people who are in legal marriages, who practice committed open marriage and would want to change over to poly marriage if it were a legal option. To forbid this would seem unjust. This means each married couple must examine their relationship, and decide if they would like the option of becoming poly some time in the future. If this option of conversion were a one time thing, then they need to be very open-minded about what they might potentially want somewhere down the line. If it is always and option, then once again there is that perpetual question affecting each and every marriage.
Furthermore, new marrying partners will have to decide whether they want poly or mono marriage (and just because there are only 2 of you doesn’t mean you won’t want to contract poly, to leave the option of changing later). Many people, just to be open-minded and leave themselves flexible, will choose to take poly-marriage (I have known huge numbers of nominally open, but functionally monogamous, couples (I have been in them), or couples who were open to extra-couple sex, but not to polyfidelity, should they choose mono or poly?). Having done so, they will have the permanent strain of potential poly relationships (and the pleasures of them). Both the strain and the pleasures are a fundamental change from the current state of marriage (which can be open, or even poly, but doesn’t have the legal issues of poly marriage).
As a side note, (intended mainly for hellcat), all this makes polymarriage completely different from SSM. No one ever has to decide whether to make their marriage SSM or OSM, and there is absolutely no need for 2 different contracts, or any change in the basic structure of legal marriage. Where SSM exists (legal or religious or cultural) OSM and SSM are purely descriptive terms, with no effect on the nature of the marriage involved. If someone in an OSM marriage transitions to the opposite sex, the marriage becomes a SSM marriage, without the participants needing to do anything else.
Plenty of formerly married people who are now divorced do not believe that the current system handles these things well. Could be it’s time to reconsider the whole thing, and why not include poly marriages when we do? FWIW, I think the best model for a poly marriage is that of a collective. This would essentially mean a new marriage whenever a member is added.
Or whatever.
Yes, there’s the rub.
Maybe a legal disctinction could be made between couples-only marriage and poly marriage. This comes dangerously close to separate-but-equal, but perhaps two different types of marriage licenses could be made available, one that is limited to one-person-at-a-time, and the other not limited that way?
For example, Marriage Type A would be for two people, and would forbid either of them from obtaining a second marriage under existing bigamy statutes—to marry again, they would first have to divorce so that the license would be rescinded. This would prevent the problem of the “I’m not cheating, I’m courting” excuse. Marriage Type B on the other hand, would be more flexible, allowing for not only more than two people, but also the addition of others in the future, the removal of someone from the union without disrupting the others, and the ability of partners to get another Marriage Type B license for their own union with someone else, i.e. Andrea, Brenda, and Cecilia are married to each other, but Brenda is also married to Dave and Elisa, who are married to each other, and Elisa is married to Fred—Andrea, Brenda, & Cecilia share one license; Brenda has a second one that she shares with Dave and Elisa, and Elisa has a second one that she shares with Fred.
There’s still the confusion issue, but really, who has any business talking about that? Law and government are already the most confusing things on the planet; the argument that poly marriage is too confusing doesn’t hold water any better than a fishnet.
The confusing areas of law are generally in the areas where large amounts of money are involved (contract law, business law, tax law), where the non-government participants are willing to spend the money necessary to have single purpose professionals handle the complexities.
The law for things that don’t involve a lot of money is generally pretty simple. The 1040 EZ and marriage are both something available to everyone that can be figured out by almost anyone. To argue that polymarriage contracts would be no more complicated than, say, the law concerning the transfer of funds between corporations, PACs and politicians, or the articles of incorporation of a holding company, is unimpressive.
You do not want to be blithely sailing along in your relationships thinking that only A and B have any say over your affairs, and then discover that because A is a co-owner of your house and is married to D who is married to E (in Minnesota – which is a common property state) that now E’s partner F who is divorcing E has a 10 % claim on your house, and is demanding immediate payment, cash you don’t have, so it looks like you will have to sell your home. A contract that needs to make clear whether this is possible or not, and in which each part of the network of contracts (ABC’s contract ADE’s contract, and EF’s contract) needs to make this clear, is not something you can simply pull off the stack of marriage forms.
