Good examples of things that can be done.

No need to get too upset about it Bello - just the fact that you care about it is half the battle for many. Just a little contribution here and there in your spare time can add up to a lot if everyone did it. Society eventually comes around, and I think we're headed in that direction already.

I am a Republican because I favor small government, and this is a prime example of why I am so disapointed with my party lately. The government (state or federal) doesn't need to be involved with who can marry who, that is going down the path of big government for purely emotional/religeous reasons.

I'm with you on that. I wrote a piece for a govt. class I had, and the professor and I ended up having a lengthy exchange over it. Essentially he and I are both ...I guess 'old school' republicans, and the GOP today really doesn't resemble the reasons I was part of the GOP.

The abortion issue there is key for me, the government should stay the hell out of that issue, and respect the privacy of women...and yet the GOP, primarily for religious reasons, has the wrong view of that (wrong as in it goes against being against govt. intrusion into people's private lives, etc.)

Gay marriage as well. And many other issues. Basically my position was (and is) that the GOP lost some serious numbers and found that the way to make that up with people who really aren't served by the party platform OTHERWISE, was to go after the morality vote. So you have middle america Joe Blow who's a factory worker, who isn't in any way served by the party...but you make Gay Marriage the boogeyman, and pimp Jesus Christ, and you may get him on board. Same with abortion.

I'm not trying to portray this specific group as somehow more stupid, it's not a tactic purely limited to the GOP or anything, and people fall for this shit all the time, there's plenty of political footballs...but it's been HUGELY successful and it's why gay marriage was such a hot national issue not long ago.

And it worked for GWB, it got him votes where he wouldn't have otherwise.

Anyway, I'm also lazy so I still haven't changed my party affiliation, though I will whenever I go to vote next or whatever...but I won't be joining the democrats either.

Honestly I think they're a big bunch of pussies.

So I guess it's Libertarian for me. /shrug

_________________

I think it's very appropriate for the government to step in when the killing of other human beings without their consent is involved.

Here we go!

For the GOP who actually feel that way, it's still a states issue, not a federal one...if you go by what the GOP platform actually was regarding limiting the rights of the govt.

So no, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

_________________

I'm speaking for myself, not the GOP. I'm certainly not a member of the GOP.

You might as well register as Republican or Democrat so you at least have a voice in primaries.

Thank God I don't have to register with any party to vote in the primary.

You have to love this plank from the Republican Party's Platform:
(bold added by me)

Not their plank that deals with "defense of marriage" is very slick. They don't come out and say that they are against same sex marriages but that children should be raised in a home with a mother and father. They also go on to be against judicial imposition of other state's actions without that state voting, blah blah, blah.

Screw that. I am a Libertarian and I have voted that way.

err Now*

Yeah, people have been trying to find ways to skirt the issue of discrimination and intolerance for a while. They'll slap extra layers of abstraction on the idea, try absolving themselves by denouncing discrimination in one breath and then preaching intolerance of a certain group's activites in another...it's all very silly.

A guy I know that tries this a lot, he'll go on and on about how he doesn't discriminate or have any feelings of intolerance toward homosexuals. But he'll then go on to talk about how homosexuality, many lying with man, sodomy, sex outside of marriage, sex without reproduction, etc etc are all horrible things that should be stopped and condemned and whatnot. So he gets to tell himself that he's not discriminating against anyone, but gets to continue thinking in an intolerant manner.

As is typical, they'll keep backpedaling until finally our society as a whole decides that the discrimination is distasteful, and then we'll see the usual X-Men style retcons of everything.

Er, that's "man lying with man".

Lewis Black ranting on this issue live, is completely fucking hilarious. He had a long bit about it in one of his more recent routines that had me in tears.

Honestly though, I see more changes today than I would have believed possible 10 years ago. So I guess that's something.

I wonder what areas of tolerance will be after that? Obesity, smoking...I think people are okay with intolerance there because it's often perceived of (and of course often is) a choice. Though many smokers just find it almost impossible to quit (it was very hard for me) and many people who are obese have underlying medical problems making it more difficult for them.

I wonder if polygamy will be a revisited issue. I personally don't care about plural marriage whether poly or andy. It has a lot of financial considerations though (when providing insurance to more than one spouse, polys having MANY kids with less earners because the male to female ratio is what it is, etc.). The only social considerations I give a shit about are with anyone not there voluntarily (but that's illegal anyway) and the kids involved if the parents can't support them (but it doesn't take plural marriage for that!)...but I guess that's another issue.

And one I don't really see changing any time soon.

Maybe it will shift towards issues with the number of children people have, as it has in many countries who have a higher population than they can reeasonably support, and large numbers living in poverty. I would guess we'd address such issues socially (via essentially peer pressure and heavy ads) and perhaps financially through ending tax breaks for the number of kids you shit out, and start giving tax breaks to people who are childless, who have surgical sterilization, or only have 1 child.

