Marriage Equality Warriors: "Not without Polygamy"

[Moonbeam]

Interesting point, I'll have to think about that. However, John Doe can still marry Jane Smith, he just can't be married to Jane Doe at the same time. The limitation is not that John Doe can't marry Jane Smith, it's that Jane Smith can't marry John Doe because he's already married. No one can marry John Doe if he's already married.

The limitation as it stands is that you can't marry more than one person, no matter if you're single or married. No one can marry a married person. This is different than gay marriage or interracial marriage because someone (but not everyone) could marry a {man,woman} and someone (but not everyone) could marry a {white,black} person.

Not an issue. Nobody can marry a child. That is so not because it is an attempt to limit your rights but to protect the child's. You aren't allowed to steal from somebody either. Your right to marry is not denied by not being able to marry a person you can't legally marry. It's the status of the other person that causes that. You are denied a right only in the case where that right does not exist. All legal marriages are legal. No illegal marriages are legal.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Edit - I think this discussion is a good example of why the discrimination argument won't work, it's incredibly hard to make sense of. Gay and Interracial marriage is very clear cut, there's an obvious group of people that were being discriminated against. Trying to argue that a married person is discriminated against because they can't get married even though they're already married probably won't get you very far.

Yes. This entire argument is a strawman built by anti-SSM people that are trying to convince people that we are on a slippery slope.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Keeping with the marriage equality theme....should Bruce Jenner be able to marry Caitlyn Jenner???

Bruce Jenner no longer exists.

 

[sandorski]

m=Marries

A m B
A wants to also m C. Should B have any input?


A m B,C,D
Can B m C as well?

A m B,C,D
D wants a Divorce. Should Ds settlement be determined in such a way to avoid harming B and C?

A m B, B m C, C m D E F, E m G, G m A A and C get caught having an Affair. Does anyone want to deal with that?

 

[SMOGZINN]

These are all tricky questions, but there are solutions to them all.
I'll try to give some insight into it.

m=Marries
A m B
A wants to also m C. Should B have any input?

Short answer: Yes. Long answer: There are two schools of thought. One states that A's affairs is his own, and that as long as he honors his commitments with B then what he does with C is non of B's business. This of course falls apart pretty quickly when we start to look at the sort of commitment that marriage requires. So, there is the second school of thought, which states that A and B are now joined and that a decision to marry C would have to be a joint decision between A and B because B would also be married to C.

This comes down to the basics of the two schools. In one any given person can be in as many marriages as they can handle, in the other a person can only be in one marriage, but it can include as many people as everyone can agree on.

A m B,C,D
Can B m C as well?

In the Many Marriages school the answer is yes. In the One Marriage, Many people school the answer is B and C are already married.

A m B,C,D
D wants a Divorce. Should Ds settlement be determined in such a way to avoid harming B and C?

In the many marriage school, the answer is no. A must discharge his obligations to D, if this hurts B and C that is up to A to make up to them for.
In the One Marriage school the answer is also no. In that case D is divorcing B and C as well, and they all must discharge their obligations to D.

A m B, B m C, C m D E F, E m G, G m A A and C get caught having an Affair. Does anyone want to deal with that?

How is it any different than if A m B, C m D, A and D have an affair? Yes, it propagates through the dynamics causing harm to a lot of people, but this happens in friend groups already.

The solution to most of these problems is to adapt a "one marriage, many people" method of poly. It simplifies matters quite a bit, it helps to reduce the potential of abuse.

 

[Cozarkian]

Not an issue. Nobody can marry a child. That is so not because it is an attempt to limit your rights but to protect the child's. You aren't allowed to steal from somebody either. Your right to marry is not denied by not being able to marry a person you can't legally marry. It's the status of the other person that causes that. You are denied a right only in the case where that right does not exist. All legal marriages are legal. No illegal marriages are legal.

You ignored half the equation. The child is being discriminated against, but that discrimination survives strict scrutiny.

Imagine the following law "married people can't adopt kids." Obviously that law would discriminate against married persons. You can't simply ignore the discrimination by claiming that John Doe can get a divorce and then adopt Jane Smith.

 

[sandorski]

These are all tricky questions, but there are solutions to them all.
I'll try to give some insight into it.


Short answer: Yes. Long answer: There are two schools of thought. One states that A's affairs is his own, and that as long as he honors his commitments with B then what he does with C is non of B's business. This of course falls apart pretty quickly when we start to look at the sort of commitment that marriage requires. So, there is the second school of thought, which states that A and B are now joined and that a decision to marry C would have to be a joint decision between A and B because B would also be married to C.

