The gay marriage decision has put us in uncharted waters with regard to polygamy

[Wella]

Legally, I don't see anything to prevent it. If marriage is a civil right, any government infringement on that right (outside of the basic notion of consent) is discriminatory. Limitations on race are long gone; limitations on gender have just gone by the board as well; limitations on number of spouses seems to be next.

Marriage was its most powerful when its purpose was for societal--not personal--fulfillment. The original purpose of marriage was to provide a place for the offspring of a sexual union to be protected, nurtured, and connected to its family and culture. It was also to secure property rights, and, in the aristocracy, rights of succession to titled positions. Marriage created social and material stability. The personal fulfillment of the spouses involved was secondary, if it was considered at all. This is why divorce was often illegal, forbidden or, at very least, frowned upon.

Marriage was not always happy for its participants--especially women--but all was done for the good of the children, the survival of the offspring.

Now, marriage is about personal fulfillment, a love relationship. This change was long in coming--it can be traced to the 19th century (and even the Enlightenment)--but the focus has steadily shifted to happiness of the marital relationship. It is this shift that also accompanied a change in legal thinking of marriage as a civil right (and not a social obligation).

Once marriage becomes about individual happiness both culturally and legally, laws can and do change since the legal theories have changed.

--If marriage is about the happiness of the people getting married, then divorce laws must be liberalized. People must be allowed to leave a marriage for both grave and trivial reasons, regardless of its effects on the children.

--If the happiness of the relationship is the focus, then the marriage becomes about the relationship itself, and there is no need to have children, since one can have a successful and happy relationship without them. Contraception has made the child-free marriage a reality.

--If marriage is about the happiness of the people involved (and not about the naturally occurring offspring and their rights and protections), then limiting marriage to heterosexuals only seems terribly cruel. If marriage is a civil right, then such a limitation is also discriminatory.

--If marriage is about the happiness of the people involved, limiting marriage to only two people also seems cruel if you have three people in love with each other. Why should they not have the protections of legal marriage that two-person marriages have?


I am of the opinion that the train has long ago left the station. No advocacy group is to blame: feminists were right that women got abused in marriages and lost autonomy (and property rights historically); gays were right that it was cruel to leave them out and deny them legal sanction for their relationships. The polygamists can also argue along the same lines and there's nothing, legally, that will stand up to it if the right arguments are made. Polygamists can argue that their civil rights to marry are being violated by restricting the number of spouses.

In the end, we are witnessing the end of marriage as a social institution with its focus on social stability. Marriage is now a legal way to protect individuals who have chosen, for reasons of love and companionship, to combine their lives and incomes, with or without children. Polygamists certainly fit this definition.

[Thinkingabout]

1. Are you speaking about women with plural marriages with men?

[Warpy]

85. Polyandry and polygamy are being done serially in the larger culture

with divorces between the different spouses, a very, very bad way to do things.

The historical problem with polygamy was that it was also done serially, the younger wife brought in and the elder wives with their children left to fend for themselves, the way a lot of much married men abandon their former families to dote on the new arm candy.

While I'm not sure about legally sanctioning polygamy right now, I'd like to see it a lot less underground than it is. I'd love to see it out in the open enough that abuses can be caught early before another Warren Jeffs builds a cult around a few old men marrying little girls. I'd like to see the kids going to real schools and the women able to access health care during and after their pregnancies without fearing consequences from the state. I'd like to see their lives more normalized if not legalized, paranoid and closed polygamous communities a thing of the past.

It will take a while to transition to any sort of legality. Removing all the old 30s-60s era marriage "protections" from Social Security, disability and the tax code would help, treating all citizens equally regardless of sex and no longer costing people benefits if they marry.

[Thinkingabout]

96. Warren Jeffs ran a cult similar to the Branch Davidian. The cults like Jeffs controlled are nothing

But perverted old men lusting after young girls.

If polygamy was allowed then to be equal polyandry would have to be okayed. It would make more sense to have several males supporting the family rather than one man with several wives and lots of kids he can not support and they end up in the system.

[Wella]

115. Interesting perspective

And yes, with the webs of step families, we could certainly look on much of society as being a poly situation. We know that divorce is bad for kids in general (outside domestic violence situations or addiction). It makes me wonder if an open, legal poly situation would provide more stability.

[LittleBlue]

2. Agreed. Marriage should be about love, not a tool to enforce societal expectations

So few will actually choose polygamy, and polyamorous relationships are no longer illegal wrt enforcement. So it's quite pointless to deny them polygamous marriage based on ancient Roman customs.

[asturias31]

136. Er, I think you are ignoring a big chunk of America.

I know Muslim women who have been forced to accept their husband's polygamy. I say "forced", because Muslim laws and traditions often leave the women with little choice but to submit to a situation they find hateful and which cuts their financial security as well.

You imagine legal polygamy would be a consensual and egalitarian arrangement among people (you are probably imagining liberal non-religious people) who choose it happily and freely and can leave it at any time. In fact that is not how it works in reality.

If it is legalized, more Muslim men will do it and more Muslim women will be abused by it. Most will hate it but numbly submit and pray for patience and acceptance and so on, because Allah said it is a man's right and there's nothing they can do about it.

I imagine thAt the fundamentalist Christian sects which stress female obedience will also see this kind of exploitation. The husband says "Honey, I love you but I have needs. And God calls the wife to obey and follow the husband, so I need you to remember that. See, I found a wonderful young lady - the assistant pastor's daughter - who will be a fine wife to me and a friend to you and a help to the children... Well, you're crying now but it will all work out just fine - I've been praying about it and I know I'm right..."

[TampaAnimusVortex]

294. Don't care. All voluntary interactions should be free.

Who is anyone to tell 3 people they can't be married. Bunch of crazy authoritarians.

[KittyWampus]

212. why should marriage be about "love"? People marry for all kinds of reasons.

Marriage should be about commitment.

[LittleBlue]

227. We have an astronomical divorce rate, people running around on their 3rd and 4th marriages

The claim about commitment is no longer credible. Marriage is a commitment that people take seriously until they don't. Not much of a commitment.

[KittyWampus]

245. actually, the claim about love is no longer credible. You think people who get divorced didn't love

each other?

No, it's about commitment.

[LittleBlue]

256. Your argument makes no sense. Why would divorce invalidate their love?

Anyone can fall out of love with their spouse, whether from betrayal or really anything.

Divorce makes a mockery of the notion that marriage is a commitment until death do we part. It isn't and hasn't been for a long time.

[mythology]

3. Except we have seen what happens in polygamous cultures

It's not good on several levels, increased crime, decreased welfare for children and the women in those relationships.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/polygamy-not-next-gay-marriage-119614.html#.VZh12kZLD7A

Polygamy really isn't the same as two individuals getting married.

[Ex Lurker]

8. That's when polygamy is the norm

When it's a tiny minority, I doubt it will have any effect at all. Now, if polygamy becomes popular for some reason, all bets are off. I don't expect that will occur, but who knows. We are going down this road, and there's really no way to stop it now. We'll just have to figure it out as we go along.

[gollygee]

9. Wrong

It happens and hurts women and children in some areas of the U.S. too.

It is not inevitable. In fact this whole thing is a joke. We don't live in a libertarian county. Most people in the U.S. are not libertarians. We can have laws for the greater good, and keeping something that hurts women and kids illegal is a good thing.

[Ex Lurker]

11. The anti gay marriage side argues that it hurts society

and will cite reasons why. You and I may consider those arguments specious, but there's no difference in arguing against polygamy on the basis of societal harm. The polygamist communities you refer to are rural, isolated, and very insular. I just don't see that a major metropolitan area where people's rights are protected to enter and leave relationships as they see fit, will experience those problems, unless the polygamist population rises above some very small level of the population-say, 2-3%

Let me hasten to add that I don't think polygamy is ideal, and it's not a lifestyle I'd be interested in. But the gate has been opened, and I don't see how it's going to be shut again. If it does turn out that legal polygamy results in societal harm, we'll have to figure out how to deal with it. But I don't think you'll be able to stop people achieving the legal right to practice it.

[gollygee]

12. Specific people are tangibly hurt by polygamy

In every place where it is practiced. That is not the same as their arguments about why they think society is abstractly and theoretically hurt by same sex marriage.

Also, it's complete bullshit to say that if you change the legal definition of marriage in one way, that anything has to go. That's just not true.

[Igel]

126. Specific people are tangibly hurt by monogamy

In every place it is practiced.

It used to be oppression, women as people, patriarchy, yada-yada, etc., etc. Some still think of it that way.

What's at stake people used to be able to say, "I have something you don't have. We can marry. You can't marry, LGBT people, because we're special and don't wanna share."

Now what's at stake is people saying, "I have something you don't have. We can marry. You cna't marry, people who want multiple spouses simultaneously, because we're special and don't wanna share."

In other words, we used to say, "Marriage is between a man and a woman." Change it one way, and you get "Marriage is between two people." Change it another way, "Marriage is between a man and women." Change it a third way and you get, "Marriage is between men and a woman." Once you've changed it, the "sanctity" of the definition, the tradition, the agreed upon meaning is broken and the word's meaning is in flux.

[gollygee]

189. Every place where polygamy is practiced, it is overwhelmingly hurtful

And you can't say that about monogamy. You're trying to make an invalid comparison. Monogamous marriage protects women and children and polygamy hurts them.

The rest of your post is libertarian garbage.

[Wella]

283. Do you understand how polyamory is practiced in the US and that this would be

the basis of poly marriage in the US, not the Muslim or Mormon model?

[gollygee]

290. You don't know that

That is yet more speculation, which seems to be your thing.

The best indicator of how it would work is how it has worked. Do you think Mormon or Muslim communities wouldn't take part in polygamous marriages in the U.S.?

[Wella]

292. I do know that the alternative model will be what appears in the media

And that the psychiatric community will be trained with this model. That's already happening with poly friendly therapists:

http://www.polychromatic.com/pfp/main.php

[gollygee]

293. It would be used mostly to enslave women, just like it's used everyplace it exists.

Would there be a few people who didn't use it to enslave women? Sure, but overall it would be more of the same, which is obvious enough for the SCOTUS to see through this bullshit and rule against it.

[Wella]

295. How do you know that?

I'm serious. Why would you assume that, in a society where women have political rights (unlike Saudi Arabia for example) that the legalization (and state control) of polymarriage would result in the enslavement of women?

[Agnosticsherbet]

4. Poygamy has tended to mean male dominated societies where women are property

and the men with the most money and power get the most women.

[Igel]

127. Monogamy has tended to mean male dominated societies where women are property

and the men with the most money and power get the most desirable women ... one as wife, the other as lovers.

[Agnosticsherbet]

234. So why let men keep a harem?

I think a better system would be a comunal marriage, with multiple wives and multiple husbands, group.marriage.

We still have a system where women are bot treated equally in marriage. Once we solve the equality problem, therd should be no barriers.

[closeupready]

5. Discrimination against gay people is wrong; THAT

is what same-sex marriage was most about for me personally.

So if you want to push for polygamy, it's a free country, but I won't be joining you in advocating for an issue which mostly would appeal to Mormons, who clearly on an institutional level, hate gay people.

Good luck.

[Wella]

159. Actually, the polyamorous trio I knew were three gay women

And they were definitely not Mormon.

[elleng]

6. What about this decision suggests marriage between more than 2 persons must be required by a State?

Here is the decision, beginning with an official summary:

Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage
between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage
between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully
licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp. 3–28.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

[Wella]

14. Sotomayor suggested it that polygamy could be a result during the Prop 8 hearings.

And just change "two" to "two or more".

Sotomayor interrupted the presentation of anti-Prop 8 litigator Theodore Olson to pose the following question: If marriage is a fundamental right in the way proponents of same-sex marriage contend, “what state restrictions could ever exist,” for example, “with respect to the number of people . . . that could get married?”

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/26/17474652-13-key-moments-in-the-supreme-court-argument-over-gay-marriage?lite

[elleng]

20. Not in THIS decision, right?

And possibly she was suggesting an outlandish hypothetical? Of NO relevance to this decision AT ALL.

[Wella]

24. The issue remains the same. Sotomayor basically said if marriage is a fundamental right...

what state limitation is allowable at all. The theory of marriage as a fundamental right has not changed since the Prop 8 decision. It utterly underpins the current decision. Sotomayor can ask the same question today as she did during the Prop 8 hearing.

[geek tragedy]

125. No, she gave Olson a softball question that he CRUSHED

Olson: "Well, you've said -- you've said in the cases decided by this Court that the polygamy issue, multiple marriages raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, it is an entirely different thing. And if you -- if a State prohibits polygamy, it's prohibiting conduct. If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status."

