Has the door been opened for polygamy?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Relapse**

There were some interesting points being made about polygamy becoming legal or not in the gay marriage thread and I thought I'd just open this thread up for discussion.
For myself, I think it's a coming thing, based off what I see going on out here and read with more and more people calling out for it. A federal judge has already struck down part of the anti polygamy law here in Utah, opening things up a bit for those wanting such a relationship.
Not that many years ago, people didn't think gay marriage would ever be legalized, yet here we are with it today. I think polygamy isn't many years in the future.

Federal judge strikes down part of polygamy law:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/17/utah-polygamy-court-ruling_n_4455706.html

**whembly**

As long as they're consenting adults... who cares.

**Vash108**

whembly wrote:
As long as they're consenting adults... who cares.

/thread

**zedmeister**

whembly wrote:
As long as they're consenting adults... who cares.

Not much else to be said really. As long as everyone's aware of what's going on, all's good.

**curran12**

The issue with polygamy attaining legal foundation is that, at least in the US, the word polygamy has become associated with child-brides, abuse of minors and other very much illegal things.

Between consenting adults, I got no problem personally. But that said, I think it is going to have a harder (or at least a very different) legal climb ahead of it.

**Sigvatr**

It has a far less active lobby behind it...if any. It's not about something making sense or not, it's about how much of an outcry you can cause.

**Pete Melvin**

"I can't wait to tell ma husband!"

**d-usa**

Relapse wrote:

Federal judge strikes down part of polygamy law:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/17/utah-polygamy-court-ruling_n_4455706.html

Like we did 2 years ago, we should point out that the ruling did, in fact, do nothing to actually rule against polygamy with regards to legal marriages.

Prior to this ruling marriage was defined as existing between two people and after this ruling marriage was defined as existing between two people.
Prior to this ruling the family involved included one married couple, and after that ruling the family involved still only included one married couple.
The ruling struck down cohabitation, it did not legalize polygamy.

In fact, the actual ruling is very clear on several issues:

There was no actual bigamy:

- The Statute covers not only polygamy but “cohabitation”—a term that encompasses a broad category of private relations in which a married person “purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.” Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-101 (West 2010).
- The Brown family does not have multiple marriage licenses.
- There is only one recorded marriage license in the Brown family—that of Kody and Meri Brown.

The court is not ruling on polygamy, nor did the Browns ask them to:

a. Polygamy. Preliminarily, the court finds that “polygamy” fails to qualify as a fundamental right under the Glucksberg analysis. In truth, the court disagrees with Defendant’s assertion that Plaintiffs are arguing that the fundamental rights analysis (under Lawrence) requires “the State to sanction their polygamous marriages.” To the contrary, “[t]he Browns have not questioned the right of the state to limit its recognition of marriage and to prosecute those citizens who secure multiple marriage licenses from the state.”

The actual issue is not polygamy, but cohabitation:

b. Religious Cohabitation. The relationship at issue in this lawsuit, which the court has termed “religious cohabitation,” has been aptly described by then Chief Justice Durham of the Utah Supreme Court. Religious cohabitation occurs when “[t]hose who choose to live together without getting married enter into a personal relationship that resembles a marriage in its intimacy but claims no legal sanction. Those who choose to live in these relationships “intentionally place themselves outside the framework of rights and obligations that surrounds the marriage institution.” Id. A defining characteristic of such cohabitation as lived by Plaintiffs and those similarly situated is that, in choosing “to enter into a relationship that [they know] would not be legally recognized as marriage, [they use] religious terminology to describe the relationship,” and this terminology—“‘marriage’ and ‘husband and wife’—happens to coincide with the terminology used by the state to describe the legal status of married persons.

The court finds that in keeping with many other privacy rulings striking down laws against oral sex, anal sex, gay sex, adultery, etc, Utah cannot outlaw being married to one person and shagging other people in the same house.

The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. ‘It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter. [Texas could not show] no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual’

The problem was that the state claimed jurisdiction over both state-sanctioned marriage as well as religious marriages:

And yet, bound as it is by the Holm Court’s broad interpretation of the term “marry”—that, “as used in the bigamy statute,” the term “includes both legally recognized marriages and those that are not state-sanctioned,”

And the state claimed that pretending to be married is the same as being married:

THE COURT: So is it the recognition by a religious organization that it believes that they are living together in a recognized relationship by the religion sufficient?
MR. JENSEN: No, no, no. . . . I think it’s the representation that they make to the world as to what is their relationship. If they make it as husband and wife, then that constitutes marriage under the statute.
THE COURT: If they say we’re not husband and wife, we just live together, then it’s not under the statute.
MR. JENSEN: Then it’s not governed under the statute.