This comes down to the basics of the two schools. In one any given person can be in as many marriages as they can handle, in the other a person can only be in one marriage, but it can include as many people as everyone can agree on.


In the Many Marriages school the answer is yes. In the One Marriage, Many people school the answer is B and C are already married.


In the many marriage school, the answer is no. A must discharge his obligations to D, if this hurts B and C that is up to A to make up to them for.
In the One Marriage school the answer is also no. In that case D is divorcing B and C as well, and they all must discharge their obligations to D.



How is it any different than if A m B, C m D, A and D have an affair? Yes, it propagates through the dynamics causing harm to a lot of people, but this happens in friend groups already.

The solution to most of these problems is to adapt a "one marriage, many people" method of poly. It simplifies matters quite a bit, it helps to reduce the potential of abuse.

Ok, that does simplify matters. I still reject the concept for other reasons, but at least those particular ones I can lay to rest.

 

[trenchfoot]

Well, in a polygamous marriage where one man marries multiple wives, I guess it would be OK, but only if the man wears a black and white vertically striped shirt with black or white trousers, a yellow handkerchief in his back pocket, a black or white baseball cap and a whistle around his neck.

 

[Ban Bot]

Yes. This entire argument is a strawman built by anti-SSM people that are trying to convince people that we are on a slippery slope.

Wrong.

Polygamy is an established behavioral pattern with prior cultural acceptance and integration into the institution of marriage.

The real smoke screen is the attempt to limit categories that group(s) find offensive. Essentially, "We recognize the rights of our preferred trait(s) and behavior(s) but not yours."

Interracial marriage was eventually accepted because race was no longer deemed valid grounds to discriminate.

Gay marriage has been accepted because it was deemed invalid to discriminate on the grounds of sexual preference (biological behavior).

But to discriminate against polygamy people are clearly saying, "We sanction LGBT behavior and recognize it institutionally through marriage. But we reject the polygamous behavior and refuse to acknowledge it institutionally."

It isn't even worth arguing with anyone that denies many men (and women) have the natural biological desire to be sexually active with many partners. If you deny this you have an agenda. All these folks are asking for is equal recognition and protections under the law.

I find it exceedingly hypocritical to say in one breath, "We must redefine marriage for the LGBT community and cease discriminating against their basic biological nature" yet, "We must continue to marginalize, discriminate, and villanize those who wish to act our their natural biological nature expressed in polygamy."

I have a couple reasons I believe LGBT are so strongly anti-polygamy. First as I have said for over a decade the LGBT movement isn't a civil rights movement but a partisan movement. Dr. King was wise enough to see the struggle of African Americans and open his eyes broadly to all forms of racial discrimination, not just that against his people. The LGBT movement has been generally hostile to polygamists. And I think the undercurrents for such are:

1. Polygamy's role of women. Typically polygamy is a man with many wives. This would be a major step backwards for women's rights and status in society. Even if polygamy is an expression of natural behavior it could be argued a negative influence on general women rights even if an elective participation.

2. Religious connotations. Most are familiar with the Mormon Church and their history of polygamy. Polygamy is often viewed as a relic of patriarchal history and ties to patriarchal religion. This background, too, is seen as a negative influence on revamping the modern practice and institutional recognition of marriage.

3. Public opinion. The LGBT movement doesn't want to be associated with polygamy as it is an unpopular practice.

4. The sexual abuse boogey man. Anyone remember the claims that homosexuality was related to pedophilia? A common dispersion toward polygamy is to point to abuses by those who practice such. This is a classic case of villanizing someone's natural biological nature and defrauding them their rights with incredulous and unsubstantiated slander that their biological is an indication of deviancy and therefore their civil rights must be suppressed.

What I find hilariously amusing about this issue is it is OK to practice polygamy (which is common in the US, but without institutional recognition) and even more open models (revolving door partners) are in common practice but protections and rights are refused because society wants to deny this natural behavior as a sanctioned institution.

If the real motivation of the SSM movement was a civil rights claim then immediate action should be taking place to legalize polygamy. It doesn't matter what public opinion thinks.

Frankly, the very reasons the LGBT movement sought legal status for SSM apply to those in polygamous relationships: insurance and other legal benefits (like social security) and a structured, legally recognized family structure with those inherent rights.