That right there is why the comparisons are less than worthless.

[Wella]

128. He didn't crush it, and the question remains open.

Every single aspect of his answer can be challenged.

"if a State prohibits polygamy, it's prohibiting conduct. If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status."

Actually, the argument against gay marriage--and against homosexual relationships in general (ie sodomy laws)--was seen as prohibiting conduct until very recently. Polygamists will argue that point. They will also argue that it was discriminatory to gays in its day and is now discriminatory against the polyamorous.

The assumption underlying your response to me is that polygamists will never be a group with "status" who have civil rights. I disagree.

A polygamist could argue that there is far more scientific evidence that humans are attracted to multiple partners than that they are born gay, and he would be correct. There is evidence throughout nature that humans and other animals are rarely monogamous. Monogamy is a limitation on sexual conduct, not necessarily its natural state. Otherwise, adultery wouldn't exist.

Proof of the hard-wiring of homosexuality, however, is not nearly as well supported in the sciences. While there have been some suggestive pilot studies, there really isn't proof of a gay gene. And, in reality, that proof was not really needed. "Born gay" was accepted without the science being present, probably because, at a deep level, heterosexuals understood that their own sexuality was hard-wired and that they couldn't choose same sex attraction if they wanted to.

But the poly-activist can go to court and say, "I am naturally polygamous/polyandrous" (and trust me, women will play a big role in this to allay the fears of women that they'll all end up in Saudi-style lives). The poly-activist will then say "Look at all this science. We are hard-wired to be polyamorous. We cannot control our attractions. It's not a choice. " There will be some who claim to be exclusively polyamorous: those arguments are out there, by the way.

I think it will actually take less work for the polygamous/polyandrous to make their case than it did for the GLBT community. They are, afterall, riding on the coattails of the work done by that community.

I give it 20 years.

[gollygee]

7. These two issues are not equivalent.

One does not harm society, and one harms society in every place where it is practiced. There is good reason for the government to ban polygamy. Just look at how women are treated in countries where it is legal to see that reason.

[Wella]

25. Legally, the two issues may both revolve around civil rights and discrimination

Whether you have a positive view of one or the other is immaterial.

[pnwmom]

139. No one is being discriminated against by the government's sanction of 2-person marriages.

Any single adult (no matter what race, creed, gender, or orientation) can freely enter into a legal marriage, no matter what other relationships that person may have. S/he will only have the protections/responsibilities of legal, state-recognized marriage in one of his or her relationships, however.

[Wella]

141. Says you!

People on poly relationships may beg to disagree.

Telling the polyamorous that, hey, they can just marry one of the spouses legally (and not the others) is like saying to a gay man previous to SCOTUS, "Hey, you have an equal right to get married. Just marry a girl."

I can't believe I am hearing what sound like RW talking points as soon as we get into a discussion of poly relationships. It's like everyone leaves their tolerance bag outside and comes in like it's 1954.

[pnwmom]

144. And the vast majority of other Americans. I'm not saying the law could never change, no matter what.

But the law would have to change to allow for polygamy, and I don't see it happening in the foreseeable future, and certainly not as a logical consequence of same-sex marriage.

This is not the same situation as a gay man being told he can only marry a woman.

This is the same as a gay man being told he can legally only marry 1 other gay man -- not several.

[Wella]

147. The vast majority of Americans were opposed to gay marriage too, until recently

When I was a kid, gay marriage (if it was ever discussed) was about as crazy an idea as an invasion from Mars.
Now, it's law of the land.

Polygamy will have its day in court.

And yes, telling a polyamorous group that they cannot marry each other and that they should just marry one person IS the equivalent of telling a gay man (before June 26) that he has the right to marry, he should just marry a woman.

[pnwmom]

149. No, it's the same as telling a gay man he can only legally marry 1 gay man, not several.

But he is free to have as many non-legally-recognized marriage relationships as he chooses.

[Wella]

152. No, you're telling someone who deeply loves two people and wants legal recognition

that he or she should just follow existing law and that they should be content with this.

That's what the RW told gays (up until last week): you have the right to marry under existing law. You don't need the special right of marrying someone of the same sex.

[pnwmom]

154. By your argument, a person who deeply loves 100 people should be able to

have that relationship legally defined as a marriage.

Slippery slope, there you go.

[Wella]

156. That is a problem, yes

Because there would then be no logical limit.

By the way, you know the guy from Sister Wives has applied for a marriage license. It's too early in my opinion--the ground has not been properly laid, and I don't think it will go anywhere. But I wonder if the poly movement is getting ready to move.

[JoePhilly]

10. You should start holding plural parades I guess.

That, and get your plural friends to come out as it were.

When will the parades start??

[elehhhhna]

18. ding ding Joe wins the thread!

[Wella]

26. I imagine there will be events if the idea really takes hold

A float for polygamous Irish will be demanded in the NY St. Patrick's Day parade.

[JoePhilly]

222. I'll take my 4 wives!!!!

[smirkymonkey]

31. +1000

[Skittles]

133. STOP IT JOEPHILLY

[Zenlitened]

13. You are incorrect in suggesting marriage's societal purpose has been diminished.

Yes, Justice Kennedy spoke at length about the personally fulfilling aspects of marriage. And rightly so.

But he also specifically addressed its societal purpose and benefit. Both of which are enhanced by acknowledging gay and lesbian couples' right to legally wed.

From pages 16 and 17 of Kennedy's opinion:

... (J)ust as a couple vows to support each other, so does society pledge to support the couple, offering symbolic recognition and material benefits to protect and nourish the union...

(The States) ... have throughout our history made marriage the basis for an expanding list of governmental rights, bene- fits, and responsibilities. These aspects of marital status include: taxation; inheritance and property rights; rules of intestate succession; spousal privilege in the law of evi- dence; hospital access; medical decisionmaking authority; adoption rights; the rights and benefits of survivors; birth and death certificates; professional ethics rules; campaign finance restrictions; workers’ compensation benefits; health insurance; and child custody, support, and visita- tion rules...

...Valid marriage under state law is also a significant status for over a thousand provisions of federal law... The States have contributed to the fundamental character of the marriage right by placing that institution at the center of so many facets of the legal and social order...

By all means, let's have the conversation about plural marriage. But let's do so honestly, without suggesting the institution has now been diminished somehow.

The exact opposite is true: The institution of marriage is only strengthened, our society is only strengthened, when we affirm gay and lesbian couples' right to legally wed.

[Wella]

15. Benefits to the individual have caused a change in marriage's social purpose.

When you redefine what the social purpose is of marriage, you can argue that marriage continues to serve a social purpose--it just has a new definition.

[Zenlitened]

16. The social purpose of marriage has NOT been redefined. It has been reaffirmed.

It is disingenuous and deceitful to suggest otherwise when discussing this ruling. Flat-out wrong.

[Wella]

17. It is disingenous and deceitful to use the same language for different things

It has been redefined.

[guillaumeb]

27. Your response was alerted on. See below. I was number 7

On Sat Jul 4, 2015, 08:19 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

It is disingenous and deceitful to use the same language for different things
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6940443

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This poseur is fooling no one with its "clever" b. s. Not a hide but watch this one.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Jul 4, 2015, 08:29 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: "Not a hide but watch"? Why drag me to a jury to tell me to "watch" (whatever that means) someone you don't like?
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: "Not a hide but watch this one." OK I won't hide but I'll watch.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: it is all how you understand definitions, I can be a stickler about definitions some times, it is a personality thing; some are, some are not.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: What could possibly be offensive about a non-personal remark like this?

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.


I cannot see how using the previous person's own words as a response can be offensive. If the previous post was not offensive how can yours be? A silly waste of DU jury time

[Wella]

32. What is the purpose of alerting on my post? Just because I disagree with you that the social

purpose of marriage has changed? It HAS!

Trying to get rid of people who disagree with you means you will never be exposed to anything different. Is your desire for intellectual growth that small?

[guillaumeb]

36. I served on the jury. I did not alert on you.

My comment was on the bottom of the alert that I sent you. So you have the wrong target.

THIS was MY comment:

I cannot see how using the previous person's own words as a response can be offensive. If the previous post was not offensive how can yours be? A silly waste of DU jury time

[Wella]

40. Please accept my apology. I confused your comments with others.

I appreciate the logic of your response.

[guillaumeb]

44. Accepted, of course. I agree with your original post. Well said. eom

[Wella]

48. Thank you.

.

[joeybee12]

232. Another silly waste of time...

Seeing your posts...ignore

[guillaumeb]

268. a well reasoned and thoughtful criticism, to be sure.

[Zenlitened]

55. Sorry, that is just plain wrong.

"Redefining marriage" is the rhetoric of the rightwing. I don't think using it to discuss this ruling — or imagined implications for plural marriage — is at all productive. Let alone factual.

[Wella]

121. I didn't say "marriage" was redefined. I said that society has redefined the purpose of marriage

And yes, its purpose has greatly changed. To argue that it hasn't is to either be deceptive or to have been under a rock for the past 100 years.

[DebJ]

220. Odd. I don't see any 'redefinition'. To me marriage has always been about

two people's love and commitment to each other, period...in this country, anyway.

[Wella]

254. I'm not talking about your personal subjective view--there are 7 billion of those, quite literally

I am talking about the general trend in Western society. Marriage was, at its root, about biological children. If sex did not produce children, there would be no need for marriage in Western history. Increasingly, however, marriage is about the relationship between the two people and state acknowledgment of that relationship. The next logical step is to recognize a variety of relationships between people and give them state sanction. If I am a single woman in a poly relationship, why shouldn't I get the tax breaks that my partners do by being officially married?

[DebJ]

267. Then why have there always been marriages of older people that would not produce children?

[Wella]

278. They were always the exception and not the rule

Most, if not all, had also produced children previously.

[DebJ]

297. You didn't answer my question. If the purpose of marriage is solely to procreate and

raise children, then senior citizens and those who are sterile for any reason should not be allowed to marry.

[Zenlitened]

230. You need to get your argument straight. So to speak.

In your OP you argue that the supreme court ruling has now changed what marriage is and is for. That is demonstrably false, as I've pointed out to you already.

Now here you refer to the past 100 years of evolving understanding of the institution. This is a rhetorical tactic known as "moving the goalposts," and employing it does not bolster your case at all. Quite the opposite.

[smirkymonkey]

28. +1000

I have just about had it with these idiots.

[Jamastiene]

118. Me too.

I'm sick of them pushing RW talking points against gay marriage even now. We can try to be gracious winners, but that doesn't stop them from being sore losers.

[Wella]

129. If you actually read some of my posts through this thread, you'd see that you're wrong

I'm interested in exploring the idea. Read my posts instead of attacking.

[JTFrog]

248. That would be a waste of time.

There is enough sunshine in here for folks to have seen enough.

[6chars]

151. legal complications

"The States) ... have throughout our history made marriage the basis for an expanding list of governmental rights, bene- fits, and responsibilities. These aspects of marital status include: taxation; inheritance and property rights; rules of intestate succession; spousal privilege in the law of evi- dence; hospital access; medical decisionmaking authority; adoption rights; the rights and benefits of survivors; birth and death certificates; professional ethics rules; campaign finance restrictions; workers’ compensation benefits; health insurance; and child custody, support, and visita- tion rules...Valid marriage under state law is also a significant status for over a thousand provisions of federal law"

All the above do seem to make it more poly complicated than simply allowing same sex couples to marry and use the laws exactly as written for different sex couples. For example, if one member of a poly family is incapacitated and the others disagree about the medical decision, there would not be a single next of kin. If one member dies intestate, is the estate divided equally among all the other partners - what about the house? Situations might arise where the simple allocation of rights to the single next of kin become more like allocation of rights to surviving children after the death of the second parent. Divorces would involve more complicated terms too if there is disagreement among the partners. How would social security spousal benefits be calculated - based on whose income and split among whom? How would the law interpret the way these and other funded benefits should be allocated without systematically advantaging or disadvantaging poly families over couples?

In this sense, a partnership between more than two people is enough different than one between two people only that it would really work better with different legal language. This is a separate question from whether poly families are respected and valued (but not a separate question from whether they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, as they say). The latter involves working with people throughout society and is not something that can be solved in the courts.

Perhaps poly families could be legitimized under the law, with strong protections against discrimination, rights and benefits defined in a manner analogous to those of couples and family households, but with some thought rather than a simple search and replace. There are surely models out there to draw on. These models could also apply to other kinds of households, e.g., blended families, other voluntary family units that are not assuming a basis of sexual attraction, co-op living, etc. Possibly there would be more than one kind of legally defined family. There might well be a slightly different constitutional argument (one that could piggy back on Obergfell without relying 100% on it) for why such arrangements must be permitted that might stand up better before SCOTUS.

