(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.)<\/p>\n
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 <\/em>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.<\/p>\n However, I see three practical<\/em> reasons to not legally recognize polyamorous marriages.<\/p>\n First<\/strong>, 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.<\/p>\n 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?<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Second<\/strong>, 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?)<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Third<\/strong>, and perhaps most important, all too often polygamous marriages are a tool for oppression<\/a> and abuse <\/a>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.<\/p>\n I don’t assume these problems are insolvable; but they’d have to be convincingly addressed before I could support legally recognizing polygamous marriage.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" (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. … Continue reading