Which makes the actual ruling:

The court finds the cohabitation prong of the Statute unconstitutional on numerous grounds and strikes it. As a result, and to save the Statute, the court adopts the interpretation of “marry” and “purports to marry,” and the resulting narrowing construction of the Statute, offered by the dissent in State of Utah v. Holm, 2006 , thus allowing the Statute to remain in force as prohibiting bigamy in the literal sense—the fraudulent or otherwise impermissible possession of two purportedly valid marriage licenses for the purpose of entering into more than one purportedly legal marriage.

tl;dr

- The ruling made it clear that you can only have one legal marriage license.
- The ruling states that it is not illegal to pretend that you are married
- The ruling states that it is not illegal to have a religious marriage and that your religious marriage has no legal status as an official marriage
- The ruling states that you are legally allowed to have sex with other people outside of your legal marriage
- The ruling states that the people you have sex with outside of your legal marriage are allowed to live in your house and be your pretend spouses

If you want to have a conversation about the legal future for state sanctioned polygamy, which I assume is what you are interested in talking about and not cohabitation, it would probably help if you had a correct understanding of the actual ruling that you used in your opening post.

**welshhoppo**

I suppose you'd have to keep an eye out for people abusing the system to gain marriage benefits or immigration rights or something along those lines.

**Frazzled**

curran12 wrote:
The issue with polygamy attaining legal foundation is that, at least in the US, the word polygamy has become associated with child-brides, abuse of minors and other very much illegal things.

Between consenting adults, I got no problem personally. But that said, I think it is going to have a harder (or at least a very different) legal climb ahead of it.

Its proof of fair minded, reasoned consent that is the problem. This is full of cult families brain washing their daughters that this is a good thing, and should be done at 12.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Frazzled wrote:
curran12 wrote:
The issue with polygamy attaining legal foundation is that, at least in the US, the word polygamy has become associated with child-brides, abuse of minors and other very much illegal things.

Between consenting adults, I got no problem personally. But that said, I think it is going to have a harder (or at least a very different) legal climb ahead of it.

Its proof of fair minded, reasoned consent that is the problem. This is full of cult families brain washing their daughters that this is a good thing, and should be done at 12.

I'm thinking that as well. You and I both remember Waco back in the 1990s. We don't want to go down that road again.

**Manchu**

Gay relationships were also maligned as unhealthy for many years. Some folks still claim that homosexuality and pedophilia are connected. And we have gay marriage now. I don't see polygamy's bad reputation as being insurmountable. The biggest obstacle will probably be something to do with taxes.

**curran12**

Manchu wrote:
Gay relationships were also maligned as unhealthy for many years. Some folks still claim that homosexuality and pedophilia are connected. And we have gay marriage now. I don't see polygamy's bad reputation as being insurmountable. The biggest obstacle will probably be something to do with taxes.

I don't see the reputation as wholly insurmountable, but it is not something to be dismissed either. As Do I Not Like That said, Waco is one of those things that pops up, and it is not the only real unsavory thing that has its name hanging onto legalized polygamy. Unlike gay marriage, this aspect of polygamy has a name, face and quite clear proof of it happening.

**Polonius**

Manchu wrote:
Gay relationships were also maligned as unhealthy for many years. Some folks still claim that homosexuality and pedophilia are connected. And we have gay marriage now. I don't see polygamy's bad reputation as being insurmountable. The biggest obstacle will probably be something to do with taxes.

Taxes is one, inheritance is another. Power of attorney, next of kin, etc. A lot of stuff that isn't insurmountable, but it's also a lot of stuff that being married makes easier, but polygamy would require some work arounds.

Polygamous divorce could also be a nightmare.

**MadEdric**

I'd be for polygamy if it wasn't tied up in religious trappings that state one man can have many wives but one woman cannot have many husbands.

**Frazzled**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
curran12 wrote:
The issue with polygamy attaining legal foundation is that, at least in the US, the word polygamy has become associated with child-brides, abuse of minors and other very much illegal things.

Between consenting adults, I got no problem personally. But that said, I think it is going to have a harder (or at least a very different) legal climb ahead of it.

Its proof of fair minded, reasoned consent that is the problem. This is full of cult families brain washing their daughters that this is a good thing, and should be done at 12.