[Zenlitened]

228. I agree, plural marriage seems more complicated in terms of new laws.

Marriage for gay and lesbian couples was about clarifying existing law. Plural marriage would seem to require some thoughtful additions, just as you pointed out.

I don't know what laws for plural marriage would look like, exactly. The poly community definitely has work to do, to make that conversation happen.

And I think it's a worthy discussion to have -- when it's led by the poly community. At the moment, it seems largely fueled by rightwing talking heads who don't actually give a damn about poly people, just using them to spit poison at gays and lesbians celebrating a victory decades in the making.

[romanic]

19. Give it up.

Stop with this slippery slope bullshit. Some pervert wanting six wives doesn't = two gay men or two gay women wanting to get married. It's not about love in this case, it's about undercover repukes (and dare I say - liberals wanting to sabotage gay marriage) trying to undermind gay marriage in the first place. Sell it someone else cause I ain't buying.

[smirkymonkey]

30. K&R

God, I am so sick of this crap I could scream.

[Wella]

34. There are people in plural relationships on this board. Are they all "perverts"?

And is that word still ok as long as it's directed at sexual/marital practices you don't like?

[romanic]

109. I'll use whatever word I want to use.

And if the mythical polygamists on this board don't like, oh fucking well, I don't give a stinky shit.

[Wella]

112. I've known at least one poly situation and they were not perverts

That's all I have to say on that.

[Mojorabbit]

123. I have several friends in poly relationships which are long term

and stable. I don't get the hostility on this board. Yes there have been cults and abuses (which you will find in any subset of anything)...but there really are a lot of people out there in healthy stable poly relationships.

[Wella]

130. I think you have to know people to understand the poly thing

Otherwise, all you see is the media and the weird cults they pull out of desert cabins.

[laundry_queen]

236. I think some people on this board need to get out more

because I'm far from a super social person and I know several people in poly relationships - and not one of them is one man with many many women. There are 1 woman with 2 men (the woman has had children with both men), 1 man with 2 women (the women are bi and initiated the relationship), 4 people with 2 each (2 married couples that wanted to be poly) and so on . I don't get the hostility either.

[Wella]

242. Thank you.

I agree. I found this blog awhile ago and found it interesting:

polyamorydiaries.com

Here is what she says:

Finding compatible potential partners who are open to polyamory has been challenging and frustrating. We’ve taken turns being overcome by fear and insecurity, and have even considered abandoning the whole venture a few times along the way.

The important thing is that all members of the relationship are honest with themselves and each other about their needs and desires. Ideally, they can all help each other meet those needs or encourage each other to look outside the group to get them met.

There is no need for cheating, lying or sneaking around. No one owns anyone else. No one is responsible for anyone else’s emotions or meeting anyone else’s needs. There is no more co-dependence. There is interdependence, on a voluntary basis. Each member is an autonomous, free individual, who can come or go as she or he pleases. Our love is earned, not expected. Otherwise, we are not lovers—we are slaves.

We’re actually looking forward to the rest of our lives together now. When we were monogamous, our future seemed pretty mapped out: have a baby, get a better job, buy a house, get a promotion, buy a better car, start our own business, buy a better house, make more money, go on vacation, make more money, buy an even better house… grow old in it together.

Since we’ve discovered polyamory, we don’t care about new houses or new cars or vacations. What really makes us tick is the idea of falling in love, over and over and over again. Now, we have the best of both worlds: the security of a steady, stable partner, to have and to hold, and the sense of adventure and excitement at the thought of the unknown, the possibility of new romance around every corner, the butterflies in our stomachs we never thought we’d get the chance to feel again.

We’ve gotten a lot of warnings and admonitions from well-intentioned friends and family members that we’re going to destroy our relationship and hurt our daughter, but we feel exactly the opposite. For us, this is the perfect opportunity to save our relationship, spare our daughter from the heartbreak of a broken family, and give her the blessing of happy parents and extended family. Wish us luck!

[Democat]

206. You think it's okay to call people perverts whose lifestyle you don't like?

Do you think it's okay for people to call gays and lesbians perverts too?

Think about what you're saying and who you sound like.

[oberliner]

229. Seriously

The irony of calling people "perverts" in that context is staggering.

[xfundy]

21. This is a cancervative talking point.

"This ruling could lead to men marrying toasters!"

What bullshit.

[Wella]

41. Actually it's not: toasters do not have recognized civil rights.

Neither do dogs, for that matter.

People, however, do. And if three people have the civil right to marry, how can the government interfere with their fundamental right to marry each other if they are all consenting adults? That's the logic of it. Sonia Sotomayor even saw this during the Prop 8 hearing.

We also have a media that has been slowly preparing the ground with "Big Love" and "Sister Wives."

[Aerows]

22. When can I expect an invitation

to your polyamorous marriage?

Because not ONE person that spouts this is anywhere near in a polyamorous relationship. It's just another way to say "I want to marry my dog".

[Wella]

35. Have you ever known anyone in a polyamorous relationship?

I actually have. They were three women. It didn't last terribly long, but this was back in the late 80s when no one talked about this.

[Aerows]

42. Funny you should ask that!

Nobody talked about homosexual marriage back in the late 80's.

Many did last. Here we are.

When can I expect an invitation to the wedding of the persons that you wish to wed for life?

[Wella]

45. So your answer is no, you've never known anyone in a polyamorous relationship.

Then I wouldn't judge.

[DeadLetterOffice]

53. Please stop.

I don't want to marry my dog. I don't want my friends to marry their dogs. I just don't see why three people who want to commit to each other for life should be prevented from doing so.

Please, stop saying things about poly people when you clearly don't know wtf you're talking about. It's hurtful.

[Aerows]

59. Not worth replying to.

Just not worth it. The same faces appear anytime it seems that gay people might get some modicum of rights.

The SAME fucking people.

[DeadLetterOffice]

64. I am NOT one of those faces.

You don't know me.
You don't know my sexual identity.
You don't know my peer group.
Please don't lump me in with people who think the gender of who you love should dictate the legitimacy of that love.

[Aerows]

67. Have a great 4th of July! n/t

[DeadLetterOffice]

70. You too.

Stay away from drunks with fireworks! (my dad's advice to me as a teenager - have always found it a good rule on the 4th)

[Aerows]

79. My Dad's advice

has always been "We have enough assholes in the world, the best thing to do is stop contributing to their number."

Similar advice.

[pnwmom]

153. They are not prevented from making a personal commitment to do so. They are only prevented

from having it fall under the category of a legally-recognized marriage, with the attendant rights and responsibilities.

[Wella]

288. No. They are prevented from having their committment legally recognized.

The same as gays were until very recently.

[smirkymonkey]

217. Yes, funny how that works!

It's always the bigots going off in false support of other types of couplings to stir up the fear against marriage equality.

[LostOne4Ever]

23. Unrec nt

[MADem]

29. Yes, and in uncharted waters with regard to MAN-TURTLE MARRIAGE TOOOOOOOO~!!!!!!!!!

What an IDIOTIC RIGHT WING MEME!!!!!!

for the odd person who doesn't get the point.

[Wella]

43. Turtles do not have recognized civil rights.

Three individuals do, and one of them is the right to marry as they wish without state limitation.

[MADem]

51. You really should take your right wing tropes elsewhere--this one is painfully obvious.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

You've been told, yet you persist. Gleefully, too.

If I wanted to read this pisspoor shit, I'd go to Breitbart or World Nut Daily....

[Wella]

54. You brought up a turtle; I told you a turtle did not have civil rights.

What else do you have other than personal invective?

[MADem]

58. I consider your source(s), which are fonts of anti-Democratic invective on a routine basis. nt

[Wella]

65. What sources?

This OP is my own creation.

[MADem]

68. Yeah, out of your own clever font of ideas. Mmmm hmmm!

Never mind that Franklin Graham, Rush Limbaugh, and a few other wingnut assclowns have been beating that ugly drum since the Supreme Court got ready to rule...you thought that up All By Yourself!

Clever you!

[Wella]

75. Yes, my ideas. They are logical ones based on the legal theory of marriage as a civil right.

Everyone, right and left (and center) has to deal with the ramifications of the legal underpinnings.

[MADem]

84. Sure, whatever you say--it's just a COINCIDENCE that right wing websites say the very same thing!!!!

But the sites that are NOT right wing have, and for a long time too, said stuff like this:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2013/06/29/an-astonishingly-bad-argument-against-gay-marriage/
With all due respect to General Curry, he needs to take (or retake) an introductory course in logic. If homosexuality is a civil right, it does NOT logically follow that “polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality would one day also be declared a civil right by the Court.” This can be clearly seen by expressing the logical structure of the argument and observing that the premises do not entail the conclusion.
In fact, as it stands, he hasn’t even given an inductively strong argument, i.e., an argument in which the premises make the conclusion highly probable. At least part of the basis for legalizing homosexuality is the freedom of consenting adults to engage in sexual activity with other adults in the privacy of their own bedrooms. General Curry seems oblivious to the fact that this basis is incompatible with declaring that pedophilia is a civil right. In the General’s defense, this philosophical basis does seem to support the legalization of polygamy between consenting adults. But to try to saddle the proponent of same sex marriage with an acceptance of pedophilia is completely unjustified.
- See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2013/06/29/an-astonishingly-bad-argument-against-gay-marriage/#sthash.xpoYsraD.dpuf

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2006/03/dont_do_unto_others.html

Uh oh. Conservatives are starting to hyperventilate again. You know the symptoms: In a haystack of right-wing dominance, they find a needle of radicalism, declare it a mortal danger to civilization, and use it to rally their voters in the next election. First it was flag-burning. Then it was the "war on Christmas." Now it's polygamy. Having crushed gay marriage nationwide in 2004, they need to gin up a new threat to the family. They've found it in Big Love, the HBO series about a guy with three wives. Open the door to gay marriage, they warn, and group marriage will be next....

So go sign up for that logic course, sport!!!

[Wella]

87. The blog you quoted makes a poor (and garbled) argument.

So you bring in a poorly argued rant, add to it a piece of polemic from Slate, and suddenly you get to brand me with some Scarlett letter?

No way, kid. Go back to the drawing board. Go back to Sonia Sotomayor:

Sotomayor interrupted the presentation of anti-Prop 8 litigator Theodore Olson to pose the following question: If marriage is a fundamental right in the way proponents of same-sex marriage contend, “what state restrictions could ever exist,” for example, “with respect to the number of people . . . that could get married?”

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/26/17474652-13-key-moments-in-the-supreme-court-argument-over-gay-marriage?lite

[muriel_volestrangler]

165. 3 times you've linked to that, but it doesn't say that there; it's from a RW website

What you're quoting there is not NBC News, but a right wing Catholic writer, Carson Holloway, writing at the conservative Witherspoon Insititute, trying to make a 'slippery slope' argument:

Opponents of same-sex marriage resist it because it amounts to redefining marriage, but also because it will invite future redefinitions. If we embrace same-sex marriage, they argue, society will have surrendered any reasonable grounds on which to continue forbidding polygamy, for example.

In truth, proponents of same-sex marriage have never offered a very good response to this concern. This problem was highlighted at the Supreme Court last week in oral argument over California’s Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman.

Surprisingly, the polygamy problem that same-sex marriage presents was raised by an Obama appointee, the liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Sotomayor interrupted the presentation of anti-Prop 8 litigator Theodore Olson to pose the following question: If marriage is a fundamental right in the way proponents of same-sex marriage contend, “what state restrictions could ever exist,” for example, “with respect to the number of people . . . that could get married?”

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/04/9725/

Why are you pretending that was NBC news, and not a conservative trying an argument against same-sex marriage based on 'slippery slope' reasoning?

[Wella]

166. I have given the link and it's from NBC. I don't know why you keep trying to lie about my "sources"

And here's another one for you--from Slate:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/06/26/roberts_gay_marriage_dissent_cites_new_york_post_on_lesbian_throuple.html


In his unexpectedly fiery dissent in Friday's marriage equality decision, Chief Justice John Roberts argues that the ruling may clear the way for a constitutional right to polygamy—plural marriages recognized by the state. Roberts writes:

It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships?

[muriel_volestrangler]

176. No, it's not from NBC. You can go and read the fucking thing at both links.

Now I really am suspicious of your motives here. You're bringing in RW arguments, passing them off as reporting by NBC, and then accusing people of lying when you're found out. As others pointed out, Sotomayor gave Olsen a softball question, which he answered (pointing out Sotomayor had already given . But you only quote the edited version of the question, without the answer, which points out polygamy is conduct, not a characteristic of a person like race or sexuality.

