Pushing the limits of polygamy

[Cerpin Taxt]

I've been ruminating on the issue of polygamy since it had appeared as a subject in the wake of the recent supreme court ruling.

In principle, I have no ideological objection to polygamy, but as I think we sussed out in earlier threads, the recent ruling of the court does not strictly apply to plural marriage. More generally, however, I'm leery of the ways polygamy has been practiced in the past amongst religious sects, often including child and spousal abuse, for example.

Slippery slope arguments are informal fallacies, but sometimes what appears to be a slippery slope fallacy is actually not.

I began to wonder, what would be the consequences of massively plural marriages? What if a town of 300 people all got married into one large marriage? What about a town of 3000? 3000000?

As the numbers increase, there are obvious logistical/practical limitations -- how long must a wedding for 3000 people take? -- but these are not limitations in principle.

The core question I was exploring is this: is there some number of spouses where there emerges a compelling government interest to establish a numerical limit? And if the government can see a compelling interest to limit that number, why can't that number simply be 1?

 

[brycejones]

Frankly I don't care as long as all parties are truly consenting and legally able to provide that consent.

If you haven't check out Heinlein's novel Friday which does discuss some issues around complex plural marriages.

 

[ElFenix]

the government won't need a compelling interest to cap the figure, it will only need rational basis (as there is no suspect classification involved like there is denying marriage based on the gender of the participants), and on that alone the inability to figure if the parties are truly able to give consent is enough (ref the child abuse - cf prostitution). further, given that there is at least some evidence out there that polygamous societies tend to less stability, the government should be able to meet its rational basis hurdle.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Just wait until some porn girl marries 18 old guys to collect inheritance or the same porn girl marries 16 nerds to have them support her lifestyle.

 

[postmortemIA]

I can't wait for gay polygamy couples to start showing up... that will have to get on somebody's nerves

 

[Paratus]

It's not so much that it's a slippery slope or it doesn't matter because it's consenting adults the question your asking is whether the government should endorse plural marriages with legal benefits.

To decide that, we'd need to look at the benefits and issues for both the citizens and the government/society.

For normal marriage between two people the benefits are pretty obvious.

• inheritance rights
• medical visitation
• use less social services
• generally healthier
• parental rights

Among others.

With plural marriages many of those benefits are complicated and or may not apply the same to the second, third, and fourth spouse as it does to the first.

The other thing is same sex marriage now means that equal numbers of partners in a plural marriage can pair off and if the head of the household passes their spouse can marry the next spouse so inheritance can pass through the rest of the family.

So while I think polygamists can make the case for government acknowledgement of their marriage I don't think the cost/benefit ratio is anywhere near the same as normal marriage and without the constitutional issue SSM had I don't see a compelling reason for the government to grant additional benefits.

Edit: What Elfenix said.

 

[BoberFett]

the government won't need a compelling interest to cap the figure, it will only need rational basis (as there is no suspect classification involved like there is denying marriage based on the gender of the participants), and on that alone the inability to figure if the parties are truly able to give consent is enough (ref the child abuse - cf prostitution). further, given that there is at least some evidence out there that polygamous societies tend to less stability, the government should be able to meet its rational basis hurdle.

OMGZORRZ THE POLYGAMISTS ARE GONNA FORCE YOU TO MARRY THEM!!!

It's so amusing to see left wing bigots start priming the excuse pump.

 

[ElFenix]

OMGZORRZ THE POLYGAMISTS ARE GONNA FORCE YOU TO MARRY THEM!!!

It's so amusing to see left wing bigots start priming the excuse pump.

Did you mean to reply to me?

 

[BoberFett]

Did you mean to reply to me?

Yes, I did, bigot.

there is no suspect classification involved like there is denying marriage based on the gender of the participants

is the same argument as

Homosexuals have exactly the same rights as everyone else to marry someone of the opposite gender

and

the inability to figure if the parties are truly able to give consent is enough

is the same argument as

Gays rape little boys!