The interlocking marriages structure that Kyra and Dr B favor still seems to me the most problematic in terms of legal consequences. B and C above better have gone over A’s marriage contract with D and E very carefully, and they’d better make sure that the ADE marriage contract also specified that all other active marriages needed to be disclosed and that future marriages needed to be submitted for approval to all other participants in the related marriage structures or else they will easily be blind-sided by F’s divorce demands.
I stand by the claim that polymarriage is too complicated to be implemented by simply changing existing marriage laws to decriminalize bigamy and polygamy and by changing “a marriage shall be between a man and a woman” to ” a marriage shall be between one or more men and one or more women.”
Those changes would open the can of worms, but provide no basis for figuring out what happens next, unlike changing “a man and a woman” to “two people.” The law already doesn’t care about the sexes of spouses once they are married, so changing the entrance requirement to be sex neutral has no serious legal ramifications. The law cares a lot about number, and expects that number to be 2 in marriages, so changing number in the entrance requirement would only be the very begining of the changes needed.
Certainly, polymarriage is doable as a legal institution – many cultures with formalized legal systems have had polygamy, although heirarchical and one-sided (polgyny or polyandry, but not both, and certainly not mixed) may be simpler to structure, and treating wives as property may help too – but polymarriage is not doable as a trivial add-on to the existing institution of marriage in this country. If polyadvocates want to develop a mass movement to create an entirely new legal structure to support polymarriage, I might well support it (depending on what sort they were advocating for), but it is silly to claim that it would be simple, or that it could be easily fit within existing marriage law with just a few changes here and there.
There’s still the confusion issue, but really, who has any business talking about that?
Brenda might, if Dave marries Xanthippe, and the collective marriage might if one of the spouses starts taking on legal obligations that affect some of them.
Supporting poly unions is not going to be helped by handwaving whenever details other than “who marries whom” come up.
polyamorous relationships exist whether you choose to believe in them or accept them just as gay and lesbian marriages exist and have existed. I believe law exists to punish criminals not to prevent someone from being allowed the oppurtunity become a criminal. I do not believe polyamorous relationships to be damaging to children to “normal” married couples to the people in the polyamorous relationships or the everyday citizen. if no direct damage is being done to others then i don’t see what the problem is. the legal aspect will evolve as it needs to in order to fit the needs created by these new marriages. i do not believe something should be restricted simply because it creates more work
I think the basic points being expressed by this blog post are:
1. It is hard enough to legally recognize and protect a relationship between two people, and the legal hassles increase exponentially for each person added to the mix, and a state might legitimately not want to get involved here.
2. There is no universal template for a polyamorous relationship the way there is for a monogamous one. Religious groups want patriarchal polygamy; secular people want gender-egalitarian polyamory; some polyamorists want all their partners treated equally while others rank them as “primary” vs. “secondary” and so forth. It is almost impossible to design a legal template for polyamory that is sufficiently flexible to accommodate the needs of all these groups and different types of polyamorous arrangements.
I think both points are very strong and stand up well to scrutiny.
Yeh, but let me chime in here. Here’s the problem: this is already going on, and has gone on since the earth cooled, so, what’s the legal or social benefit to leaving these relationships in a legal twilight zone? Isn’t that even more confusing than all the projected confusions listed in the post?
Let’s take a leaf from my experience. I know personally two triads. One has two women and one guy; one has two guys and one woman. All the people involved are my age (early 60’s). This has been going on for 30 – 40 years in both cases. Both families have grown children; all the players are grandparents now.
A few years ago the two-women-one-guy arrangement came to an impasse, in that the two women decided – rightly in my view – that the guy was more trouble than he was worth, so they divorced him and broke up with him respectively. Or something. (I don’t know who if anyone was legally married to whom in this group.) The two women are still living together, caring for their adult children (one “child” in his 30’s is terminally ill with cancer) and grandchildren. I have no idea whether the two women are sexually involved with each other, but if these two girls are not each others’ “next of kin” I certainly don’t know who is.