And now you're siding with Roberts in his minority opinion. Oh, great. At least we get to see your politics. However, that was not the ruling of the Supreme Court.

[Wella]

181. The link I had was from NBC. Sotomayor's quote was all over the place:

Here is her quote at Forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2015/04/24/does-a-victory-for-gay-marriage-lead-to-polygamy-depends-on-the-reasoning/
In oral arguments two years ago over California’s ban on gay marriage, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked how the court could strike down Proposition 8 without also striking down state laws banning incest and polygamy.

“If you say that marriage is a fundamental right,” she asked attorney Theodore Olson, who was arguing against the California ban, “what state restrictions could ever exist?”

Here is the same quote at the NPR:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/03/28/175623980/in-light-of-high-court-arguments-what-does-gay-marriage-tells-us-about-polygamy

One of the more interesting exchanges to emerge from the Supreme Court hearings on gay marriage this week, wasn't about the sexes, instead it was when Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked a question about polygamy.

Sotomayor asked Ted Olson, the lawyer asking the court to repeal California's ban on gay marriage, that if he was right and "marriage is a fundamental right" could any state restrictions ever exist. In other words, does declaring gay marriage a civil right, pave the way to legalization of, say, polygamy?

Here it is at The Boston Globe:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/05/29/how-far-does-marriage-equality/YKTg62zXAuTqPS81tzY4LN/story.html

I could go on and on here, but Sotomayor's quote was in all different venues. I have read it a number of times in different venues. And yes, I first read it at NBC.

And as far as quoting Roberts, he is the Chief Justice. His opinion has weight due to his position. Since he and Sotomayor were virtually saying the same thing, it's something we have to take seriously.

And from what I can tell, being suspicious of peoples' motives is a major pasttime here at DU. You wouldn't think that I had been a lifelong Democrat who actually volunteered doing voter reg for years.

You all are so steeped in conformity that you can't look beyond your edge of the box.

[muriel_volestrangler]

203. "Sotomayor interrupted the presentation of anti-Prop 8 litigator Theodore Olson ..."

Is from the right wing site, and nowhere else (well, there's the RW sites that quote it: the National Organization for Marriage blog; Conservatrive Underground (oh, look, that's a banned DUer); Life Site News. Now, I guess one of those is where you went to get ammunition for your own 'slippery slope' argument, but you had the NBC link hanging around too, and you've failed to notice you've given us the right wing quote but attributed it to NBC.

Sotomayor was not saying we should consider polygamy; she was asking for Olsen's reasons why he thinks a slippery slope argument is invalid. Why, here's what NBC actually said:

Justice Sotomayor pushes Olson on the slippery slope argument, a favorite of conservatives.

Yeah, and it's no surprise that Roberts finds that a favorite too, seeing as he's conservative. What is a surprise is finding a DUer making it too. But we also find it's a favorite of a banned DUer, now a 'power CUer', who pulled up the 2 year-old right wing site quote this very Friday. What a coincidence, eh?

And if you are now objecting to people wonder about motives, then you shouldn't have said this in reply #141:

"I can't believe I am hearing what sound like RW talking points as soon as we get into a discussion of poly relationships. It's like everyone leaves their tolerance bag outside and comes in like it's 1954."

"You wouldn't think that I had been a lifelong Democrat who actually volunteered doing voter reg for years. "
I couldn't possibly comment.

[Wella]

205. Actually, you missed some sources of that string of words

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/04/9725/

Sotomayor interrupted the presentation of anti-Prop 8 litigator Theodore Olson to pose the following question: If marriage is a fundamental right in the way proponents of same-sex marriage contend, “what state restrictions could ever exist,” for example, “with respect to the number of people . . . that could get married?”

And it's also buried in here:

http://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/files/2012/02/gardina.pdf

I know you're desperately opposed to polygamy--you think it's bad for women--and trying to make me out as some kind of right wing bigot suits your purposes. However, polymarriage will have its day in court.

[Wella]

211. And some other sources of that string:

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/04/holloway-justice-sotomayor-and-the-path-to-polygamy-2613762.html

http://www.topix.com/forum/us/TCR09D1CUDAO9TR9S/p1153
(This one suggests that Sotomayor was playing devil's advocate. She may have been, but there's no actual indication that the question wasn't serious. And Olsen's answer was weak.)

[muriel_volestrangler]

214. So you now give the link I gave in #165; a 2012 pdf that doesn't use it; 'opinion-conservative'

on 'Before It's News' (a ridiculous website obsessed with UFOs) reprinting the NOM blog that I already pointed out (and you don't get more reactionary and right wing on this subject than NOM), and a forum post that quotes the first source I found. You know, the one you accused me of lying about, when I said it was the true source of the quote.

None of which would explain why you claimed, 3 times, that your quote came from NBC.

Yes, there's plenty of indication the question was "please give your reasoning why this does not lead to polygamy". That's what the commentators have said. Sotomayor has not said anything about rulings leading to polygamy. She joined the majority opinion in the Obergefell case, not the dissenting opinion from the conservative Roberts that you're so keen on.

[Wella]

168. And 3 times the link has been from NBC. My newest one is from Slate:

And I'll quote this 3 times too:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/06/26/roberts_gay_marriage_dissent_cites_new_york_post_on_lesbian_throuple.html


In his unexpectedly fiery dissent in Friday's marriage equality decision, Chief Justice John Roberts argues that the ruling may clear the way for a constitutional right to polygamy—plural marriages recognized by the state. Roberts writes:

It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships?

[smirkymonkey]

46. Thank YOU!

[MADem]

56. This wingnut argument does not belong at DU. It's offensive and obvious.

Here's where this kind of shit--and that's what it is--gets a rousing level of support:

The Christian Post


Rush Limbaugh at World Nut Daily

The Brietbart Cheerleaders

[smirkymonkey]

63. Figures. The trolls are outing themselves.

Thanks for the links!

[Wella]

110. Can you actually argue an issue or do you just smear people?

Find something better than that illogical blogpost and we'll talk.

[MADem]

117. I'm not smearing--I've provided facts. You're just parroting rightwing memes, and I've linked to

those memes in this thread. You're angry because I noticed--but that's your problem.

[Wella]

142. No you haven't. Not one fact, not one stitch of proof.

And you clearly haven't read anything I'm writing on this thread or you would eat your words. Rush Limbaugh would never say the things I'm saying.

What a closed minded person you are!

[MADem]

160. Well, he did say them. This isn't about closed minds--this is about your deployment

of faulty rightwing logic.

[Wella]

161. Logic is logic; it either works or it doesn't.

And it doesn't have a "wing".

You just are so married to your prejudices about certain perspectives that you can't imagine a broad exploration of an issue.

That's why you have to smear people, even when your protestations are so weak and unsupported as to be ludicrous.

[MADem]

164. This isn't about smearing people--it's about pointing out ideas that have long been discredited and

have no place on a liberal/progressive forum.

Wingnut memes are wingnut memes. You're shopping them. That is all.

“Polygamy, here we come!” Right wing melts down over gay marriage victory
You knew this was coming...

Conservative Twitter reacted swiftly with doomsdays predictions following today’s Supreme Court decision affirming marriage equality federally.

According to some right-wingers on Twitter, today’s decision marks the end of times.....

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/26/polygamy_here_we_come_right_wing_melts_down_over_gay_marriage_victory/

https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/04/01/same-sex-marriage-and-logical-fallacies/
... if same-sex fits the bill of the contract, then everything fits the bill. And at some point who’s to say that you cannot have sex with a child…some point.” – Rush Limbaugh



....“I believe in traditional marriage.” – Karl Rove
“We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit.” – Dan Cathy, CEO, Chik-Fil-A

Opposing same-sex marriage because of a belief in “traditional marriage” is engaging in the appeal to tradition. It says something must be done a certain way because it’s always been done that way. While it’s true that marriages throughout history have traditionally been one man and one woman, beneath that simple fact, there is great deal of complexity and nuance, much more than can be conveyed in a vague, historically inaccurate term.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/06/26/right-wing-media-respond-to-nationwide-marriage/204166

There IS such a thing as "right wing logic." It is, by definition, lousy logic. But hey, keep digging.

[Wella]

167. You are so hell bent on smearing me that you're missing the liberal sources with the same info:

Let's look at Chief Justice Roberts' opinion on how the recent decision can lead to polygamy:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/06/26/roberts_gay_marriage_dissent_cites_new_york_post_on_lesbian_throuple.html

In his unexpectedly fiery dissent in Friday's marriage equality decision, Chief Justice John Roberts argues that the ruling may clear the way for a constitutional right to polygamy—plural marriages recognized by the state. Roberts writes:

It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships?

[MADem]

169. You keep repeating the word "smearing" as though repetition will make your argument fly--it won't.

No one is smearing you when they tell you that you are shopping right wing themes, because that is what you are doing.

Why are you quoting the argument of a Bush nominated right wing assclown whose side LOST that decision?

Why don't you quote Scalia's fit of pique, too, while you're at it?

Obviously you didn't read the links I've offered in this thread--you and your buddy the Chief Justice would do well to give them the once over.

[Wella]

171. You're the one whose repeating the same smear over and over

Stop smearing me.

"Why are you quoting the argument of a Bush nominated right wing assclown whose side LOST that decision?"

The man happens to be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. And, as we know from the NBC link, Sonya Sotomayor said pretty much the same thing.

We have two justices who when faced with the gay marriage legal argument both acknowledged the polygamy was the natural next step.

I know you don't emotionally like this. You're trying so, so hard to make it go away that you're attacking me, my alleged sources (which are not my sources), and trying so hard to trash my credibility so you don't have to believe what is only logical considering the legal argumentation thus far.

Understand, polygamy is coming, whether you want it to or not. It might be 20 or years, but we will have it. The die has been cast and the train has left the station.

[MADem]

172. I have provided you links to prove what I've said. You reply by falsely calling my linked proof

"smears."

That tactic is obvious, but you haven't made your case. You simply keep touting right wing, discredited memes.

Then you try to tell me how I "emotionally" feel when it's obviously you who is so upset by the recent court decision that you've got to kick some dirt and scream "POLYGAMY!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!" and try to get a reaction on a liberal/progressive board.

Anyone with half an attention span can see what you're doing here--enjoy your visit.

[Wella]

174. You've "provided links" to sites I've never used nor seen. That's not proof, that's a smear tactic.

Now, in regard to your emotionalism: you need to step back and try to see the bigger picture. There are polyrelationships represented on this board. There was one person on this thread who was so upset by the anti-poly bigotry that he left the thread. If I were in a poly relationship, I wouldn't mention it here: the animosity when a poly person starts talking about legitimizing his or her relationship is just mindblowing.

You're so against the idea of legitimizing poly relationships that you will spend untold amounts of energy trying to smear me. Smear away, but eventually the polyamorous will have their day in court.

[MADem]

177. The idea--in case you're unclear--is for you to READ THEM so you can see where your rightwing

argument a) comes from and b) falls apart.

Facts aren't smears. You are repeating rightwing memes. That's a fact. You are taking the arguments of angry bigots (and my links demonstrate the provenance of these arguments you are making) who are furious at the passage of equality by the Supreme Court, and trying out a "too clever by half" meme here at DU.

I see what you're doing and I'm pointing it out. I predict it will not end well for you. But do keep digging.

[Wella]

182. The idea is for you--in case you're unclear--is to look at the logic of the argument itself

and not at illogical blog posts that argue so poorly that they are not worth the time it took to post them.

Your posts are not facts--they are smears. Period. They are meant to imply that I can't possibly think for myself and that I must be visiting all kinds of right wing websites and forcing you to read them.

Hogwash!

The idea of gay marriage being linked to polygamy was mentioned by Sotomayor and her quote was all over the media. Elsewhere in this thread, I've listed a number of sources with the same quote, including NPR.

And it really is a legitimate question, whether Sotomayor intended it that way or not and whether Olson's answer had any merit or not--I don't think it did. I thought it was a very weak answer.

I also think that polymarriage will have its day in court.

[MADem]

186. Your logic--as I and others have pointed out, is failed and poor. nt

[Wella]

188. My mother always said to consider the source.

Consider yourself considered.

[MADem]

192. Imitation IS the sincerest form of flattery--but I am most certainly not your mother. nt

[smirkymonkey]

218. Are you in a poly relationship?

You seem so passionate about them "having their day in court".

[GeorgeGist]

247. John Roberts is not a liberal ...

except to RW nutjobs.