Finally,

given that there is at least some evidence out there that polygamous societies tend to less stability

The inability to marry legally does not change the ability of consenting adults to cohabitate. The societal stability argument has no teeth. Those that choose to already are, those those don't are not. Marriage would simply give people the rights they deserve as polygamous families, the right to visit their spouses in the hospital, a right to inheritance, and all of the other things that gay people wanted, and had the right to have.

But it's always nice to see the self-righteous out themselves as the bigots they were so recently screaming about.

 

[ElFenix]

Yes, I did, bigot.

Care to explain yourself?

 

[BoberFett]

So while I think polygamists can make the case for government acknowledgement of their marriage I don't think the cost/benefit ratio is anywhere near the same as normal marriage and without the constitutional issue SSM had I don't see a compelling reason for the government to grant additional benefits.

Since when are rights reliant on cost/benefit ratios?

 

[ivwshane]

It's not so much that it's a slippery slope or it doesn't matter because it's consenting adults the question your asking is whether the government should endorse plural marriages with legal benefits.

To decide that, we'd need to look at the benefits and issues for both the citizens and the government/society.

For normal marriage between two people the benefits are pretty obvious.

• inheritance rights
• medical visitation
  
  
• parental rights

Among others.

With plural marriages many of those benefits are complicated and or may not apply the same to the second, third, and fourth spouse as it does to the first.

The other thing is same sex marriage now means that equal numbers of partners in a plural marriage can pair off and if the head of the household passes their spouse can marry the next spouse so inheritance can pass through the rest of the family.

So while I think polygamists can make the case for government acknowledgement of their marriage I don't think the cost/benefit ratio is anywhere near the same as normal marriage and without the constitutional issue SSM had I don't see a compelling reason for the government to grant additional benefits.

Pretty much this (with the changes I made).

 

[dank69]

I've been ruminating on the issue of polygamy since it had appeared as a subject in the wake of the recent supreme court ruling.

In principle, I have no ideological objection to polygamy, but as I think we sussed out in earlier threads, the recent ruling of the court does not strictly apply to plural marriage. More generally, however, I'm leery of the ways polygamy has been practiced in the past amongst religious sects, often including child and spousal abuse, for example.

Slippery slope arguments are informal fallacies, but sometimes what appears to be a slippery slope fallacy is actually not.

I began to wonder, what would be the consequences of massively plural marriages? What if a town of 300 people all got married into one large marriage? What about a town of 3000? 3000000?

As the numbers increase, there are obvious logistical/practical limitations -- how long must a wedding for 3000 people take? -- but these are not limitations in principle.

The core question I was exploring is this: is there some number of spouses where there emerges a compelling government interest to establish a numerical limit? And if the government can see a compelling interest to limit that number, why can't that number simply be 1?

I agree with your premise that if there is a compelling interest to place an upper limit on the number of people allowed to marry each other than that number could simply be one. I have yet to see a compelling argument for any upper limit. Take your example: 3000000. If there was a group of 3000000 people that wanted to be joined in marriage and all logistical/practical hurdles were taken care of, why not allow it? In other words, why not let the logistical and practical hurdles take care of setting the limit instead of codifying the limit into law?

 

[dank69]

It's not so much that it's a slippery slope or it doesn't matter because it's consenting adults the question your asking is whether the government should endorse plural marriages with legal benefits.

To decide that, we'd need to look at the benefits and issues for both the citizens and the government/society.

For normal marriage between two people the benefits are pretty obvious.

• inheritance rights
• medical visitation
• use less social services
• generally healthier
• parental rights

Among others.

With plural marriages many of those benefits are complicated and or may not apply the same to the second, third, and fourth spouse as it does to the first.

The other thing is same sex marriage now means that equal numbers of partners in a plural marriage can pair off and if the head of the household passes their spouse can marry the next spouse so inheritance can pass through the rest of the family.

So while I think polygamists can make the case for government acknowledgement of their marriage I don't think the cost/benefit ratio is anywhere near the same as normal marriage and without the constitutional issue SSM had I don't see a compelling reason for the government to grant additional benefits.