Of course it's always possible that people will do it on their own, or that we'll have emerging disease that reduces population pressures.

/hijack

_________________

Actually I think America's issue will be not enough children in the upcoming decades. Our youth population is contracting, it just doesn't show up in the census because people are living longer. The only reason I mention this is I don't think there will be tax breaks for 0-1 kid families anytime soon.

Add Vermont to the list. Both chambers of the state legislature just override the Governor's veto, making Vermont to first state to legalize gay marriage through the legislature.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Yep:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/04 ... ml?_r=1&hp

_________________

Woot!

_________________

It'll be revisisted, but only by polygamists and only in the courts. Hell, even people fighting for homosexual marriage often refuse to support polygamy. I can't tell you how many times I've been yelled at because I had the audacity to compare the two situations. Apparently gay marriage was an equality issue rather than a religious or moral issue until someone tried to expand the fight so that marriage equality would actually be achieved and then all bets are off. Half of the people I've spoke with say they wanted the issues seperated because gay marriage would be easier to pass if polygamists left them alone, and the other half just couldn't bring themselves to support polygamy and damn the hypocrisy.

The financial concerns are not inherently different than any other family. I have two wives, no children and three incomes. That's three people that I would like to be able to get insurance for (only my job provides health benefits), far less than many of the people I work with. The only time this would become an issue is when you are dealing with people like the FLDS who deliberately birth a large number of children. But if you're going to use that against polygamists as a group, then you also need to do the same for overly large families who are not polygamists. But that's not going to happen. Large poly families are ridiculed and labeled irresponsible, while large non-poly families are given reality television shows.

Obviously, there's some bitterness here.

Polygamists face two main hurdles that gay marriage advocates don't, IMO:

1. The popular imagination's conception of polygamy is either a) creepy FLDS or b) amoral swinger types.
2. It is much much easier to take the existing legal frameworks around spousal rights and responsibilities and simply make them gender-neutral. Adding a 3rd (or more) party complicates that exponentially. For example, if a married person dies intestate, the surviving spouse is the automatic legal next of kin. If there are two surviving spouses, how do you determine which one is the next of kin? Similarly with healthcare decisions - what if there are two competent spouses, and they disagree on the best course of action? Which one prevails?

_________________
Hope is the new black.

A mud wrestling match to the death of course. Don't over complicate things.

Sounds like New Hampshire may not be far behind.

_________________

_________________

Devyn, I hope someday polygamy goes down the same road. We have no business telling people how they can or can't live.

Interesting...

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

This isn't the first time I've made that kind of statement.

I actually think a large part of the polygamy fight is going to be won by people not actually "sleeping with each other". Family has become so many different things and the numbers of ways in which a household are set up aren't entirely based around procreation... more so on the protection of those we care for, in all the varieties of ways that manifests.

And I think things like our current economy are simply going to make that more apparent.

_________________

My response wasn't to imply otherwise, just that I'm honestly at a loss for words, it's an interesting topic, one that I can't recall being debated before and I don't know where I stand on it either.

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

Fribur, if you were a policymaker, how would you address the issues raised by Bearne?

That's difficult to say, but off the top of my head, how about asking the people involved to make those decisions at the point they get their civil union? Both the medical and next-of-kin issues could be part of the process for regisering for the civil union itself.

The tax code issues (which he didn't bring up, but are definitely there) are much more complex though, I would imagine.

Sadly true, and something that is not easy to change except by polygamists growing a set and being open about they're lifestyles so that people can see that their not different than anyone else. Sadly, aside from social ramifications, there are also legal consequences for doing that depending on your state. I know it was a long, difficult conversation before we decided to be "out" and I can't imagine it being any easier for anyone else. It's the same situation that homosexuals had to deal with (and still are).
I see nothing wrong with them making that decision when they enter into a legal relationship. It's what we do as it is, though with a multitude of special powers of attorney which are often ignored. Though I do have to point out that that is a situation that couples already have to deal with in certain situations such as when a child is ill and a medical decision has to be made or when the parents die and there are multiple children. I'm not positive why poly families should require special rules regarding it when couples don't.

As for taxes? It doesn't need to be different than a married couple. We should have the option to file as married filing jointly with the same deductions, or married filing single with the same deductions. Nothing has to change there.

There will always be more things that could come up than you can arrange for at the time of marraige. What if one gets a divorce, does she get 1/2 or a 1/3rd? What if there are 3 wives to 1 husband and he dies with 1 wife. The remaining 2 wives have different numbers of kids though, so do you just split the estate in half, or give it based on kids? I could go on for endlessly...there will always be more what ifs than is possible to address in a polygamist prenup.