[Wella]

250. He's the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I take him more seriously than a politician.

Those remarks will stay on the record and demonstrate another way to argue about marriage rights. They're not just blathering words of some politico trying to get your vote.

[joeybee12]

233. Actually, you are claiming things that don't exist...

The institution of marriage has not been redefined...you are parroting talking points of right-wing lunatics like Ricks Sanscotum, although I suspect that was your intention...ignore.

[Wella]

285. It has been redefined througout the 20th century. Read the OP

There have been a number of key changes that have chipped away at its definition.

[Bluenorthwest]

33. Two things, first no, it really does not. Second, where the fuck is this alleged mass of group

marriages longing for their rights? I see lots of yammer about polyamory and sexual liberation lingo but when it comes to polygamy all I actually see are old men who marry a new teen every couple of years and send the older ones off to raise kids and make money. I think it offensive as shit to push that as if it was about civil rights. It is practiced in religious communities. It's really not a movement outside of that.

Are you in such a relationship? Of course not. But here you are to yammer away. Show me this class of people. I really don't think religious men with a bunch of submissive wives is a good thing, so show me a class of people including free women, equal women. You don't even know that there is one.

I find your rant here to be homophobic crap.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. ...

[Wella]

38. Can you show me logically why it does not?

?

[Bluenorthwest]

47. It's your bogus assertion. Back it up. I'm not here to think for you, chum. First, you have to

prove to me that this class of people exists and that they themselves are longing for rights. Where are these people? You claim to speak for them? Where the fuck are they? Show me this is something other than a bullshit rhetorical device by showing me 'poly marriage movement' that is not just old religious men having a bunch of chattel wives. Where are they? Clearly it is not you. No one you know.
It's laughable.
Show your work. Show us your movement.

[Wella]

50. I did back up my assertion. You have yet to back up your objection.

Perhaps you just want to vent.

[muriel_volestrangler]

163. One is not equal to two

There is a fundamental difference in concept between one person, and a group.

Corporations are not people; they do not have civil rights.

There is a fundamental difference in concept between marrying one person, and marrying a group.

[Wella]

170. But there is not a fundamentai different in the civil right to marriage in each person

whether they're in a group of 2 or 3 or more.

From Justice Roberts' opinion:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/06/26/roberts_gay_marriage_dissent_cites_new_york_post_on_lesbian_throuple.html

In his unexpectedly fiery dissent in Friday's marriage equality decision, Chief Justice John Roberts argues that the ruling may clear the way for a constitutional right to polygamy—plural marriages recognized by the state. Roberts writes:

It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships?

[muriel_volestrangler]

180. Yes, there is a fundamental difference.

Corporations are different from people. The plural is different from the singular. The accommodations and rules that governments and businesses would have to make for marriages of unlimited size are fundamentally different from those for couples.

[Wella]

183. Legally, corporations are people.

Legally, a civil right is housed in a person. Male is different from female, but that difference no longer matters legally for the purposes of marriage.

Eventually, the number of partners won't matter either. I do believe that poly marriage will have its day in court and I think it will eventually win.

[DeadLetterOffice]

49. Please consider the idea...

... that when you see "old men who marry a new teen every couple of years and send the older ones off to raise kids and make money" you maybe, perhaps, aren't actually *looking* at the poly community, but rather at a construct inside your own head?

A long-term stable triad of 2 men and one woman is raising their 2 kids together. Why is it wrong for them to want the same recognition & benefits as any long-term stable dyad? Why is 2 the magic number? Why do so many people on this board keep equating polyamorous relationships with harem-building?

Yes, maybe the number of people who identify as poly is small. But the number of people who identify as transgendered is small too, and DU does not tolerate suggesting that they are not somehow equal human beings worthy of respect.

[Wella]

61. One could argue that in the situation you describe

that the childrens' best interest is in having all three parents recognized as a unit. California now allows three parents, so the situation you describe might actually be able to be handled without official marriage.

My experience with polyamory was three women I knew through some political work I was doing. It was the late 80s and in the circles I ran in, gay relationships were routinely discussed, but the poly relationships never talked about it. It was a very silent thing and you only knew if you found out by accident or if you were trusted enough to tell. I was in the former category and moved to the latter.

It was a shocker for me then--I was in my early 20s and quite naive in many ways. But that experience taught me that not everything fits into a tight social category.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

71. The literature suggests some people are born

The literature suggests some people are born transgendered, that their sexual identity doesn't match their genitalia.

Yes, maybe the number of people who identify as poly is small. But the number of people who identify as transgendered is small too

Do you have literature that suggest people are born polygamous?

[DeadLetterOffice]

81. I don't, actually, have any lit about it either way

And to be honest it's late, I'm exhausted and sad, and really don't have it in me to go hunting on google scholar right now to see what's out there.

Here are a couple of pieces on the idea, though, that I think are interesting (not research literature, mind you):

Poly Means Many: Is Polyamory an orientation or a choice?
https://queerdesires.wordpress.com/2012/11/04/poly-means-many-is-polyamory-an-orientation-or-a-choice/

Sex at Dawn: Are we born polyamorous?
http://simoncopland.com/2015/06/sex-at-dawn-are-we-born-polyamorous/

[Bluenorthwest]

97. That's the polygamy community as it is known in the US. Show me this polyamory, group marriage

with women in equal power movement. Let them speak for themselves. It is you who is conflating polyamory with polygamy, they are not the same thing. At all.

Trans people have been a known and politically active community in the US and the world since forever. They have managed to speak for themselves, be TV stars, film producers, business executives and the public has seen all of this for years. Where are these people 'identifying as poly'? Where are they?

It's not you. It's no one you know, but you are here pretending they are marching in the streets for rights. It's pretty nasty really.

[DeadLetterOffice]

99. It is people I know actually.

They don't tend to talk about being poly. Can't imagine why.
All of this nastiness is breaking my heart.
I'm done. Have a good night.

[MADem]

178. +1000--most notably your summation, there.

This is offensive and bigoted, this argument.

[jberryhill]

39. With all due respect

[Aerows]

52. I swear

it's anything absolutely anything to invalidate gay marriage.

I want to marry my dog.

I want to marry my toaster.

Fuck - if I wanted to devalue marriage, I wouldn't have fought that hard to get the right to marry the person I love.

Now they want to flush marriage down the toilet because Jake and Harry got married and somehow Craig and Betty are not as special as they were three days ago.

If a marriage is that on the rocks that Mary and Lucy getting married makes a straight couple discuss divorce, I hate to break it to you - you were already thinking about divorce.

[Wella]

158. Neither dogs nor toasters have a civil right to marry.

Second: the polyamorous looking to marry is NOT about you. They have their own problems.

[MADem]

62. No shit--and by their words we shall know them! nt

[Wella]

83. Your words make it very clear that you don't understand the issue

You just want to vent.

OK, vent.

[MADem]

86. I understand "the issue" quite well--and I understand where you got your "argument"--even if you

claim not to.

I've provided links. Try reading them. You're on the wrong side of the argument.

Sign up for that logic course, now!

[Wella]

88. I've read your poorly argued blog link.

It doesn't even begin to make its case.

And Slate's hyperventilation about conservatives is great click-bait.

[MADem]

179. I've offered several links in this thread, and if you read them, you'd have slinked away by now.

Keep doubling down with the bigotry, though. Let's make sure there's no doubt whatsoever.

[Wella]

184. There is no need to slink away from poor logic.

And yes, I read them.

If that's your best ammo, you're in trouble.

[MADem]

185. Obviously, you're standing by your poor logic--but you really SHOULD slink from it.

I'm not firing any "ammo." I'm giving you plain and simple facts, here.

Keep on talking, though. Let everyone see what you're on about, so there's no question.

[Wella]

187. Imitation (even poorly done) is the sincerest form of flattery

Now, maybe you can learn what a fact is.

[MADem]

190. Ah, resorting to cheap and childish insult so soon?

Now, maybe you can learn what a fact is. Schoolyard taunts say more about you than you realize.

I have my facts in order--you are the one using a rightwing meme and the words of wingnut champions to riff on a 'consequence' you believe follows from the recent SC ruling...even though one thing is not like the other, as everyone here is pointing out to you. Repeatedly.

Careful--your bias is showing!

Keep on, though, keep on--and keep using those rightwing sources to "prove" your points.

[Wella]

194. Have you learned what a fact is yet? (Not an insult: a genuine question.)

You constantly mistake facts for your own opinion.
You count your own prejudices and assumptions as "facts".

[MADem]

196. You're the only one here tossing "opinion"--and it's an ugly one you have, too.

I've been providing you with links and references; you don't like what I'm providing, so you resort to personal and childish invective.

Keep on doing it, though--I want everyone to see EXACTLY how you handle yourself, here.

[Wella]

66. Actually, this thread is much better thought out than most others

Have you ever known people in a polyamorous situation?

[jberryhill]

73. I've known all kinds of people

However, there is a much more complex legal framework that would be necessitated by recognizing plural marriage, and it is not at all analogous, similar, or relevant to the equal protection claim which has now been recognized in relation to same sex marriage.

In other words, this would not be a matter of equality, it would be a entirely different set of legal consequences, especially involving questions of child support, custody, inheritance, etc.. It neither follows from an equal protection claim nor is it even distantly related.

I would have no problem with it, but it is neither here nor there in relation to this decision.

[Wella]

78. Equal protection can be extended to plural marriage through a civil rights argument

I do not think that another legal framework would be required. Sonia Sotomayor herself made this point during the Prop 8 hearings.

Sotomayor interrupted the presentation of anti-Prop 8 litigator Theodore Olson to pose the following question: If marriage is a fundamental right in the way proponents of same-sex marriage contend, “what state restrictions could ever exist,” for example, “with respect to the number of people . . . that could get married?”

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/26/17474652-13-key-moments-in-the-supreme-court-argument-over-gay-marriage?lite

[restorefreedom]

60. isn't is the same argument used by the nra?

that the 2nd amendment means right to bear is uninfringed, and if we set any limits, we will set all limits? i don't think anyone here believes in an everything goes 2nd amendment. in fact, some here have advocated for a repeal.

it.s the same argument. the government has the right to make laws to protect the public safety and for reasonable flow of normal business functions. if plural marriage will make a mess out of property law, custody law, divorce law, etc and clog our legal system, the government can limit the number of individuals in marriage, just as it can limit based on age and family relations.

this is the right wing talking point again. we are falling right into their trap by giving it any credence. polygamy is not going to become legal.

[Wella]

69. It is the marriage equality movement that argued the civil/fundamental right aspect

and the polygamy movement (as small as it is) that will argue the same thing. If the NRA argues the same about guns, it's because the concept of a civil/fundamental right, unabridged by government, is the cornerstone of our Bill of Rights.

Your argument is that the violence and killing caused by guns (which leads to gun control legislation, i.e. abridgement of the right) is equivalent to legal and paperwork dilemmas. This is simply not true. First, many laws are already changing due to the LGBT movement. In California, a child may have 3 parents by law. This is not due to polyamorous relationships but to gay parents who biologically need a third (opposite sex) person to help them reproduce and sometimes want that person in the lives of the children. However, this law is the basis on which poly child custody and property rights may be built.

The truth is that the legal infrastructure is being built and that the poly argument is a powerful one that speaks to the heart of civil rights.

[restorefreedom]

77. i am not even remotely comparing gun carnage

to paperwork on a qualitative basis.i was just trying to make the point that the govt can limit rights....no yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc., if it is for the public good or safety. they don.t have to meet the same standards of danger. it depends on what rights we are talking about.

the us govt is not going to rewrite family and marriage law to include polygamy. plus custody, divorce etc are handled by states and most states will not even entertain it.

the libertarian in me says who cares but i don.t see it happening

[Wella]

82. Of course the government can place limitation with a "compelling state interest"

But is having to rewrite some laws as compelling a state interest as preventing an Aurora?

That's the real question here. For the government to say "We know you have a civil right but we're going to prevent you from exercising it because our lawyers are going to have to do a lot of overtime," will eventually not cut it as an argument.

[herding cats]

72. Because this has happened in every country that's legalized same sex marriage?

You know better than that.

If you want to rewrite the entire legal system, then there's a chance. Let's be honest, that's not going to happen. It's taken decades of battles to get the law applied fairly as it's written.

This bores me. It's a RW talking point, and has no place here. It's the same as me saying I should be able to marry my cat and get benefits under the law for such. Zero legal standing, zero application under the current ruling. But I love my cat! It's all about love! Expert it's not. Not even close. It's about applying the current law in a fair manner. But, people saying this know that, they're just ignoring the legal reality that made this become established law.

If you have a problem with it, or if you want multiple people to duke it out for benefits under the current marriage laws, that's your business. Just don't try and equate it to established law that allows for two people and the benefits afforded under the law.