Edit: What Elfenix said.

I think the burden should be on the government to justify why they are restricting my rights. I see you listed some benefits but didn't list any costs, unless you count "it's complicated" as a cost.

 

[HeXen]

If multiple adults want to marry each other and be a family, I say go for it and it should be legal imo. If 2 gays can marry then why not 6? How about 3 guys and 14 women all marry? Have at it I say.

 

[dank69]

Just wait until some porn girl marries 18 old guys to collect inheritance or the same porn girl marries 16 nerds to have them support her lifestyle.

I fail to see a problem here. Is there a problem or is this just simple "slut" shaming?

 

[Indus]

I'm not saying this as a liberal, I'm saying this as I've had anthropology as a hobby for nearly two decades now and after having lived half of that time overseas..

Polygamy might sound fashionable/ rebellious to many but it's got a lot to do with economics. Why would kings have many wifes? Take the current king of Thailand, he has 1 official wife, 135 minor wives and over 1000 concubines. Why would they join his harem? Economics.

In our country unless we fix income inequality in the coming years and decades.. I expect polygamy to multiply, especially polyandry for the general public. It's already happening in Nepal/ India/ China/ Arab countries/ Indonesia and Malaysia.. not that we want to be associated with them but it's economics. Not all the males in these economies can afford a house/ wife/ raising kids together but they can in a polyandry society.

The American Dream is getting harder and harder to achieve with incomes coming down as high paying jobs are being sent overseas or replaced with H1-B's while real estate prices/ rent prices are the same. So expect some men who aren't jealous of some life buddies they trust to start forming a family unit together so that multiple incomes are coming in to support them together in the same home with a shared wife.

Similarly Polygyny will be the area of the millionaires/ billionaires if it isn't already. You see it in plain sight without the need to get marriage documents.. all these expensive high price escorts, hookers and mistresses like Donald Sterling and V. Stiviano.

 

[dank69]

I'm not saying this as a liberal, I'm saying this as I've had anthropology as a hobby for nearly two decades now and after having lived half of that time overseas..

Polygamy might sound fashionable/ rebellious to many but it's got a lot to do with economics. Why would kings have many wifes? Take the current king of Thailand, he has 1 official wife, 135 minor wives and over 1000 concubines. Why would they join his harem? Economics.

In our country unless we fix income inequality in the coming years and decades.. I expect polygamy to multiply, especially polyandry for the general public. It's already happening in Nepal/ India/ China/ Arab countries/ Indonesia and Malaysia.. not that we want to be associated with them but it's economics. Not all the males in these economies can afford a house/ wife/ raising kids together but they can in a polyandry society.

The American Dream is getting harder and harder to achieve with incomes coming down as high paying jobs are being sent overseas or replaced with H1-B's while real estate prices/ rent prices are the same. So expect some men who aren't jealous of some life buddies they trust to start forming a family unit together so that multiple incomes are coming in to support them together in the same home with a shared wife.

Similarly Polygyny will be the area of the millionaires/ billionaires if it isn't already. You see it in plain sight without the need to get marriage documents.. all these expensive high price escorts, hookers and mistresses like Donald Sterling and V. Stiviano.

Rich guys can already have 1000 girlfriends if they want, so I still don't see any compelling argument against polygamy here.

 

[nickqt]

SSM legalization/recognition of a right simply removes the arbitrary prohibition preventing one individual from marrying one other individual, based on the gender of each member. In essence, before the ruling, a marriage contract prohibited two people of the same gender from entering into the marriage contract based solely on gender indifference.

Polygamy laws aren't involved in any way, shape or form with a restrictions based on gender. Every state prohibits any individual from being in a marriage contract with more than one person. Even if the state were to recognize a third gender, it wouldn't matter, because that state still limits the marriage contact to two people, regardless of the gender. It would allow, however, for two members of "Gender 3" to marry each other.

