Now that same-sex marriage is legal in many states and the courts seem steeled against any possibility that it will not overtake the entire nation, if polygamy is also permitted, one result is the undeniable possibility of a man marrying two men. Also possible is a woman marrying two women. But the potential number of participating “spouses” in these new “marriages” does not end there. Eliminating gender considerations would allow any group of men and women to marry each other in any number of complex networks. The unavoidable result is “omnigamy,” or “group marriage,” where everyone is married to everyone, or at least some of the people in the network.
1) After gay marriage becomes the law of the entire land, it is going to take an extended period of time, regardless of the genders of those involved, to work through the inherent legal consequences and practical problems in marital, or marital-type, relationships which involve more than two people.
2) There probably will never be "group" marriage. (Actually, and for all kinds of real world reasons, there probably would never be any demand for "group" marriage.)
Instead, there will likely be one-on-one marriages---with some, most, or all of the members of any involved family, or involved relationship, married---as each individual desires and accepts---one-on-one with each other (within which family, or multi-person relationship, any specific person could be married to more than one spouse).
The exception to this would be if a corporation form of marriage were adopted, where "marital partners" would---individually and collectively---enter into a state-approved legal corporate structure which encompassed the more-than-two-person family/relationship...and the state corporate structure involved would be federally recognized.
Polyamorous people, involved in poly families, have been thinking, writing, and talking very seriously about this for almost a half-century now, and poly people are extremely well aware of the real life difficulties involved.
I think it will eventually happen, but it is going to take that extended period of time to work everything out so that it is fair and just for everyone (including society at large).
The historical background is that, at least since the 1960s, poly relationships and families (where there are more than two adults involved in long-term, committed, marital-type relationships with each other) have, in real life, followed the model established through the decades by gay partners (who obviously, until very recently, were not allowed to marry).
This means: Powers of Attorney, naming each other as beneficiaries, buying real property together with the names of both partners on the title, naming each other as the "responsible person" in case of emergency, etc.
It is often a clunky process, but it more-or-less works...at least, most of the time. It works better in states like California, and obviously, it works a whole lot less well in places like Arkansas.
It does not cover many real life situations however (especially so in the less progressive states), and sometimes it can be ineffective if a given person's birth family objects to that person's adult, legally documented, wishes.
One poweful piece of evidence against the inevitability of "omnigamy" where everyone is married to everyone that Brian Hale's predicts if both gay marriage and polygamy is legal is that we don't see that relationship pattern among people now. People are currently free to form any number of relationship patterns they would like to this very minute. The lack of legal recognition of gay marriages didn't stop gay people from being in relationships. It may have affected the long-term stability of a portion of gay relationships, but it didn't simply eradicate their existence. Likewise, polygamy exists right now. Yet everyone isn't connected in an endless web of relationships to everyone else. Sure, love triangles exist, but not to the extent that you can connect the whole of society through a chain of active relationships. Polyamory, especially involving multiple members of both genders, is actually quite rare. That's simply because most people don't desire that kind of relationship. The norm is serial monogamy with occasional infidelity or permitted flings on the side. Polygamy tends to naturally arise in extremely patriarchal cultures with large power imbalances. The legalization of polygamy and same-sex marriage probably would lead to fringe pockets of bisexual group marriages, but it's hard to see that spreading to the complete breakdown of recognizable marriage boundaries.
Brian Hales is right to point out that people will not be allowed to marry dogs for legal reasons. That legal reason is that dogs can't consent to legal relationships. They can't marry for the same reason they can't get a credit card. That's a very good reason all by itself to rebut gay-marriage opponents who say, "If men are allowed to marry men, then what's to stop them from marrying dogs or their couch!?"
But there's another reason that this is a bizarre argument, one that makes it seem very silly in the eyes of so many people who hear it. Most people don't want to marry a dog. What's stopping them from doing so is not the legal barrier, but the fact that very, very few people would have any interest in marrying a dog, much less a couch. When you hear a gay-marriage opponent cite this hysterical slippery slope argument, you can't help but think, "What? Do you want to marry your dog? Is the only thing stopping you the law?" The vast majority of people aren't romantically oriented that way. Similarly, it's hard to see a scenario where huge %'s of the population are interested in being married to other people who are married to other people who are married to other people...
1) After gay marriage becomes the law of the entire land, it is going to take an extended period of time, regardless of the genders of those involved, to work through the inherent legal consequences and practical problems in marital, or marital-type, relationships which involve more than two people.
2) There probably will never be "group" marriage. (Actually, and for all kinds of real world reasons, there probably would never be any demand for "group" marriage.)
Instead, there will likely be one-on-one marriages---with some, most, or all of the members of any involved family, or involved relationship, married---as each individual desires and accepts---one-on-one with each other (within which family, or multi-person relationship, any specific person could be married to more than one spouse).
The exception to this would be if a corporation form of marriage were adopted, where "marital partners" would---individually and collectively---enter into a state-approved legal corporate structure which encompassed the more-than-two-person family/relationship...and the state corporate structure involved would be federally recognized.
Polyamorous people, involved in poly families, have been thinking, writing, and talking very seriously about this for almost a half-century now, and poly people are extremely well aware of the real life difficulties involved.
I think it will eventually happen, but it is going to take that extended period of time to work everything out so that it is fair and just for everyone (including society at large).
+1
At some point people need to step back and realize marriage is as much a contract as it is about love. At the point all of the OP's arrows start going off in a million directions, one only need to look at the Poly community to realize that relationships of trust and commitment beyond single pairings still differ and are much more limited than the communal free-love United Order the OP's source seems to fear. I'm sure we will always have our Oneida Communities and other communes that make a go at that kind of utopian messiness. I suspect these will also be self-defeating as legal contracted relationships because of the natural issues that arise in those situations.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
Geez Sammy that link led to some cray cray. With maybe an extra cray thrown in, too.
Others have pointed out the lapses in logic, but I also wanted to mention the cruelty in such "haha" trivializations as Hales trades in there.
Not to mention the breathtaking denial of history that provides the frame of intelligibility for such views. That's as disturbing as the utter meanness of the rhetoric.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
While it sounds unbelievable, legalized polygamy and same-sex marriage would allow a person to be married to a limitless number of spouses. Perhaps legislators and judges would seek to place limits, but what would they be? No more than ten spouses in a network? Twenty? Fifty? Perhaps even “marriage clubs” could be formed.
I love that to drive home his point home he throws out these numbers as if they were extreme examples. While obviously he knows that Joseph married 30+ and Brigham married 50+ Wives.
While it sounds unbelievable, legalized polygamy and same-sex marriage would allow a person to be married to a limitless number of spouses. Perhaps legislators and judges would seek to place limits, but what would they be? No more than ten spouses in a network? Twenty? Fifty? Perhaps even “marriage clubs” could be formed.
I love that to drive home his point home he throws out these numbers as if they were extreme examples. While obviously he knows that Joseph married 30+ and Brigham married 50+ Wives.
Well, when you put it like that, Sammy, maybe Hales has a point.