I'm thinking that as well. You and I both remember Waco back in the 1990s. We don't want to go down that road again.

Several things have happened since even then, several in Texas.

**Deadshot**

MadEdric wrote:
I'd be for polygamy if it wasn't tied up in religious trappings that state one man can have many wives but one woman cannot have many husbands.

As part of traditional Islam, the question comes out in this case what wins out when different forms of Political correctness clash. Does the attempt to not offend Christians and allow Polygomy win out over the desire to cater to minorities and allow it to appease Muslims?
Personally I'd be up for polygamy becoming legal in my country, provided gay marriage is as well, and like you say, women could have multiple husbands and ideally not be called a slut or whore and attacked or worse.

**Inquisitor Lord Bane**

MadEdric wrote:
I'd be for polygamy if it wasn't tied up in religious trappings that state one man can have many wives but one woman cannot have many husbands.

If they made it where all involved parties had to provide consent on the license application (when Man A and Woman A get hitched, and Man A wants to marry Woman B, everyone has to fill out the form to provide consent. If Woman A wants Man B a few years later, then the 4 of them have to go to the courthouse for the license).

Divorce would be messy though, I foresee prenups.

**Ahtman**

Relapse wrote:
Has the door been opened for polygamy?

No

**MadEdric**

Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:
MadEdric wrote:
I'd be for polygamy if it wasn't tied up in religious trappings that state one man can have many wives but one woman cannot have many husbands.

If they made it where all involved parties had to provide consent on the license application (when Man A and Woman A get hitched, and Man A wants to marry Woman B, everyone has to fill out the form to provide consent. If Woman A wants Man B a few years later, then the 4 of them have to go to the courthouse for the license).

Divorce would be messy though, I foresee prenups.

This includes Mormons in America and some other fringe Christian groups. Polygamy is a religious construct, a male fantasy, and treats women as chattel. It rewards the wandering heart of men allowing them to collect women. If it were an equal thing in our society; again; I would support it. It is not though, the practice of polygamy is used in male dominated religions where women are not equals.

**Inquisitor Lord Bane**

Ignore the religious trappings for a bit, because it almost sounds like you have an axe to grind there.

If there is a legal, responsible, and moral way (ignoring religion), for more than two people to be married, and it doesn't impact the rest of us negatively, then why not? We are talking about legalizing something through the federal and state governments, religion has nothing to do with it.

Personally, I'd rather start collecting sports cars and guns instead of wives and husbands.

**Relapse**

d-usa wrote:
Relapse wrote:

Federal judge strikes down part of polygamy law:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/17/utah-polygamy-court-ruling_n_4455706.html

Like we did 2 years ago, we should point out that the ruling did, in fact, do nothing to actually rule against polygamy with regards to legal marriages.

Prior to this ruling marriage was defined as existing between two people and after this ruling marriage was defined as existing between two people.
Prior to this ruling the family involved included one married couple, and after that ruling the family involved still only included one married couple.
The ruling struck down cohabitation, it did not legalize polygamy.

In fact, the actual ruling is very clear on several issues:

There was no actual bigamy:

- The Statute covers not only polygamy but “cohabitation”—a term that encompasses a broad category of private relations in which a married person “purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.” Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-101 (West 2010).
- The Brown family does not have multiple marriage licenses.
- There is only one recorded marriage license in the Brown family—that of Kody and Meri Brown.

The court is not ruling on polygamy, nor did the Browns ask them to:

a. Polygamy. Preliminarily, the court finds that “polygamy” fails to qualify as a fundamental right under the Glucksberg analysis. In truth, the court disagrees with Defendant’s assertion that Plaintiffs are arguing that the fundamental rights analysis (under Lawrence) requires “the State to sanction their polygamous marriages.” To the contrary, “[t]he Browns have not questioned the right of the state to limit its recognition of marriage and to prosecute those citizens who secure multiple marriage licenses from the state.”

The actual issue is not polygamy, but cohabitation:

b. Religious Cohabitation. The relationship at issue in this lawsuit, which the court has termed “religious cohabitation,” has been aptly described by then Chief Justice Durham of the Utah Supreme Court. Religious cohabitation occurs when “[t]hose who choose to live together without getting married enter into a personal relationship that resembles a marriage in its intimacy but claims no legal sanction. Those who choose to live in these relationships “intentionally place themselves outside the framework of rights and obligations that surrounds the marriage institution.” Id. A defining characteristic of such cohabitation as lived by Plaintiffs and those similarly situated is that, in choosing “to enter into a relationship that [they know] would not be legally recognized as marriage, [they use] religious terminology to describe the relationship,” and this terminology—“‘marriage’ and ‘husband and wife’—happens to coincide with the terminology used by the state to describe the legal status of married persons.

