Pushing the limits of polygamy

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,643
15,831
146
It doesn't mean you can't have one, it means you can't have another one. Plus it isn't just about having a second marriage license. Denying you access to a second license denies you the ability to marry another person, so a single person can marry Sally but a married person cannot marry Sally. What gives the government the authority to refuse to allow a married person to marry Sally?

Single people can only have one at a time too.
Marriage is a contract. Contracts restrict who are part of them all the time. They can also restrict which other contracts people enter into.

If there was some constitutionally significant discrimination going on the best you could do would be to have the court rule that the legislature needs to define the rules. I personally don't see that discrimination, of course that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
When it comes to marriage it's not the religious marriage ceremony that provides the government benefits it's the fact the minister is also liscenced by the state to fill out the state marriage license. This is in addition and separate to being able to perform the religious ceremony.
The wording is very important. An extremely religious person would have no problems with two men signing most legal documents like loans or business licenses, and legal marriage is basically a combination of those two things. As soon as the word "marriage" is introduced to describe this contract, it's a huge problem. It stops being a legal issue and it starts being a religious issue. The next logical step is to call it civil union when gay people get together. This creates a new problem because it means gay people are seen differently in the eyes of the government. Gay people would have "civil unions" but straight people have "marriages." If we want everything to be completely equal across the board, everything should be called a civil union. If you want to have a marriage in a church, you can still do that. God sees you as a married couple, but the government sees you as a civil union couple. Religious people would have no way to defend against gay civil unions since it's just a regular contract between two people with no religious connotations. So much of this gay marriage debate is about the word marriage. Very few people are actually against the idea of gay people signing legal documents. It's religious people who say gays should have civil unions, and it's gays who are upset because it means they're not treated the same as straights. Switching everything to "civil union" would completely fix everything.


I dont care as long as all references to the words "married" and "spouse" are removed from my tax forms. It's so dumb that those words even appear on tax forms... the last thing I want to see is "Spouse 1:", "Spouse 2:", "Spouse 3:", "If More Spouses use form 8639A"
We could always adopt Canada's tax system. Canada doesn't have joint tax submissions. The husband and wife each file their own tax return.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
This is all caused by our failed Progressive Tax System. Taxing people differently when they are married should be illegal.

Maybe after Gay Marriage the system will change. I cant expect the well off Gay crowd will accept the Marriage Penalty in their tax system.

Maybe Gay people will force the IRS to change some of their policies. Things are just too complex.
 
Last edited:

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
Yes, I did, bigot.



is the same argument as



and



is the same argument as



Finally,



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.

iow, you're not interested in discussing the legal arguments and you're just trolling.

i don't think you're going to get to strict scrutiny. you have the right to marry, and you've exercised that right. if you get divorced, you can exercise that right again. similarly, you have the right to vote, but not twice. if you can't get to strict scrutiny (or intermediate), it doesn't matter that there are better arguments going the other way.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,746
6,762
126
The wording is very important. An extremely religious person would have no problems with two men signing most legal documents like loans or business licenses, and legal marriage is basically a combination of those two things. As soon as the word "marriage" is introduced to describe this contract, it's a huge problem. It stops being a legal issue and it starts being a religious issue. The next logical step is to call it civil union when gay people get together. This creates a new problem because it means gay people are seen differently in the eyes of the government. Gay people would have "civil unions" but straight people have "marriages." If we want everything to be completely equal across the board, everything should be called a civil union. If you want to have a marriage in a church, you can still do that. God sees you as a married couple, but the government sees you as a civil union couple. Religious people would have no way to defend against gay civil unions since it's just a regular contract between two people with no religious connotations. So much of this gay marriage debate is about the word marriage. Very few people are actually against the idea of gay people signing legal documents. It's religious people who say gays should have civil unions, and it's gays who are upset because it means they're not treated the same as straights. Switching everything to "civil union" would completely fix everything.



We could always adopt Canada's tax system. Canada doesn't have joint tax submissions. The husband and wife each file their own tax return.

It makes no difference what extremely religious people think or feel about what the government makes as law. There is a separation between church and state. If the religious don't like the word marriage they can invent their own word for it. Gay people have a right to use a so called religious word because they also have a right to practice religion. No religion owns the word marriage. The state will set the legal definition subject to the constitution. It is legal to discriminate against children wishing to marry because it's legal to set age discriminatory laws. It's legal to define marriage as between two persons only for the same reasons, It's legal to set the speed limit to 25. It's legal to create crosswalks and fine people for crossing in the middle of the street. We are a nation of laws. Any jackass can call any law bigotry but if you want to change it you have to persuade the courts it's unconstitutional, bigotry or not.