So, what’s the problem here? Aren’t this kind of devotion and commitment rather in short supply, what with a 50% divorce rate (for conventional marriages) and all? Is there some pressing reason that Marilyn and Josie cannot be married? I mean, in some places they can now, but that’s only because they dumped Clinton. Suppose Clinton had behaved rather better. So then because one member of the group behaves well, now they can’t legally marry? And how much sense is that supposed to make? And what about Anna and John and Henry, who have not broken up? Anna should pick maybe John or Henry to marry, leaving the other one legally out in the cold? And that would be good why?
If polyamorous marriage were legalized, by the way, I don’t expect a mass rush to the altar by these groups. Legal marriage entails responsibilities, notably the responsibility to support one another financially, sometimes whether the marriage itself works out or not. Lots of divorced people receive spousal support payments – that’s not child support, that’s spousal support – for years. I’m expecting a lot of “hey, wait a minute!” from our polyamorous friends, as from our gay friends, if and when some legal arrangement becomes possible.
But if they’re willing to step up to the plate and undertake the responsibilities of marriage, I think that’s rather a good thing in an all-too-fluid society, and should be encouraged.
While I understand that each polyamourous relationship has its own inner structure from a legal, financial, consent point of view. I can see the concept proposed by a person earlier working, but with two caveats.
Two types of marriage license:
Marriage licence A being an two person marriage.
For example, Marriage Type A would be for two people, and would forbid either of them from obtaining a second marriage under existing bigamy statutes—to marry again, they would first have to divorce so that the license would be rescinded. This would prevent the problem of the “I’m not cheating, I’m courting” excuse.
Although our current sets of laws covering marriage in pairs could use to be cleaned up as it still has wording pertaining to women as chattel.
Marriage license B being a multiple partner licence with legal connection and obligation, privilege and responsibly laid out such as in a three party marriage
A to B
B to C
C to A
and also have the condition that no one person can enter into more than one marriage contract either binary or poly. So that no partner can take on additional marital responsibilities without the consent of the others.
Why does the government need to know who is kin? Many reasons, and I probably can’t think of them all, but I’ll start with a few.
1. So that a person who qualifies to immigrate can bring their family with them.
-But I favor open immigration.
2. Tax purposes.
-I have no idea about this one. Tax law is scary and incomprehensible.
3. Property sharing/inheritance.
-Can’t the government come up with a cheap and easy way for people to specify who they want share with or leave property to, that has nothing to do with kin?
4. Health insurance and pensions.
-But health insurance and pensions really should not be allocated through kin.
5. Medical decisions, or other proxy decisions.
-Again with the making individual legal choices cheap and easy to create and change, and separate from notions of kin.
6. So that spouses can’t be forced to testify against each other in court.
-I don’t think anyone should be forced to testify, ever.
Amanda @58: Why would you only permit closed polyfidelitous marriages? Why are you against A marrying B, who then marries C, but C does not marry A? What if A wants to divorce B, but C does not? Is A required to divorce both of them?
I’ve had this conversation a lot in poly circles and it always goes like this:
RANDOM PERSON: We should have poly marriage!
ME OR SOME OTHER LEGAL-Y TYPE: Great. How do we change the law to accommodate this? Because unfortunately everything assumes two people. It’s not like same-sex marriage where you just erase the gender requirement.
RP: *uncomfortable silence*
I mean, I’m open to the idea.
mythago,
I think the argument for legalizing closed polymarriages of the sort Amanda describes and not all the myriad possible forms would be that it covers an additional category of relationships that it is possible to see a relatively simple set of rules for, and that each type of polymarriage is pretty much going to have to be covered by a separate set of rules.
