GAY MARRIAGE LEGALIZED BY HEDONISTIC COASTAL STATE... Iowa?

[_JohnStuartMill]

I imagine that that same problem of ensuring consent applies to the very first marriages in those communities. There's no inextricable link between polygamy and a lack of meaningful consent.

[_marg]

I imagine that that same problem of ensuring consent applies to the very first marriages in those communities. There's no inextricable link between polygamy and a lack of meaningful consent.

I disagree. First of all I see no advantage to any female entering into a polygamous relationship. I doubt very much her emotional needs could possibly be met. I'm not saying that in all marriages emotional needs are met, however it would be pretty much a given that if one is sharing resources of time and energy of one's spouse with other spouses, emotional needs will likely be compromised. In addition if one is raised from a young age and groomed for polygamy, it would be difficult to counter that indoctrination. We see that with religious indoctrination, in which individuals appear to have great difficulty evaluating religious beliefs critically.

[_JohnStuartMill]

You're still talking about one particular kind of polygamy to the exclusion of all others. It's not inconceivable to think that two men and a woman, or two women and a man, would consent to entering into a relationship together.

I will say, though, that I'm extremely queasy about the polygamy practiced by FLDS groups and by the 19th century saints, for the same reasons you've mentioned.

[_marg]

You're still talking about one particular kind of polygamy to the exclusion of all others. It's not inconceivable to think that two men and a woman, or two women and a man, would consent to entering into a relationship together.

I mentioned polyandry above, however while possible they are less likely that polygamy, because biologically men are polygamous by nature and women monogamous, and men in general have more power economically and physically. As far as 2 women and one man..sure less resources would be shared than with relationships involving many more women than two and one man, but if a restricted type of polygamy is recognized legally, it's a slippery slope to recognizing any number of spouses legally.

As I pointed out in a previous post we currently in Canada have a situation in which it looks likely that now that same sex marriages have been recognized legally, polygamy will be as well, as it's being brought before the courts and will likely succeed for the same reason SSM's did.

[_JAK]

[

Hence, the issue is freedom to exercise choices under the law. Absent marriage, many homosexual couples have chosen co-habitation without the benefit of law and the right to speak for a partner. With legalization of same-sex marriage, these couples will have the same rights under the law as opposite-sex couples.

If the issue boils down to legal rights of people in partnerships, then it would seem polygamous marriages and even polyandry ones should as well be legal based on that criteria. I'd be interested to hear from you as well as JohnStuartMill, what your positions are regarding legalizing polygamous marriages.

marg,

Generally, those who favored same-sex marriage are in support of what present laws guarantee when two individuals are legally joined. Polygamy which could involve multiple wives (or husbands – polyandry) would generate a complexity for law that it would have great difficulty codifying. Right of survivorship, right to make health-care decisions, right to have custody of children (whether adopted or biological for one of two people in a marriage) would take on great complexity and generate a host of legal issues. If only two people are in a marriage, the laws presently would remain essentially the same regardless of gender.

That would not be the case if the law had to address multiple wives (or husbands). In addition, there would be the compliance of states (in the USA). That is, a marriage today in one state is honored in other states. There was a time when interracial marriage was prohibited by some states and not others. That created problems, and only two people were involved in the interracial marriage.

The “criteria” is more complex than my short comment here details. Given the present interest in same-sex unions in the US, I don’t think there are many (percentage) who are advocates for multiple marriage partners simultaneously. It seems unlikely that state governments or the federal government would embrace the legal quagmire that would undoubtedly be generated by that proposition.

While polygamy/polyandry might seem a small further step, it would not be small. It would carry with it enormous legal complications beyond that for two people in a legal union (marriage). It’s probably not necessary to extend that in discussion.

JAK

[_JohnStuartMill]

I don't have a problem with that, marg.

[_JAK]

You're still talking about one particular kind of polygamy to the exclusion of all others. It's not inconceivable to think that two men and a woman, or two women and a man, would consent to entering into a relationship together.

I mentioned polyandry above, however while possible they are less likely that polygamy, because biologically men are polygamous by nature and women monogamous, and men in general have more power economically and physically. As far as 2 women and one man..sure less resources would be shared than with relationships involving many more women than two and one man, but if a restricted type of polygamy is recognized legally, it's a slippery slope to recognizing any number of spouses legally.

As I pointed out in a previous post we currently in Canada have a situation in which it looks likely that now that same sex marriages have been recognized legally, polygamy will be as well, as it's being brought before the courts and will likely succeed for the same reason SSM's did.

marg,

To what extend (in numbers) is polygamy/polyandry being “brought before the courts” in Canada?

How do you perceive the present courts in Canada are addressing this?

More specifically, how universally do you see the courts across the entire Canadian geography addressing this?

JAK

[_marg]

JAK, rather than address your questions myself I think this link gives a good overview http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/polygamy/

Recent events: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/01/07/bc-blackmore-polygamy-charges.html

http://www.dose.ca/news/story.html?id=1423623

[_Calculus Crusader]

Second, this is from deep in the heartland of the US where a conservative, Republican governor appointed the judge who made the ruling.

Being appointed by a conservative executive does not a conservative justice make.

[_asbestosman]

Polygamy which could involve multiple wives (or husbands – polyandry) would generate a complexity for law that it would have great difficulty codifying. Right of survivorship, right to make health-care decisions, right to have custody of children (whether adopted or biological for one of two people in a marriage) would take on great complexity and generate a host of legal issues.

No it wouldn't. The courts are able to deal with the current complexities intruduced due to divorce, remarriage, fornication, and all the other things adluts do to screw up family life. Polygamy wouldn't significantly change that.