You would think a society that allows the state to interject on the behalf of a 15 year old for a sex change without parental disclosure or consent (Oregon), the courts demands to respect Chelsea Mannings (formerly Bradley) sex change and necessary medical treatment to support such, the public acceptance of a cultural icons transition to a different gender, or federal (meaning national) recognition of SSM, the embrace of sexuality outside of marriage (or even committed relationship), long ago decriminalizing adultery (many states even devaluing its relevance to divorce), the broad acceptance of divorce as natural course of unnatural monogamy, live in a nation where people can get married dozens of times (even on TV!), etc. etc. etc. would be more open to embracing polygamy, especially as it has a cultural and institutional history.

But as noted the cultural and institutional tangents are what, I strongly believe, are the underlying and blatant discrimination against polygamists. And as a shunned minority -- long objected to by national historical religious intuitions and loathed by women's rights movements -- they have little public support.

But SSM advocates will continue to propose the red herring that pro-polygamy arguments are only floated to defraud the validity of SSM. Which can no longer stand. SSM is now the law of the land. And as natural biology can no longer be denied as a grounds for discrimination there is no reason to refuse to legally acknowledge consenting adults who wish to enter into such marriages that have historically had broad cultural acceptance.

But we will continue seeing straw men arguments against polygamy when the real issue is bigotry and partisan ideologies. Because we all know ideologies, bigotry, and traditional norms should trump individual rights.

Signed,

Not-a-polygamist-or-advocate-of-such

Yes. This entire argument is a strawman built by anti-SSM people that are trying to convince people that we are on a slippery slope.

Wrong. This line of argument is so offensive it shouldn't even be recognized. It is an attempt to marginalize a minority through fear and ignoring the merits of their protest by dismissing them out of hand.

I believe what is closer to the truth is your trivialization of this groups position is SSM proponents using fallacious smoke screens to avoid the obvious discrimination against people with a different sexual lifestyle.

It is ironic seeing SSM proponents use the same tactics as those who did not support SSM used to disenfranchise LGBTs for decades. It doesn't matter that people don't agree with polygamous ideologies or the implications of their relationships. If marriage is to be redefined with the objective of protecting individual liberties and respecting natural human behavior and biology then there are no merits to deny legally recognized polygamy. All objects fall under bigotry and/or ideological discrimination.

As Chief Justice Roberts said,

“[F]rom the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one.”

Ginsburg's position of modern marriage being egalitarian in nature is a red herring. It was also true that modern marriage was strictly one man and one woman. This is the quintessential issue with the pick-and-choose discrimination. But traditional US marriage of a man and woman or the modern evolution to more egalitarian models are not the meritorious basis to deny the rights for citizens to have their natural biology recognized institutionally when consenting adults choose such. If so SSM would never have been recognized. The subtext of Kennedy and Ginsberg in the recent ruling is essentially modern mob rule by whatever prevailing ideology prescribed to. But they are effectively coy in how their present their position. Just as SSM detractors always "moved the goal post" away from the issue of rights and liberties to other issues as a subtext to propagate bigotry and ideology.

 

[Ban Bot]

Case-in-point: From Slate

The striking fact, as I explain in my recently published book Just Married: Same-Sex Couples, Monogamy, and the Future of Marriage, is that gender equality and same-sex marriage, on the one hand, and polygamy, on the other, are on completely different historical trajectories. Nowhere in the world where women are equal is there any broad social movement in favor of plural marriage. Where women are becoming equal but plural marriage continues to exist, as in Africa, women’s groups are typically seeking to end it, or limit and regulate it. For example, 36 African nations (including South Africa) have ratified the African Union’s protocol on women’s rights, which calls for an end to all forms of discrimination against women, insists that “women and men enjoy equal rights and are regarded as equal partners in marriage,” and holds that “monogamy is encouraged as the preferred form of marriage.”

And if we look at plural marriage as a social reality, rather than as a utopian fantasy, we see that the unequal power dynamics that polygamy unleashes are socially destructive and inconsistent with the equal opportunity to enjoy the great good of family life. Even when practiced by only a small minority of privileged men, polygyny increases competition among men and the pool of unmarried males, contributing to greater violence and risk taking. In addition, complex families are prone to jealousy, conflict, and higher levels of violence in the home.