This isn't my fight, and I honestly don't care one iota about it. Statistically it's not a progressive stance, so I'll leave this to the extreme RW to argue. It's their fight, not mine.

[Aerows]

89. It's a horseshit argument

and not even a *good* horseshit argument. I think the OP knows it, but it is one last jab to make sure that people who get married know that "It's invalid".

It's sour grapes and "well I didn't want that toy anyway" logic.

[Wella]

95. It's a logical argument

If we don't get legalized polygamy for awhile, it will be because of public pressure, not because the legal underpinnings aren't there.

[herding cats]

100. It's legal BS and they know it.

They want to rewrite the entire legal system, not apply current laws as they are written.

They have their work cut out for them, but it has zero to do with this ruling and the current law. They know that, they're just playing games and bartering for attention. Screw that. I've been at this my entire adult life, I know the law. I know how restrictive it is, and I learned how to work within the parameters. They know this too, and they know they have no legal basis for this claim, but there is some chance the RW will give them credence in their argument. Only because it clouds the SC ruling in the eyes of those who don't understand the law.

Screw this BS argument. It has no legal basis and it only being brandied about to take away from our win for civil rights.

[Aerows]

101. That's all it is

It's an attempt to take away from our win and diminish it.

[herding cats]

107. That's what it is in it's whole, but for a tiny fringe it's a pretend window.

They're wrong of course, but they're looking for a shortcut. In other cases they're jealous and want to take away what we've won which they didn't.

Neither case has any legal bearing on the ruling. It's either lazy people trying to get around doing all the hard work, or it's sour grapes trying to take away from what we fought for and won. No legal basis either way. I don't have respect for people trying to diminish what was fought long and hard for, and legally won. If they want things to change, they need to do the hard work for their own cause and rewrite the entire legal system. They have no right to try and attach their cause to one already entrenched in current laws.

[Wella]

157. At the risk of sounding insensitive

your post was somewhat narcissistic. Polyamory and marriages based on it are NOT ABOUT YOU.

Not everything is about you.

Sometimes it's about other people. And while gay marriage has helped to open the door, the polymarriage people have their own road to hoe.

[Wella]

155. Your perspective is a bit narrow

Like I said, give it 20 years. Polygamy will be the law of the land.

And, by the way, polygamy has been in the public mind since "Big Love" and "Sister Wives." The reason we're talking about it now is that the guy from Sister Wives has filed for a marriage license. It's too early, in my opinion, but I believe it will happen eventually.

[Wella]

90. Other nations have different notions of civil rights and of the

relationship between citizen and government. In addition, there has not yet been a concerted polygamy movement in nations like Canada, for example. However, the US is a different animal. I fully expect polygamy to have its day at SCOTUS.

[herding cats]

94. Good luck.

It's taken decades to get the law, as written applied in this this country for same sex couples. I wish all of you who think you have a chance at this the best of luck. It's going to take ten times as long and barrels of money to get what you think you deserve. But, you'll get nothing from this ruling. It doesn't apply to this pipe dream of yours.

You want the entire legal system rewritten? Have fun with that, it took us decades to get it applied as it is currently written. You're in for a long, long fight.

[Wella]

98. I don't think it will happen overnight, certainly.

But the gay marriage experience is already changing law: California, for example, allows a child to have three legal parents (and we're not talking about stepparents). There will be more laws like this that will begin to provide the societal and legal infrastructure to allow polygamous marriage.

In terms of the LGBT movement, they have actually only been politically organized since the 60s, and 50 years isn't a bad duration of time considering the gains. The marriage equality movement is even younger--we're talking really about the last 30 years. African Americans, on the other hand, have been fighting for their civil rights since slavery ended and are, arguably, still fighting for their implementation. That's over 150 years.

[herding cats]

103. You're talking about longer than I've been alive.

I realize some of you think of that as a nothing, but it's significant. You need several generations of people feeling sympathetic to your cause to effect change. So far, you have zero. That's the reality.

[Wella]

108. Thanks for making me feel really old. :)

I was alive during Stonewall. And when MLK was shot.

Yep, them hairs are gray...

[herding cats]

116. That wasn't my intention!

I'm sorry, honestly. I face that everyday myself, I know what it's like. Young people keep getting, well, younger! When people talk to me about the youth in their 20's I wonder how they can be so different from me. I was them just yesterday!

I was just trying to make a point as to how long it takes to change public opinion. And, that's when the law is on your side, not when you're trying to rewrite the entire process.

[Wella]

120. LOL! (That's ok.) :)

It does take a long time, but if I were a betting woman, I'd give it 15-20 years, max.

[herding cats]

122. Well, I hope you're not a betting woman.

I've been fighting for equality for same sex marriage for that long, and that fell within the current laws. Rewriting the entire legal system will take much longer.

If this is a personal cause for you, I'm going to make a few suggestions.

Don't try and ride the coattails of the same sex marriage ruling. Legally, they're worlds apart. No matter what you may think, they're not even vaguely similar.

Work to gain public opinion. Get that fool and his wives off TV as soon as possible. Most young people don't like them.

Unless you think the RW are going to champion your cause, and not make it religious. Hint: They're not going to.

You have an uphill battle, no one has done your cause any public favors in my lifetime. Honestly, it's been the opposite. Something I was ambivalent to, I now find distasteful thanks to what I've learned about the topic and how it's been abused by various religions.

You have to overcome that. You have to prove that polygamy and polyandry are good for our current society. Not that any person is fighting for polyandry, but it does go hand in hand with polygamy. You can't have one without the other, legally speaking. Which makes it all the harder to convince society of, people don't like the concept of women having more than one man. Even now. Let alone making it a legal status where you rewrite all our laws to allow benefits to such a relationship.

Like I said, a long and expensive road ahead of you. Decades, and decades of fighting, not 15-20 years. That's why you don't see it happening now in other progressive countries. It's too deeply entwined with far right religious ideology to be considered progressive. And, since no one wants to consider polyandry because that goes against the mainstream doctrine.

You folks need new spokespeople, and a new message. So far, you're sucking bad.

[Wella]

134. I'm not fond of losing a bet, but I think I will win this one

I've been thinking about how to gain public support, and here's what I have.

1. The gay marriage/marriage equality movement has already proved extremely useful and will continue to do so.

First, the legal path is already set. Marriage is a civil right residing in the person and the government cannot abridge that right unless it has a compelling interest. It will be our job to prove that there is no compelling interest for government to do so.

The main argument I have heard tonight against polygamy is "We'll have to change the laws, the forms, child custody." That argument might work right now, but eventually the message "We can't give you your rights because our lawyers have to work overtime" will get very old and will seem like stalling.

And quite frankly, anything that can be said about poly marriage has already been said about gay marriage and those assertions sound like prejudice, whether they actually are or not. SCOTUS will have a harder and harder time making arguments against poly marriage because the rhetoric will sound hollow and arbitrary. It will also sound discriminatory.

In the end, it will boil down to marriage as a civil right and the idea that some humans are hard-wired for polygamy/polyandry. There is actually much more hard core research on humans (and other animals) being naturally non-monogamous than there is for homosexuality being inborn. (There are some suggestive studies here and there, but no official gay gene and no definitive proof. It wasn't really needed in the end.)

And speaking of research, advocacy research will absolutely be funded as it was for gay marriage/parenting. Eventually, any researcher arguing against poly marriage will get the Mark Regnerus treatment, even if that researcher has the best and most objective stats out there. University professors have a herd mentality. They are not in any way the maverick thinkers they credit themselves with being. They will read the writing on the wall, see where the funding is and go there. There will be wealthy folk who want to fund studies like these. There is also money in the social sciences for people who want to end discrimination.

The research on polygamy/polyandry need not be air tight, just suggestive of certain results. What the poly movement will have to prove is NOT that polyandry and polygamy are good for society--we only have to prove (like gay marriage advocates) that poly practice is not bad for society. That children do "just as well", that they are not harmed in poly situations. That poly marriages are just as stable as monogamous ones--and considering the divorce rate, the bar is pretty low on that one. Also, remember that the number of non-married straight people raising children is increasing. It will seem more and more unfair to make polyrelationships prove they are just as good as married couples when far more of the nation's children will be being raised by the unmarried. That argument will work about 10 years from now, I think.


2. New laws involving gay families will also help the poly movement

Because gay couples always have to navigate around a third (and sometimes fourth) person to reproduce, law on parental rights and custody is changing. States like California now allow for 3 legal parents per child. These kinds of laws can help poly families gain some legal standing. Gay divorces--and there will be many--will provide the opportunity to build new kinds of post marital custody law. If a child has three legal parents, what happens in the case of a divorce? Cases like this will build the infrastructure for poly families.

The more new case law there is on non-traditional family structure, the more this helps the poly advocates fight the "lawyers working overtime" and "paperwork" arguments. The more laws that can be used by gay and poly marriage situations alike, the less resistance the court will have to allowing poly marriage.


3. Socially, the gay marriage experience can allay fears about polygamy

The poly movement needs to allay peoples' fears that poly marriage will require them to change the way they marry. Our argument (like the gay marriage argument) will be "My poly marriage will not affect your monogamous marriage."

The effectiveness of that argument will rely on how much gay marriage has or has not affected traditional straight marriage. As long as gays are perceived as following the rules of monogamy and not trying to push gay marriage on straight people (yes, that's a RW trope, but it's out there) then poly marriage advocates can point to the gay community as the exemplar of pluralistic living.

In addition, time will weed out the oldsters (like myself) and the young things raised with gay marriage as a normal part of life will be far more inclined to be accepting of poly marriages. I give it 20 years. The current batch of 20s and 30s have to get into power positions.


4. Gay activists like Dan Savage can actually help the poly cause by heavily promoting the idea of "monogamish", or open marriage. This will eventually lead to both gays and straights feeling more comfortable with other partners in the marriage, even on a temporary basis.

Lest you think I'm out of my mind, I actually heard Dan Savage on NPR a couple of years ago and he came across as quite convincing. He has a lot of personal charisma. Younger people, who have been brought up with more sexual fluidity and tolerance--and whose sexual exploits are beyond those of my peers when we were young--will take to these ideas. These younger folk are increasingly non-religious and their values tend towards sexual openness and experimentation. Dan Savage and others like him will have an effect.


5. Women are probably the biggest single obstacle to polygamy since, historically, it has been lousy for women. This will require a PR program and a change in thinking.

First, women will have to see themselves as having some skin in the game. It will start with "monogamish" and the idea of bringing home a "girlfriend" that you and your husband both share. There was an episode of "Wife Swap" not long ago that promoted such a situation. This is already happening, but there will be a push to have more of it and to eventually legitimize it. Women will be told it is "empowering" in the same way they are told that Beyonce and Kim Kardashian are feminists.

We will see someone--maybe Miley Cyrus--who has both a spouse and a side piece and who will argue that she wants to be married to both of them. Other celebrities may follow. This will change the image of polygamy from old geezers screwing teenage girls in cults to "empowered" women seeking intense sexual and emotional connection with two people at once. The guy doesn't run the situation with two women: one woman runs the situation with the guy and another woman.

In the case of gay women, the idea might be more egalitarian--the idea that plural female relationships of equals promises something higher than they already have. Also--and this is borne out by studies in Denmark and in US--lesbian relationships are less stable than gay male ones and they usually break up over affairs. (Gay men are more inclined to stay together and tolerate sexual affairs, mostly because of the way males view sex.) With children, you want these relationships to be more stable, and it might be sold to lesbian couples that plural marriages will give variety and stability. Here again, a major lesbian celebrity might come out with her wife and their girlfriend, and she will argue that she wants legal recognition for the three of them.

There will be 20/20 interviews, maybe a daring TV show (like Soap) bringing in a polyamorous household for high comedy, and later, for sensitive treatment. A show like Friends could have a character like Ross staying in a poly relationship with his wife and her girlfriend.

Media is powerful, the younger generation is more open and less inclined to question the morals of things, and once they are in their 30s and 40s, there will be no one to tell them no. They will be lobbyists in Washington, they will be making policy. They will be acting in or directing movies and TV.


I give it 20 years at most.

"Sister Wives" will be a thing of the past, but it will also have served its function. It brought an entire polygamous family into peoples' living rooms and it planted the idea in their heads. The fact that there is a religious angle may actually be helpful--it reminds people that, unlike gay marriage, polygamy has an old history, even a Biblical one. There's a comfort level in that even as the audience laughs at the show for its bizarreness. Giving people something controversial to laugh at lowers their resistance to the idea in general.

[muriel_volestrangler]

173. You're planning a PR program to tell women they're wrong?

Wow. Unbelievable.