The rules that cover closed polymarriages at least seem imaginable to me. IANAL, so there are undoubtedly aspects I haven’t considered, and it isn’t going to happen anyway, but it doesn’t run into the obvious problems with chain marriages and open networks of polymarriages (your third spouse’s third spouse’s second triad agreed to what in their prenup?!?).
On the divorce question, I would say that the simplest divorce rule is that anyone deciding to leave the marriage dissolves the marriage entirely, although there should probably be rules to allow for members of the now former marriage to immediately transition to a new marriage without ever being legally treated as unmarried. Or that could be structured as individuals may leave the marriage, but as long as there is more than one person left in the marriage, the marriage continues to exist. I’m not sure which one would make more sense and be simpler to adjudicate, but A divorces B but remains married to C, while C and B also remain married is a pretty obvious legal nightmare, so should be disallowed. Sure, it accurately describes someone’s relationship, but they’ll have to figure out how they want to match their actual relationship to the legal relationships, just like they would now.
Not that I (or anyone else as far as I can tell) am actually going to do the work to advocate for this, but it does seem to me that closed polymarriages of the sort Amanda describes are probably only a massive, massive change in marriage law, rather than the completely ridiculous bundle of changes required to handle any more complex form of polymarriage.
Mythago, I think the answer to your first question is the entire rest of your comment.
I mean, look, being poly, I’m certainly in favor of legal poly marriage, but also, yes, it’s much more complicated than either DSM or SSM, and I see no reason not to pick the low-hanging fruit in this regard by addressing the more straightforward poly arrangements first.
It’s not all or nothing. I’ll happily take what I can get, even if it’s not perfectly consistent, and even if it ends up excluding me, personally.
—Myca
Oh, and:
I think this is a little unfair. In literally every single discussion on poly marriage I’ve participated or lurked in here, including this one there have been multiple suggestions on how to structure the legal changes.
I’m not objecting to the idea that it’s much more complicated. Of course it is. I’m objecting to the, “*uncomfortable silence*,” when what we have is much more, “Well, how about this idea and this idea and this idea and this idea …”
—Myca
We have managed to come up with laws to regulate all sorts of complicated relationships, so it’s not like figuring out workable laws for poly marriages is beyond our intellectual capabilities.
Right. I mean, I’m sort of in favor of considering the marriage as a corporation and issuing stock to all the members, with community property considered the corporate assets.
Maybe this is a bad idea. Maybe it’s a good idea. What it certainly isn’t is uncomfortable silence. Poly folks recognize these issues and are thinking about how to solve them.
—Myca
Myca @62: It seems as though you’re assuming you’re the only one who’s poly or has approached the issue from a position of ‘what should we do’ rather than ‘what should those poly people do’. That would be a very poor assumption on your part.
And you’re right, it doesn’t always go straight to the uncomfortable silence. There are often a lot of mistaken, ignorant or simply unworkable solutions (like ‘incorporating’) offered first. Then when I have to be the bad guy and say no, actually that wouldn’t work at all, well. (I’m not, btw, suggesting that people discussing this issue are stupid. I am saying that there is a difference between “If we were going to structure poly marriage, how could we do that?” and “OMG it is so unfair, they should let there be polymarriage and they can just sign contracts or something.”)
Threesomes are not simply low-hanging fruit. I’m astonished that poly people who have absolutely no trouble grasping the geometric magnification of relationship issues when you add one (or more) people have trouble realizing the geometric magnification of financial and legal issues ditto.
I’m not saying it’s impossible. I’m saying there is a difference between working on the problem, and “well they should just let us do it already, here is my easy fix”.
-Can’t the government come up with a cheap and easy way for people to specify who they want share with or leave property to, that has nothing to do with kin?
Not exactly. People are obligated to support their minor children. In my state (Illinois), people can’t disinherit a surviving spouse without that surviving spouse’s permission. If you don’t have a spouse or children, you can allocate your estate any way you wish, but if you haven’t left instructions the law presumes you meant to leave your estate to remaining kin (if any).
But health insurance and pensions really should not be allocated through kin.