The court finds that in keeping with many other privacy rulings striking down laws against oral sex, anal sex, gay sex, adultery, etc, Utah cannot outlaw being married to one person and shagging other people in the same house.

The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. ‘It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter. [Texas could not show] no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual’

The problem was that the state claimed jurisdiction over both state-sanctioned marriage as well as religious marriages:

And yet, bound as it is by the Holm Court’s broad interpretation of the term “marry”—that, “as used in the bigamy statute,” the term “includes both legally recognized marriages and those that are not state-sanctioned,”

And the state claimed that pretending to be married is the same as being married:

THE COURT: So is it the recognition by a religious organization that it believes that they are living together in a recognized relationship by the religion sufficient?
MR. JENSEN: No, no, no. . . . I think it’s the representation that they make to the world as to what is their relationship. If they make it as husband and wife, then that constitutes marriage under the statute.
THE COURT: If they say we’re not husband and wife, we just live together, then it’s not under the statute.
MR. JENSEN: Then it’s not governed under the statute.

Which makes the actual ruling:

The court finds the cohabitation prong of the Statute unconstitutional on numerous grounds and strikes it. As a result, and to save the Statute, the court adopts the interpretation of “marry” and “purports to marry,” and the resulting narrowing construction of the Statute, offered by the dissent in State of Utah v. Holm, 2006 , thus allowing the Statute to remain in force as prohibiting bigamy in the literal sense—the fraudulent or otherwise impermissible possession of two purportedly valid marriage licenses for the purpose of entering into more than one purportedly legal marriage.

tl;dr

- The ruling made it clear that you can only have one legal marriage license.
- The ruling states that it is not illegal to pretend that you are married
- The ruling states that it is not illegal to have a religious marriage and that your religious marriage has no legal status as an official marriage
- The ruling states that you are legally allowed to have sex with other people outside of your legal marriage
- The ruling states that the people you have sex with outside of your legal marriage are allowed to live in your house and be your pretend spouses

If you want to have a conversation about the legal future for state sanctioned polygamy, which I assume is what you are interested in talking about and not cohabitation, it would probably help if you had a correct understanding of the actual ruling that you used in your opening post.

I actually understand it's implications quite well, and stated in the gay marriage thread it was a small ruling. However, that being said, people will not now be hauled to jail here for cohabitation.
How polygamy works in the case I am talking about is that there usually is one legally recognized marriage, all well and good. The other marriages that happen are not legally recognized, but are accompanied by a ceremony creating a union recognized within the officiating religion.
If someone wanted to be really sneaky about it in order to double up on the benefits of being married, two of the women in the relationship could get married and still marry the man in the religious, non state recognized ceremony. I admit it's very far fetched, but it could happen.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

MadEdric wrote:
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:
MadEdric wrote:
I'd be for polygamy if it wasn't tied up in religious trappings that state one man can have many wives but one woman cannot have many husbands.

If they made it where all involved parties had to provide consent on the license application (when Man A and Woman A get hitched, and Man A wants to marry Woman B, everyone has to fill out the form to provide consent. If Woman A wants Man B a few years later, then the 4 of them have to go to the courthouse for the license).

Divorce would be messy though, I foresee prenups.

This includes Mormons in America and some other fringe Christian groups. Polygamy is a religious construct, a male fantasy, and treats women as chattel. It rewards the wandering heart of men allowing them to collect women. If it were an equal thing in our society; again; I would support it. It is not though, the practice of polygamy is used in male dominated religions where women are not equals.

Actually, it's not the LDS church that condones polygamy. People get excommunicated for practicing it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:
MadEdric wrote:
I'd be for polygamy if it wasn't tied up in religious trappings that state one man can have many wives but one woman cannot have many husbands.

If they made it where all involved parties had to provide consent on the license application (when Man A and Woman A get hitched, and Man A wants to marry Woman B, everyone has to fill out the form to provide consent. If Woman A wants Man B a few years later, then the 4 of them have to go to the courthouse for the license).

Divorce would be messy though, I foresee prenups.

The way polygamy was practiced involved preconditions where the man was in a position that he could support another wife and any other wives in the relationship had to approve of the new marriage.

**MadEdric**

Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:
Ignore the religious trappings for a bit, because it almost sounds like you have an axe to grind there.