[Wella]

175. No, the plan is a PR program to promote the idea the poly relationships are not always oppressive

to women.

And I'm not planning it: it's just my guess as to where it's going.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

216. Where are you going to get the money and activists for this fight?

I don't see millions of polygamists agitating for their right to marry and willing to put their wallets and purses behind their agitation.

[Wella]

258. Polymarriage is where gay marriage was 50 years ago.

But it's getting a jump start with the SCOTUS decision. I have a feeling we're going to be hearing more about it in the coming few years.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

263. There were famous out gays who helped to legitimize marriage equality...

There were also many gays of all incomes who financed and participated in the battle... I just don't see this inchoate mass of polygamists and polyandrists waiting to be mobilized.


In a month nobody will be talking about this but some fringe members of the religious right and fringe left.

[Wella]

271. Not in the early 1980s. The late 90s and 00's, sure.

That's where we are now. However, there are blogs and blogs dedicated to polyamory and Psychology Today has an entire blog dedicated to it:

The Polyamorists Next Door
Exploring the world of consensual non-monogamy
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-polyamorists-next-door

[BKH70041]

74. It's about freedom.

This topic has nothing to do with the recent USSC ruling, so that others bring it up tells me they're putting the topics together for their own purposes. This is about the right of consenting adults to enter into a marriage contract, whether it be 2 or 10 has no bearing on that right.

Where this notion that marriage can only involve 2 people came from in a liberal/progressive community I'm not sure. Since when has liberalism/progressivism ever been "we fight for this right to this particular point, but no further"? If that's the case, all we've done in the past week is trade one narrow definition of marriage for another narrow definition, and seemingly to some here that's all the progress we're ever allowed to make on the marriage issue.

Well, there seem to be those here who want to impose their bigoted strict definition of marriage on others, but the rest of the world will just have to move forward without them.

[Wella]

92. The underpinning of the SCOTUS decision is marriage as a civil right

This same notion could underlie a polygamy argument.

[gollygee]

191. That being able to marry the person you love is a civil right

Not to marry multiple people.

[Wella]

193. What if you love multiple people?

I'm not being flippant here. That's the next step in this.

I do believe that polymarriage will get its day in court. It won't be the Sister/Wives types that bring it there, though. There is a hidden underlayer of polyamory in the US, gay, bi and straight. I have met some people involved and it's a genuine thing for them, not just an excuse to fool around. Some of these folks want their relationships legitimized.

[gollygee]

195. The SCOTUS isn't going to go their way.

There is an argument but ti is nowhere as strong as the same-sex argument, where people wanted just what we hae but with a different person. A polyamorus relationship is much more different from a man/woman relationship than a man/man or Woman/woman relationship is, and it causes social problems in every country where it's practiced. The SCOTUS determined that same-sex marriage had no negative effect on society, but they won't find the same for polyamory, and it's very easy to find evidence of societal harm in that case.

[Wella]

197. What societal harm do you see in polyamory?

Other than having to change forms and update laws. Those arguments have already been addressed on this thread.

[gollygee]

199. The evidence is in the reality of how it works everywhere it's practiced

Women are treated like second class citizens, young men are sometimes kicked out of communities because they end up as competition, otherwise women are married very young to men they don't want to marry.

You can say it won't be like that in this case, but evidence exists that this is what ends up happening. You can't find a place where this is common where it doesn't happen, so it's strong evidence of it being harmful to society.

[Wella]

201. Up until recently, women were treated like second class citizen in monogamous cultures

When the feminist movement began in the 19th century, women lost their property when they married, they had no right to vote, and couldn't stay overnight in a hotel in Britain--even if they were there for an abolitionist conference (which is what happened to Elizabeth Cady Stanton). They would lose their children if they left the home, which is why they stayed, sometimes in dire conditions. Women in monogamous cultures were beaten by husbands, and domestic violence is still a problem.

So, one might argue that the underlying views of women and their treatment by men are separate from the martial practices of a culture.

In a culture like the US where the rights of women are more advanced, polymarriages might not end up with the kinds of abuses one finds in Saudi Arabia for example.

[gollygee]

202. That isn't so recent that it will be interesting to the scotus

And what I'm talking about is current.

[Wella]

207. We still have domestic violence, we still have a pay gap, we still have street harassment

We still have rape, we still have colleges ignoring rape (although now they've been forced to face it with Title IX)--so there are still issues even now.

However, my point was that abuses of women exist regardless of whatever system of marriage you have in place. There is domestic abuse in lesbian marriages (and in marriages of gay males. In fact, some of the only shelters for men fleeing domestic violence are run in gay communities.)

SCOTUS will be interested in the argument that the system of marriage and the rights of women are separate issues, and that polygamy doesn't necessarily lead to the abuse of women.

[Hutzpa]

80. Are you a racist? nt

[ms liberty]

91. Wrong...

Legally, marriage is a personal contract between two persons which confers numerous rights and responsibilities that cover every field of law. Many of those are not available or conferrable in any other contract, for instance a spouse cannot be forced to testify against their spouse. Your post delineates the traditional, accepted societal view of marriage, but ignores the legal definition. IMO, legally the government does have the right to limit the number of persons who may enter one legal marriage, due to the nature of the rights encompassed.

[Wella]

93. What you say is true, but none of it precludes plural marriage

The marriage contract can still be a unique contract, and it is even more unique in the US where it is the extension of a civil right. It is this notion of marriage as a civil right of a person that can lead to polygamy as a legal possibility.

[ms liberty]

114. You appear to have ignored my last sentence...

The government does have the right to regulate legally recognized marriages, due to the unique, numerous rights conferred upon the married persons. Eliminating racial and gender prohibitions changed two or three box titles on the marriage application. Polygamy would require considerable restructuring in every field of law.

[Wella]

119. Actually I have addressed that issue of "compelling interest" elsewhere

And in regard to your thought, gay marriage has changed more than "a few boxes". Child custody rights are a huge issue now, especially with the use of egg donors, surrogates and other technologies. California has already allowed for a child to have three parents on a birth certificate because of GLBT reproduction patterns.

So, no, gay marriage implies a hell of a lot more than just a few boxes on a form, and the legal infrastructure built over time to accommodate the gay marital unit (with children) will provide the scaffolding for poly relationships and their children.

By the time polygamy has its day in court, those structures will be in place and the "We're sorry, you don't get your civil rights because we have to change all the forms," argument will be history.

If you don't believe what I am saying, take a look at gay reproduction and its relation to the gay marriage debate.

When I was a child, gays could not adopt, the birth technologies we have now were not in place, and the only way a gay person could have children was through a (generally unhappy) heterosexual marriage. In the 80s, we got surrogacy (remember Baby M) and test tube babies. The fight to legitimize these practices for use among heterosexuals was rocky, but by the 90s, they were par for the course.

Gay couples then fought for and won the right to reproduce using these methods, even though gay marriage was not legal anywhere. By the time the big gay marriage cases came in front of SCOTUS, gays were already raising children and could argue that marriage would be better for those children they already had.

In other words, the infrastructure for producing children (families) was already in place including changing laws (like CA's law allowing three parents) BEFORE we got to changing the forms.

This is why I see happening with poly relationships. The infrastructure will be built--at first, by the LGBT movement as it navigates large scale gay parenthood, marriage and divorce--and later, by an emerging poly civil right movement.

I give it 20 years.

[DonCoquixote]

102. if this argument is true

then Muslim countries would be bastions of gay marriage, since they are bastions of polygamy.

[Wella]

105. No, that's arguing backwards.

Polygamy in traditional Islamic countries and (potential) polygamy in the US come from two entirely different sources.

In Islamic countries, polygamy is a social practice and traditional principle of social organization. It is NOT based on marriage as a "civil right": there is no such notion. It is a practice that guarantees that the young a man sires will be under his control and cared for by their biological mothers. Notice that women do not marry multiple men. If poly relationships in SA were based on marriage as a civil right, some women might have multiple husbands. They don't.

And, of course, homosexuality is not only not a civil right--it is a crime punishable by death.

Polygamy in America would be quite a different animal. First, if it came to be legalized, poly marriage would extend from marriage as a civil right residing in the person. This would mean that both men and women could marry multiple partners of the opposite sex or of the same sex.

Just because polygamy is generally practiced by gay-intolerant cultures does not necessarily mean that cultures respecting gay rights will never be polygamous or polyandrous.

[Peregrine]

104. The one thing we all seem to forget is if the State has a compelling interest.

If the State could have shown a compelling interest in denying marriage equality, the court could have voted the other way. States can deny exercise of a right if it can show a compelling interest in doing so. In situations of multiple-marriages, the State could probably provide a compelling interest other than it being icky (their defense against same-sex). There would be estate issues, child care and protection ...

[Wella]

106. This is a good point. However, what would that compelling interest be?

Would the state say: It would take too much to rewrite the laws, so your civil rights are denied?

[Jamastiene]

111. Next thing you know, people will marry turtles.

[Wella]

113. Turtles do not have recognized civil rights.

That includes the right to marry.

Can we stop with the hyperbole and just look at the issue at hand?

[geek tragedy]

124. You should really study "rational basis" jurisprudence

because the Sister Wives crowd would have to argue that institutionalized monogamy (a concept implemented in the laws of every democracy and pseudo-democracy on the planet) is so irrational as to violate the constitution.

You can get a clickbait hack author to claim that, but no court will. Neither would anyone who passed Con Law in law school.

[Wella]

138. GLBT lawyers had to argue that institutionalized heterosexual monogamy

&quot a concept implemented in the laws of every democracy and pseudo-democracy on the planet) was so irrational as to violate the Constitution."

Correct?

So how did they do this?

After all, every government since the beginning of recorded history denied gays the right to marry. There is far more historical support for polygamy (and still is). So polygamy is not the extreme case you think it is. Gay marriage was actually far more extreme and far more revolutionary.

In regard to the SCOTUS decision and rational basis:

The violation of the Constitution was the violation of the Equal Protection Clause, and this was invoked because marriage had been declared a fundamental right.

The GLBT marriage advocates demonstrated that institutionalized heterosexual marriage (and the exclusion of gays from that institution) violated the Constitution.

If marriage is a fundamental right, then denying marriage to certain classes of people has to be the result of a compelling interest of the state.

The SCOTUS decision on gay marriage was really a decision that the state had no compelling interest to deny gays the right to marry.


Tell me where I'm wrong.

[justiceischeap]

266. Since when has polygamous people become a "class" of people?

That's where your own argument falls flat--as does your belief that the current ruling means marriage is a fundamental right that includes polygamous people. The ruling included a class of people who were actively being discriminated against based on genetics. The majority of homosexuals are genetically homosexual. Under the Equal Protection Clause, denying LGBT people the same rights as heterosexuals is against the law because we are a class of people with genetic traits that can't be changed--i.e., like skin color.

Therefore, SCOTUS allowed another group of people to be included in the current definition of marriage (Webster's needs to work on this definition but here it is):

(1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

*emphasis mine

See that, marriage is defined as a union of ONE person to another PERSON--meaning, the LGBT community did not ask the government or SCOTUS or the public to change current marriage laws. We only asked that we be included under the current marriage laws, that's a huge difference in what you propose with plural marriages or that the marriage equality ruling in some ways states that poly marriages are a "right" guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause.

If you want anyone to take you seriously about poly marriage rights, then stop flogging this right-wing talking point that gay-marriage = polygamous marriage because it just doesn't, unless you can prove to me and the world that a bent towards polygamy is an inborn trait that can't be changed. Otherwise it's a straw man argument that confuses the real issue, which is changing the entire legal system around marriage and the definition to include polygamy (which, again, is NOT what gay marriage proponents fought to do, they fought for inclusion to already written laws).

[Wella]

270. Actually, the are considered, in some quarters, as a "sexual minority" (Psychology Today)

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-polyamorists-next-door/201505/child-custody-issues-polyamorous-families

Child Custody Issues for Polyamorous Families
Polys and other sexual minorities are rightfully cautious about child custody.

Sexual minorities have traditionally fared poorly in court when family members (often an ex-spouse or parent/grandparent) or institutional representative from Child Protective Services challenge their custody of their children. Years of legal precedent have painstakingly established precedent recognizing lesbians and gay men as legitimate parents who are sometimes afforded legal rights similar to those of heterosexual parents. No such precedent exists for polyamorous families, to my knowledge.

I am an expert witness in custody cases related to polyamory and a Guardian Ad Litem/Court Appointed Special Advocate, NOT A LAWYER. What follows is not legal advice, simply my expert opinion based on my research on polyamorous families and experience with the family legal system.