I agree that everyone should have access to health care regardless of their marital or kin relationships; this healthcare would not necessarily have to be allocated through an insurance-based system. But pensions? You’re talking defined-benefit pensions and not an individual account (such as in a defined-contribution plan, deferred comp, or 401k or such)? If defined-benefit plans had to take multiple spouses into account, either the contributions would have to increase enormously, or the benefits to survivors decreased. A defined-benefit pension pays out for the remainder of that person’s (or his/her surviving spouse’s) lifetime—even if he or she outlives the monies he or she individually contributed to the plan. It works because the actuaries responsible balance the contributions needed to the number of people retiring vs. the number of people dying (thus, no longer receiving benefits). It’s doable when the assumption is that only one person is receiving a benefit (either the living person or his/her surviving spouse….or in some cases, an ex-spouse, depending on what the divorce decree says). Defined-benefit pensions would not be able to accommodate this. Defined-contribution plans could—but then, there’s the pesky problem of running out of money if one lives long enough (especially if one suffered bouts of unemployment).
(FWIW, my daughter receives a SS death benefit. She has two half-siblings. When their mother became unemployed a few years ago, my daughter’s benefit was reduced in order to accommodate her benefit—normally, she wouldn’t have qualified for a benefit as an ex-spouse, but as she was the mother to two children under 16, she did. When she found another job—which I presume she did—my daughter’s benefit returned to its original amount. So: given enough multiple spouses and children, benefits could be a moot point.)
-I don’t think anyone should be forced to testify, ever.
Really? I’m sure that would have no impact on criminal cases.
I’m with mythago; I don’t have any moral objection to parties voluntarily agreeing to enter poly marriages, but haven’t seen any way a blanket plan could work. I thought Charles had a good point about the “surprise” moment that could conceivably happen if parties to a marriage were all legally and financially intertwined with one another without very explicit contracts as to who would be responsible to whom and for what (especially if, as according to Jeff’s plan, individuals could enter into other marriages without the consent or even knowledge of other marital partners—surely that would be a change to current notions of contract law?). I don’t even see how Jeff’s plan could become the model for marriage—I would think that consent of other partners would be essential to avoid legal or financial pitfalls. In theory, the law could presume that each person is responsible to him or herself only, and to any of his or her minor children via biology or adoption—not to any spouses, unless specifically noted; in practice, since people often share living quarters, expenses, bank accounts, etc.—current marriage law wouldn’t accommodate the complexity, and I fail to see how new laws could accommodate poly marriage unless each poly marriage were handled on an individual basis.
I’m pro-SSM because I think marriages are about people investing their lives in another person, financially, emotionally and legally. The closest kin thing.
I’m sympathetic to plural marriages, but I think that they’d have to be very legally flexible (and this might mean less rights/responsibilities incorporated into them) than two-person unions.
The biggest problem is that inherent in all marriages that we legally recognize (het or gay) is egalitarianism and equality amongst spouses. In a three+ marriage, there seems to be a need for a hierarchical set of marriage relationships (“1st wife, 2nd husband, etc”).
And if someone is entering into multiple two-person marriages, there are issues with what parts of a person’s life/money/etc are shared between their multiple spouses. In standard marriages, there’s an assumption that the two people are economically linked. This is why they should do taxes together, and so on. But if Ken is married to both Barbie and Steve (but Barbie and Steve aren’t married to each other) then how much of Ken’s finances should be invested in his relationship with each? Fifty percent? And should Barbie and Steve be forced to put everything on the table knowing that the resources they share with their spouse might be shared with their spouse’s spouse?
What if Ken helped Barbie get through med school, but Ken only could do that with the support of Steve? Should Steve’s indirect investment in the life of Barbie (through Ken) mean that he’s owed alimony, assuming Ken divorces him and is jobless after Barbie graduates? If not, then Steve couldn’t take care of his partner knowing that his life-investment was protected (which is part of what marriage is for). If so, then Barbie is going to be paying for a marriage she never got into.