You could argue that polygamy is one individual entering into a marriage contract with one other individual, and then entering into an entirely separate marriage contract with a third party, so that the individual is involved in two separate marriage contracts at once, rather than there being one individual marriage contract with more than two people involved.

Of course, you'd have to amend state law to get this accepted, and the reasoning wouldn't rely on the SSM right under the 14th Amendment ruling, because it's a totally different legal animal.

Should an individual be able to enter into two or more marriage contracts with separate individuals? Maybe, maybe not, depends on your opinion and the state you live in, as there are states around the world that allow it.

But at this point, there is no equal protection argument for it, whereas you could make a due process argument to allow it. And perhaps in the future, that due process argument may be deemed valid.

 

[JD50]

I don't really have a problem with it assuming all of the legal stuff was figured out.

However, could someone explain which group is currently being discriminated against? With gay marriage there was clear discrimination of a group due to their gender. Also, you're born gay and can't control who you're attracted to, which is not the case with a polygamist (you aren't born a polygamist). I think it's an interesting discussion to have.

 

[JD50]

SSM legalization/recognition of a right simply removes the arbitrary prohibition preventing one individual from marrying one other individual, based on the gender of each member. In essence, before the ruling, a marriage contract prohibited two people of the same gender from entering into the marriage contract based solely on gender indifference.

Polygamy laws aren't involved in any way, shape or form with a restrictions based on gender. Every state prohibits any individual from being in a marriage contract with more than one person. Even if the state were to recognize a third gender, it wouldn't matter, because that state still limits the marriage contact to two people, regardless of the gender. It would allow, however, for two members of "Gender 3" to marry each other.

You could argue that polygamy is one individual entering into a marriage contract with one other individual, and then entering into an entirely separate marriage contract with a third party, so that the individual is involved in two separate marriage contracts at once, rather than there being one individual marriage contract with more than two people involved.

Of course, you'd have to amend state law to get this accepted, and the reasoning wouldn't rely on the SSM right under the 14th Amendment ruling, because it's a totally different legal animal.

Should an individual be able to enter into two or more marriage contracts with separate individuals? Maybe, maybe not, depends on your opinion and the state you live in, as there are states around the world that allow it.

But at this point, there is no equal protection argument for it, whereas you could make a due process argument to allow it. And perhaps in the future, that due process argument may be deemed valid.

Good points.

 

[ivwshane]

I think the burden should be on the government to justify why they are restricting my rights. I see you listed some benefits but didn't list any costs, unless you count "it's complicated" as a cost.

Other than figuring out how set things up legally I see no compelling reason why it shouldn't be legal either.

 

[sandorski]

I think the problems with Polygamy are too numerous to make it something I could support.

 

[Spungo]

Frankly I don't care as long as all parties are truly consenting and legally able to provide that consent.

I was going to say polygamy is a bad idea because it would complicate the divorce process, but then I remembered how complicated divorce already is. If 2 people divorcing leads to both people going bankrupt, I don't see the harm in adding a few more people. Is it worse for 4 people to go bankrupt as 2 sets of 2, or for all of them to go bankrupt in one giant 4-way divorce?

 

[Paratus]

Since when are rights reliant on cost/benefit ratios?

Rights aren't. Benefits are.
Everyone has the right to marry. The government granted benefits to those it chose to recognize as married. The government chose to bestow those benefits in the first place because it was advantageous to our society in general.

The problem with it was until the ruling it discriminated against people based on their gender which is constitutionally prohibited as well as sexual orientation.

There is no constitutional prohibition against limiting the number of people who receives benefits from the govt for marriage.

If a polygamist group wants to live together and get a religious marriage ceremony I don't think any state law against it would stand up to judicial scrutiny as denying a religious ceremony would violate the first amendment.

However receive government benefits they are going to have to get that sorted out in the legislature as there's no judicial methods I'm aware of like there was for SSM.

(I realize you jumped in here to try and pull a xbiff style "gotcha" but come on man your better than that.)