Maybe they'll have to decide contested divorces based on merit, instead of a spreadsheet. FSM forbid that happen

I have no problems with plural marriage (so we include both poly and andy!) at all. The problems I DO have are the things that go with it. Insurance issues...do we expect the industry to move beyond the 2 adults + kids that they've always done? Will it be affordable to do? What are some answers here, what's reasonable? I don't know but it has new implications we don't deal with currently.

What about children? Obviously we allow people today, married or not, to have more children than they can support. I dislike that in ANY situation, and polygamy specifically (more so than andy) has the potential for creating a single household with *a lot* of children. Any changes there though should apply across the board, not just to plural marriage folks.

So those types of problems would have to be addressed. Other than that, I'm all for it. I have no problem with it. And we have children today being raised by more than a 2 parent set with divorces. Having more than 1 parent isn't by itself a problem to children, and having them all in one household is probably easier. Plus since we no longer live in a 'village' setting or in a home with multiple generations generally...having more than 1 or 2 adults to assist with the kids is pretty ideal.

There's relationship problem potentials of course, but all relationships have problems. And yes, you'd have to look at how to structure divorces. One of the ways it's been hypothetically (and IRL for some) addressed is to treat the marriage as a corporation with shares, there's a necessary 'buy in' (like a dowry), each child upon adulthood and leaving the household is given a monetary stake out of that 'corporation' as it exists primarily for the children, and people contributing hold shares based on contributions and not just monetary. So someone making 6 figures will contribute more in money, but someone who's staying at home raising also contributes. There's also retirement set ups, and means by which to accept new members, etc.

There's tons of ways to do it, and I think that if it is allowed then it's probably best to simply recognize all marriages as simply marriages with specific legal benefits etc. and then allow each marriage to decide the terms of their marriage contract. It could also lead to people agreeing to five year marriage contracts with specific benefits then at the end of that 'term' deciding what terms to renew it upon, etc.

Might lead to much better relationships and who doesn't want that?

_________________

You're confusing polygamy with polygyny, Tarot. Polygamy is having more than one spouse, polygyny is having more than one wife and polyandry is having more than one husband (which you already knew). I tend to use polygamy though because it is not uncommon to have more than one husband AND more than one wife these days.

As for the issue of children, no, it doesn't have to be addressed...but it should be. It's not addressed for others, so there should be no requisite to address it because of polys unless that is something that we feel we need to do regardless.

Thanks for the clarification, I was indeed! Most people jump to the assumption that it's 1 man, multiple wives, which I wanted to point out that is not the only plural marriage formula, though it does tend to be the most common culturally (for a variety of socio-economic reasons). Since those reasons aren't the issue *today* for people (like too few men due to war, etc.) a variety of options makes just as much sense. Whatever works for people.

As far as the kid issue, it would have to be addressed because when marriage is involved, there's different responsibilities for the kids. In some states in this country if your WIFE has a child not of the HUSBAND...he's still responsible for it legally just exactly like he was the biological father (IIRC unless he immediately files some legal bullshit at birth). Many men who don't know they were cuckolded and find out later are furious they're forced to pay support. But the law is designed to protect the child.

What then, if we took on another spouse who was a man, and I had a child (I'm infertile, but it COULD theoretically happen if my hormones went in whack one month or something...). Okay let's assume it's not obvious who the father is, and we choose not to know. Down the road, I want to leave the marriage and I become a nutbag and don't want them involved with the kid. Both want to be involved. What rights will they have? If we're legally married they'd have a lot of rights. Maybe they'll stay married even though I am divorcing, so the child will visit just 'them'. Or is visitation split 3 ways if we all leave, and if so...is that reasonable to the kid to bounce around so much? Child support, do I get a bonanza, or is basic support split among both of them?

There's lots of issues that would have to be addressed in a plural situation that aren't issues in a 2 person situation.

These issues shouldn't be a bar to plural marriage though, I just think we need to first protect the rights of any children involved in the family, and then the rights of the adults.

_________________

I understand what you're saying now Tarot. I was at work when I read it and apparently in my rush misunderstood what you were saying.
Obviously states would need to set their own rules as they see fit just as they do normally. In my opinion though, if you are legally married and a child is born into this family, all parties of the marriage should be equally legally and financially liable regardless of who's egg or sperm is involved.

Your hypotheticals don't seem to be too big of a deal to be honest. There are already procedures in place for situations like that in a divorce that translate over very nicely. As for whether it is reasonable for a child to bounce between more than two parents, I don't see why it wouldn't be under normal circumstances. Assuming abnormal circumstances, judges would have to deal with it case by case just as they normally do.