What constitutes a compelling interest will always be somewhat subjective, based on past experience. It may change, but then again it may be based on real existential wisdom, and the number of people who can see it.
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
It makes no difference what extremely religious people think or feel about what the government makes as law.
Actually it does. As long as gays are trying to win the battle for marriage licenses, there will be a united front of religious people against them. The easiest way to win the battle for legal equality is to change the wording. I'm confident that gays will eventually get mainstream support for gay marriage, but how long do you want to wait? 10 years? 20 years? We could have this problem fixed within a year if we just changed some words.

That reminds me of something hilarious I heard on TV. I can't remember what show it was, but there was some hardcore conservative municipality that refused to get an action plan started to deal with the threat of "rising sea level" in response to some issues they were having with increased frequency of flooding. Instead, someone tried to get an action plan to deal with "persistent flooding" (caused by rising sea level), and it passed.
 

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,466
3,067
121
Actually it does. As long as gays are trying to win the battle for marriage licenses, there will be a united front of religious people against them. The easiest way to win the battle for legal equality is to change the wording. I'm confident that gays will eventually get mainstream support for gay marriage, but how long do you want to wait? 10 years? 20 years? We could have this problem fixed within a year if we just changed some words.

That reminds me of something hilarious I heard on TV. I can't remember what show it was, but there was some hardcore conservative municipality that refused to get an action plan started to deal with the threat of "rising sea level" in response to some issues they were having with increased frequency of flooding. Instead, someone tried to get an action plan to deal with "persistent flooding" (caused by rising sea level), and it passed.

You seem a bit out of touch regarding current events :)
 

Ackmed

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2003
8,499
560
126
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. :p

So gays want marriage to get benefits, and polygamists shouldn't have multiple spouses because they could get too many benefits? Hmmm. I certainly see the downside financially. It's not as if too many people don't already get benefits that they don't deserve, such as welfare, ebt cards, etc. But I think they would have a valid argument and if all parties agreed to the marriage, are consenting adults of sound mind they could use the same argument that gays used. "Who are you to stop me from marrying someone I love?" Then if you disagree... you're a bigot like everything else.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,746
6,762
126
Actually it does. As long as gays are trying to win the battle for marriage licenses, there will be a united front of religious people against them. The easiest way to win the battle for legal equality is to change the wording. I'm confident that gays will eventually get mainstream support for gay marriage, but how long do you want to wait? 10 years? 20 years? We could have this problem fixed within a year if we just changed some words.

That reminds me of something hilarious I heard on TV. I can't remember what show it was, but there was some hardcore conservative municipality that refused to get an action plan started to deal with the threat of "rising sea level" in response to some issues they were having with increased frequency of flooding. Instead, someone tried to get an action plan to deal with "persistent flooding" (caused by rising sea level), and it passed.

I think what MongGrel is saying is that the battle is over and gays won, as did real Christianity. I added that last part.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,643
15,831
146
So gays want marriage to get benefits, and polygamists shouldn't have multiple spouses because they could get too many benefits? Hmmm. I certainly see the downside financially. It's not as if too many people don't already get benefits that they don't deserve, such as welfare, ebt cards, etc. But I think they would have a valid argument and if all parties agreed to the marriage, are consenting adults of sound mind they could use the same argument that gays used. "Who are you to stop me from marrying someone I love?" Then if you disagree... you're a bigot like everything else.

It's actually equal protection under the law that they were being denied, due to unconstitutional gender discrimination.

Most people who get married want the benefits that come with a marriage liscence in addition to the primary benefit of spending the rest of your life together with your spouse. Those who don't want those benefits just live together.

For polygamists no one is preventing them from having a religious marriage ceremony. For consenting adults it doesn't bother me in the slightest. What they don't have and aren't being unconstitutionally discriminated against is further government benefits that currently no one has.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Actually it does. As long as gays are trying to win the battle for marriage licenses...
Yes, maybe, hopefully, some day in the brilliant future the Supreme Court will rule that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional.

Until then, I guess they'll just keep "trying to win the battle for marriage licenses."

What a great day that'll be.

... there will be a united front of religious people against them.
Aaaaand fuck those people.

The easiest way to win the battle for legal equality is to change the wording.
Aaaaand fuck that. Nobody is changing the common language just because a bunch of delusional nitwits got their collective panties in a bunch.