Opening up my check list:

1. Polygamy's role of women.

2. Religious connotations.

3. Public opinion.

4. The sexual abuse boogey man.

Yep, the author hits all the check marks while averting the obvious hypocrisy of disenfranchising others. And yet the author acknowledges

Later on, the chief justice adds, more accurately, that “plural unions … have deep roots in some cultures around the world.” Well, yeah. The Aztecs were polygamous, and so were the Han Chinese: Monogamy was established as the law of the land in China only under Mao Zedong in 1950. Polygamy was practiced among the patriarchs in the Old Testament. It is permitted in Islam and continues in much of the Arab and Muslim worlds. I am not sure about the Kallihari Bushmen, but polygamy was and remains common across much of Africa in the form of what is termed “traditional marriage.” Japan and Turkey established monogamy as part of their efforts to modernize only in the 20th century, and India adopted monogamy (except for Muslims) in its post-independence constitution in 1949.

So across all those millennia that Chief Justice Roberts is so concerned about, polygamy is very common. Fully 85 percent of the societies studied by anthropologists have practiced polygamy as the preferred marital form for the privileged.

The remainder of the author's argument is it doesn't fit their ideology or what they view as the trajectory of the issue. Which 50 years ago could have been used to create a Constitutional amendment declaring marriage as one man one woman. Ideology and trajectories (and abusive boogeymen) and preferred social and family structures aren't grounds to deprive rights.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Polygamy is an established behavioral pattern with prior cultural acceptance and integration into the institution of marriage.

The arguments to ban SSM and interracial marriage relied on discriminatory ideas like blacks were not people, or that homosexuality was a mental disease. That is not the case with polygamy. The State's stated interest in banning polygamy is not discrimination, but to prevent abuse (although the history says otherwise, historically banning polygamy was religious hysteria about the growing popularity of the LDS Church).

Stopping widespread abuse is a compelling reason to limit the freedom of a group. The counter argument is that abuse is mostly not real, and that there are better ways to prevent what abuse there is then banning polygamy altogether.

This is not about discrimination because discrimination is appropriate when there is a compelling reason for it.

To legalize polygamy that is the hurdle we have to overcome. We have to prove that polyamorous relationships are no more prone to abuse than monogamous relationships, not prove that we are being discriminated against.

I have a couple reasons I believe LGBT are so strongly anti-polygamy.

They are not. They fought against the slippery slope argument because it is untrue and hurt their cause. A huge number of LGBT people are poly as well.

Signed,
Polyamorous-but-not-polygamous-because-that-would-be-illegal.

 

[MrPickins]

A huge number of LGBT people are poly as well.

QFT. In my experience, more LGBT are poly than straight people.

 

[Moonbeam]

I can't wait till the day when there is One Ring to rule them all and I am the husband and all the other people of the world are my wives. Will one of you get me a beer! I think I'll have Mrs. MRPickins sit in my lap.

 

[JD50]

You ignored half the equation. The child is being discriminated against, but that discrimination survives strict scrutiny.

Imagine the following law "married people can't adopt kids." Obviously that law would discriminate against married persons. You can't simply ignore the discrimination by claiming that John Doe can get a divorce and then adopt Jane Smith.

You're still arguing that married people can't get married. Obviously they can.

 

[lopri]

Let's have a trial. I see no shortage of testimonies and evidences of harm, both to the individuals and to the communities, put forward to support.. Eh.. I don't know why I even bother.

 

[Annisman*]

You know, one day it's just going to be anything goes, not a surprise as the moral fabric gets stripped away more and more.

 

[WelshBloke]

I can't wait till the day when there is One Ring to rule them all and I am the husband and all the other people of the world are my wives. Will one of you get me a beer! I think I'll have Mrs. MRPickins sit in my lap.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s2F4ZWTjwTU

 

[Subyman]

I want to be in the Pepsi (TM) sponsored marriage group. Everyone married in the Pepsi (TM) marriage group gets free Pepsi.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Polygamy is wrong and stupid

 

[zinfamous]

Polygamy is wrong and stupid.

With a solid argument like that, I fail to see why this debate continues.

 

[WelshBloke]

With a solid argument like that, I fail to see why this debate continues.

Well the counter argument is "but you smell and your mum dresses you funny" so the high level of discourse can continue.

 

[FelixDeCat]

With a solid argument like that, I fail to see why this debate continues.

 

[zinfamous]

The law is the law, people need to accept it or move somewhere else:

What a highly ignorant and blinded world you live in. Do you actually think you are American?

In your small-minded world, blacks and women would still be property.

"The law is the law. People need to accept it and move on."

 

[Moonbeam]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s2F4ZWTjwTU

What happened to my red nose?

 

[CitizenKain]

You know, one day it's just going to be anything goes, not a surprise as the moral fabric gets stripped away more and more.

Hahaha, moral fabric. From conservatives, how delightful. Are you upset about race mixing still?