If there is a legal, responsible, and moral way (ignoring religion), for more than two people to be married, and it doesn't impact the rest of us negatively, then why not? We are talking about legalizing something through the federal and state governments, religion has nothing to do with it.

Personally, I'd rather start collecting sports cars and guns instead of wives and husbands.

As I stated before, I would be for it. Our society needs to grow some though so that legalizing it would not be used to coerce women into it.
I don't really have an axe to grind, but polygamy is solely a religious construct, so we can't really discuss it without discussing these religions as well.

**Howard A Treesong**

I've yet to see a healthy polyamarous relationship. I hear a lot of talk about free love and respect but that isn't the reality among polyamarous people I've known, it's miderqble hedonistic crap. I don't see equality between those involved, there's always one partner that's pushing for it more than the other, there's manipulation and pressure. And that's before the fact that polygamy is usually practiced by cults and religions that treat women like chattel. You don't have equality between the partners as one ends up getting more time and affection than another, and one has to have precidence for things like power of attorney. you can't have two wives disagreeing over your medical treatment, someone has to have final authority over your affairs.

I disagree that relationships founded on inequality should be enshrined in law. Cohabiting isn't illegal, and you can sleep with who you like. But the legal rights and privileges should be reserved for one person not a train of them. Polyamory isn't illegal, it's bigamy that's illegal and should stay that way.

**MeanGreenStompa**

The decisions of people over the age of 18 to form bonds of love, recognized as binding them before the law and who or what they choose to worship are none of my damned business or yours.

A forced marriage or arranged marriage against the wishes of either or any party directly involved should be stopped as it represents the subjugation of the free choice of an individual. The consenting marriage of 3, 20 or 100,000 people is just none of my fracking business. Provided that there is no financial or legal benefit, above and beyond what anyone else getting legally bound is entitled to.

Your theocratic or personal ethos has no bearing on the nature of another person's love and relationship. Just as they are not entitled to dictate yours.

As long as noone is hurt, as long as no 'innocent' (child, person with learning disability, life form other than your own species unable to agree consent) is harmed, go do your thing and pay the taxes on it as appropriate.

You attend to your God and your moral code and I'll attend to mine, you start intruding into my airspace with your dogma and we will have a 'diplomatic incident'.

All Hail The Status Quo!

**Frazzled**

It has to be informed consent though. Some child raised in a cult where this is a great idea is not providing informed consent.

**MeanGreenStompa**

Frazzled wrote:
It has to be informed consent though. Some child raised in a cult where this is a great idea is not providing informed consent.

And what defines 'cult'? Should the state consider someone entirely raised Roman Catholic, marrying someone else Catholic as approved by their family, or Jewish or Muslim?

How do we make the definitions here?

How do you determine that someone raising in the Temple of the Great Potato all their lives, preparing to marry 12 other people of the Temple of the Great Potato, isn't entirely sane and happy and entitled to marry in that fashion?

**Vash108**

Frazzled wrote:
It has to be informed consent though. Some child raised in a cult where this is a great idea is not providing informed consent.

Like he says, indoctrination is not consent.

**Frazzled**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
It has to be informed consent though. Some child raised in a cult where this is a great idea is not providing informed consent.

And what defines 'cult'? Should the state consider someone entirely raised Roman Catholic, marrying someone else Catholic as approved by their family, or Jewish or Muslim?

How do we make the definitions here?

How do you determine that someone raising in the Temple of the Great Potato all their lives, preparing to marry 12 other people of the Temple of the Great Potato, isn't entirely sane and happy and entitled to marry in that fashion?

is this a serious question? You can't tell the difference between Catholic (is there a Catholic besides Roman-real question) and a pedo cult in the sticks somewhere?

**Vash108**

Frazzled wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
It has to be informed consent though. Some child raised in a cult where this is a great idea is not providing informed consent.

And what defines 'cult'? Should the state consider someone entirely raised Roman Catholic, marrying someone else Catholic as approved by their family, or Jewish or Muslim?

How do we make the definitions here?

How do you determine that someone raising in the Temple of the Great Potato all their lives, preparing to marry 12 other people of the Temple of the Great Potato, isn't entirely sane and happy and entitled to marry in that fashion?

is this a serious question? You can't tell the difference between Catholic (is there a Catholic besides Roman-real question) and a pedo cult in the sticks somewhere?

Well, I wouldn't quite say there hasn't been a pedo aspect to the Catholic church