I'm confident that gays will eventually get mainstream support for gay marriage, but how long do you want to wait? 10 years? 20 years? We could have this problem fixed within a year if we just changed some words.
Or we could just wait for the religious nutjobs to be continue being marginalized, pointing and laughing at their impotent rage along the way.
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Fail to see why a group of consenting adults who all agree to join together in marriage can't do so, I wouldn't do it but if others wish to for the sake of love, tax benefits or whatever then why not.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,643
15,831
146
Actually it does. As long as gays are trying to win the battle for marriage licenses, there will be a united front of religious people against them. The easiest way to win the battle for legal equality is to change the wording. I'm confident that gays will eventually get mainstream support for gay marriage, but how long do you want to wait? 10 years? 20 years? We could have this problem fixed within a year if we just changed some words.

That reminds me of something hilarious I heard on TV. I can't remember what show it was, but there was some hardcore conservative municipality that refused to get an action plan started to deal with the threat of "rising sea level" in response to some issues they were having with increased frequency of flooding. Instead, someone tried to get an action plan to deal with "persistent flooding" (caused by rising sea level), and it passed.
hudson-aliens-05032011.jpg


"Maybe you haven't been keeping up on current events but they just got their asses kicked pal!"

You seem a bit out of touch regarding current events :)
;)
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
37,361
32,993
136
Single people can only have one at a time too.
Marriage is a contract. Contracts restrict who are part of them all the time. They can also restrict which other contracts people enter into.

If there was some constitutionally significant discrimination going on the best you could do would be to have the court rule that the legislature needs to define the rules. I personally don't see that discrimination, of course that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I've been thinking about this a bit more. How about this? Single people are denied the right to marry people that are already married.

The way I envision polygamous marriages is that the people that are already married would not get additional benefits but the single person entering the marriage would.
 

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,307
176
106
Government gives tax benefits (married filing jointly, for example) for the first union of two consenting adults and no more. Property rights and child custody extend equally to however many other consenting adults you choose to wed so long as each marriage has been registered properly.

If polygamy is made legal I can't wait for the Mormons to have a "revelation from god" again that they should practice polygamy again. lol
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,359
4,640
136
Let me start this by saying that I am polyamorous and directly in the fight for legalized polygamy.

To polygamy or to not polygamy, is that the question? No, the question is are you born to polygamy?
Many people in the poly community would say so. Many would say that the reason that something like 50% of all monogamous couples cheat on one another is because they are naturally polyamorous and are fighting their nature. This causes a lot of unnecessary pain and frustration, as well as legal hassles since a large number of them end up in divorce again and again.
The argument is not that everyone is polyamorous, only that a significant portion of society is and that we have been trying to fight our nature, in a lot like the pray the gay away movement was, with similar results.

How do you expect a judge to declare polygamy legal without any legal rules defining what "it" is.

A legislature is going to have to be involved somewhere to create the legal rules first, until then legal polygamy is undefined in my opinion.
What I expect will happen is that eventually a judge will decide that a specific polygamous marriage should be allowed, and once that precedent is set legislatures are going to scramble to try to define just what is allowed polygamy and what is not. This will be a process with many mistakes, and I fully expect that the first few attempts will be just short of disasterous.

For polygamists no one is preventing them from having a religious marriage ceremony.

That is not really true. Religious polygamists have been tried recently on charges that they are 'common law' bigamists. In this case cohabitating along with a religious marriage ceremony (with out a civil license) is enough to convict for polygamy.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,643
15,831
146
Let me start this by saying that I am polyamorous and directly in the fight for legalized polygamy.


That is not really true. Religious polygamists have been tried recently on charges that they are 'common law' bigamists. In this case cohabitating along with a religious marriage ceremony (with out a civil license) is enough to convict for polygamy.

I wasn't aware of that.

Sounds like that should run afoul of first amendment protections. If you want to push for the recognition then it may require a case like that. (it would be analogous to the Lawarence vs Texas decision from 10 years ago)

Thanks for the insight. :thumbsup:
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,359
4,640
136
I wasn't aware of that.

Sounds like that should run afoul of first amendment protections. If you want to push for the recognition then it may require a case like that. (it would be analogous to the Lawarence vs Texas decision from 10 years ago)

Thanks for the insight. :thumbsup:

I agree, and some movement forward has already been had in that area. That law has been partially struck down in Utah, and there there are currently cases pending in Texas that will challenge some of those laws.