When polys and other sexual minorities are embroiled in family litigation, it matters a lot which judge gets the case, in which court, and how the judge feels about the lawyers. The judge has quite a bit of latitude in family court and is ultimately driven by what the judge determines to be in the best interest of the child. If the judge feels deeply that polyamory is sinful and harmful to children's moral fitness, then no amount of discussion of the loving environment and wonders of pooled resources will sway that opinion.

If, however, the judge is open to hearing about the possibility that unconventional families can be good settings for raising kids, there are a number of useful things you can do....

[lancer78]

131. There is a rational basis to prevent polygamy

I have been thinking on this and I can come up with a couple reasons to ban polygamy.

1. It limits diversity in the gene pool. We can see this in species that are bred for performance. This especially occurs with thoroughbreds. Google "native dancer genetic problems" to see how one male breeding with too many females can cause genetic problems.

2. There will be fewer available women for each male. We can see the societal problems with "bachelor herds" in the wild, as well as societal problems in polygamous societies when young men cannot find a partner.

[Wella]

140. Interesting arguments but

1. Gene pool diversity: One could argue that sperm banks actually limit diversity in the gene pool. It is a small subset of men who donate sperm compared to the larger society. Depending on how many donations a given man makes, he could conceivably produce more biological children than a polygamous male with multiple wives. See this story:

One Sperm Donor, 150 Offspring
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/health/06donor.html

Cynthia Daily and her partner used a sperm donor to conceive a baby seven years ago, and they hoped that one day their son would get to know some of his half siblings — an extended family of sorts for modern times.

So Ms. Daily searched a Web-based registry for other children fathered by the same donor and helped to create an online group to track them. Over the years, she watched the number of children in her son’s group grow.

And grow.

Today there are 150 children, all conceived with sperm from one donor, in this group of half siblings, and more are on the way. “It’s wild when we see them all together — they all look alike,” said Ms. Daily, 48, a social worker in the Washington area who sometimes vacations with other families in her son’s group.

2. The argument of fewer available women and the male violence that can result would have to be demonstrated. Specifically, it would have to be demonstrated that enough women would be involved in polygamous relationships to cause such a problem. This seems highly unlikely considering the other alternatives open to women. Also, you're ignoring the possibility of polyandry as an alternative. Other solutions might also be found, like immigration policies favoring females.

Just some thoughts.

[Aerows]

224. Point #2 has been demonstrated.

"The argument of fewer available women and the male violence that can result would have to be demonstrated"

India and China select for males, to the point where there are 110 males for 100 females, and we see how that is working out now, don't we?

That is a social experiment that you can absolutely point to in bolstering that "Fewer available women produces male violence." If gang rapes and kidnapping women from other countries (or selling young women as brides) is not an example, I don't know what is.

I don't have enough time to link all the data to this right now, but it is a well known, and now well studied phenomenon.

You have no leg to stand on with saying that point 2 hasn't been proven, and frankly, with point one, as another poster indicated, Eight Belles is a tragic example of point 1.

I'll be back later today if you wish to pursue these lines of arguments and if other posters haven't thoroughly eviscerated both of them before I can.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

289. You know you just argued against gay people right?

Those two points go exactly towards keeping gays from marrying.

1. Gays don't proliferate genetically.

2. 2 men together or 2 men removes an asynchronous amount of people from the pool

[Lil Missy]

132. Apples and oranges. n/t

[pnwmom]

137. Marriage to ONE person -- an adult, consenting, non-related person -- is a civil right,

without regard to the gender, orientation, race, or religion of the parties.

It could be possible for Congress to pass a law that gave people in polygamous marriages the same rights as people in 2 person marriages.

But don't hold your breath.

[Wella]

143. The Loving decision made marriage a civil right but it was limited to heterosexuals

Obergefell argued that that civil right also applied to gays since the state had no compelling interest to disallow it and that gays should get equal protection for that fundamental right.

A future case will argue that the civil right also applies to the polyamorous and that the state has no compelling interest to disallow polygamy.

Just because things are a certain way NOW doesn't mean they will remain that way. Until June 26th, the fundamental right of marriage applied nationally ONLY to heterosexuals. The title of your OP makes it sound like this recent decision is the last word on the subject, written in stone.

It will not be. I give it 20 years.

[pnwmom]

146. The state has no obligation to confer the benefits/responsibilities of legal marriage

on assorted groups of people, just because it provides for coupled relationships.

And I didn't write any OP on this so I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Wella]

148. No. The polyamorous will have to make their case

And I believe they will. The case will be made in the media first.

[Zenlitened]

235. Perhaps the case will be made IN the media at some point, but...

Last edited Sun Jul 5, 2015, 03:28 PM - Edit history (1)

...but right now it's being made BY the media. The rightwing talking-head media.

And it's not being made very well, or even honestly.

They begin by distorting the intent and meaning of the supreme court's decision acknowledging same-sex couples have the right to marry.

Which tells me they don't actually care a bit about poly relationships.

They just want to keep taking stabs at gays and lesbians.

[prayin4rain]

225. I think you're confusing what civil rights means.

Imagine that there has throughout history been one corporate form recognized by the government, the LLC. And it has always been the law that in order to start an LLC, you had to name five members. Tax code, the business organization codes, etc. were all based on this five member structure. And the law said that all five members must be hetero, white males.

But, as we evolved we came to realize that if the government recognizes a corporate form, we cannot confine its five members to white hetero males. The government cannot exclude women, other races or gays because that is discriminatory.

There is no legal argument to be made that by not expanding the LLC structure to ten members it is discrimination against any group of people.

You're right that if enough people start telling the government that a ten member corporate form (or a two member) is really needed, the government may create an S-Corp structure. But it's not violating anybody's civil rights for the government to refuse to create new structures with different member requirements.

It IS violating civil rights to say in order to be an LLC member, you must be a white hetero male. NOT discriminatory to say an LLC must contain five members.

[alphafemale]

145. Completely different legal contract would need to be set up.

Are say three people entering a binding contract together?

Or is one person entering a contract with two people and those two people have no commitment at all to each other.

The dynamics of polygamy are so complicated that it is way different than the cut and dried "marriage" laws.

It should be legal between consenting adults.

Polygamy is generally something forced on women and girls somewhat beyond the ability to consent, however.

[Wella]

150. Yes, it will be hairy--no question.

But so is having three legal parents, and California now has that law on the books. Like I said in another post, there will have to be a great deal of legal infrastructure built up, and this will come with new law as it applies to gay families, especially those that include the birth mothers or fathers into the child-rearing process.

[Wella]

162. Justice Roberts in the dissent to Obergefell also mentions polygamy:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/06/26/roberts_gay_marriage_dissent_cites_new_york_post_on_lesbian_throuple.html


In his unexpectedly fiery dissent in Friday's marriage equality decision, Chief Justice John Roberts argues that the ruling may clear the way for a constitutional right to polygamy—plural marriages recognized by the state. Roberts writes:

It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships?

[booley]

198. polygamy and same sex marriages are structurally different

I am sure someone else may have already brought this up but when asked about multiple person marriage, the pro gay marriage side summed it up

Allowing multiple person marriage would require a complete over haul and redesign of our legal system which the states right now are incapable of doing.

Who gets custody if on partner dies? How doe inheritance work? Are all members of the marital unit immune from testifying against another member or is there some degree of separation? Who would have rights to make medical decisions for a partner that was incapacitated?

Contrast this with same sex marriage which was such an issue precisely because gay couples were left in limbo over these questions yet the only fix required was to simply make marriage gender neutral. States that legalized same sex unions only had to allow them. The legal infrastructure for everything else was already there. IF same sex marriage had the complications polygamy does you can bet that it wouldn't' have become legal so quickly.

Marriage isn't' just some blessing from the state. It's tied up with countless legal issues over one person's relationship to another.

[Wella]

208. The "overhaul of the system" excuse is going to wear thin as an argument as time goes on

Especially as new laws are being created for the realities of gay reproduction. For example, in California, a child may now have 3 legal parents. This was developed specifically for the realities of gay reproduction (that always needs a third party; in some relationships, there is a desire to have this third party present in the raising of the child and granting all 3 parents--the gay couple and the opposite sex parent--legal recognition. Laws like this will develop over time and will eventually be able to apply to the needs of polymarriages.

[booley]

237. it's a bit more then that

For example, in California, a child may now have 3 legal parents

Ok except that is only a tiny part of the numerous laws, rights and responsibilities that get defined by marriage

I mean sure, your an have three people on a birth certificate. But who gets to decide what school the child goes too? Who is responsible for the child during medical emergency? And on and on. In short what happens when parents start disagreeing? I can't' find where california allows three legal parents. The closest I could find was a case in Florida and presumably the three parents had worked out other legal issues themselves.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/21/us-usa-california-lgbt-rights-idUSKBN0GL04J20140821

and this doesn't' even cover the relationship between spouses.

These aren't' theoretical. These are practical matters that will take years if not decades to address. When it comes to polygamy our legal system just doesn't' do that. And no having multiple people on a birth certificate doesn't address the vast majority of those concerns.

My neice never knew her father. He is on her birth certificate but it's her step father who actually has a position as care taker. And that is because my niece's step father is married to my sister.

Yes precedents for poly amorous relationships may develop over time. Marriage between humans and extraterrestrials and rights for self aware machines may develop over time too. But that doesn't' mean that some legal decision made now is automatically slippery slope to that.

And what really bugs me here is that these really are two separate things. The argument that gay marriage leads to a slippery slope to polygamy implies that the listener is stupid and can't make a distinction between two different things if they have even passing similarity.

It's like saying if you are ok with eating bacon then somehow that means cannibalism is ok with you as well because both involve meat.

[Wella]

257. Most married couples work out legal issues for themselves

Most married couples don't pull the government in to decide where to send their kid to school. There is no reason why a threesome shouldn't do the same. It's harder, and there will have to be counseling, I think, to help folks navigate these new relationships, but it can be done without the government.

[DiverDave]

200. OH FFS!

NO IT HASNT! Gay folks getting married has ZERO to do with it.

Stop the rw spewing or i'll send send you to your room.

[Wella]

210. We're in uncharted waters

And two Supreme Court justices have suggested a connection with polygamy. The Sister/Wives guy has just applied for a marriage license--he won't get it, but this may be the beginning of a series of court cases over the next decade or so. We'll see.

[quaker bill]

204. Why is this an issue?

On a personal basis, I have never had a problem finding the path to the doghouse with one wife. My estimation is that with more than one wife I would never be fully out of the doghouse.

While I am fine with different strokes for different folks, I do not believe that there is any momentum behind a movement to legalize polygamy.

The right to marry another person has been ruled a fundamental civil right. The right to marry into a group of people has not been ruled as such. These are sufficiently different things.

While personally I think consenting adults should be allowed to sort out their social and sexual arrangements in the manner they choose without state intervention, I am not clear how the current decision implies movement in that direction. The current decision leaves traditional marriage process more or less intact, the only difference is that the Clerk does not check the gender mix before issuing the same license they have been issuing for years.

[Wella]

209. Because the Sister/Wives guy filed for a marriage license, citing the SCOTUS decision

Some folks believe the issues are entirely separate, but even two SC justices thought they were related. One of them was Sonya Sotomayor, the other was Chief Justice Roberts.

I think there may be some merit to the idea since we're now in uncharted waters. No society in history has legalized marriages between people of the same sex. While that may be a sign of human progress, it also creates a very new and different situation. The Sister/Wives guy may not get his day in court, but eventually polymarriage will, I believe.

[quaker bill]

272. incorrect

Societies in history have legalized same sex marriages...

"Same-sex unions have been recorded in the history of a number of cultures, but marriages or socially-accepted unions between same-sex partners were rare or nonexistent in other cultures. In the late 20th century, religious rites of marriage without legal recognition became increasingly common. The first law providing for marriage of people of the same sex in modern times was enacted in 2001 in the Netherlands. As of 26 June 2015, eighteen countries (Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark,[nb 2] France, Iceland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands,[nb 3] New Zealand,[nb 4] Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom,[nb 5] the United States and Uruguay) and certain sub-jurisdictions allow same-sex couples to marry. "

Via Wikipedia

There is a difference between which individual person of what gender one chooses to marry, and whether one chooses to be married to several individuals at the same time.

These things are sufficiently different that one being legal does not imply the other.

[Wella]

273. Wikipedia. :)

And no specifics.

[rock]

213. I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference

as can most people. There is no conflation.

[Android3.14]

215. It is ill-considered to say "The original purpose of marriage..."

As if anyone on the planet knows that tidbit of information. The relevant issue is the current purposes of marriage, which are also as varied and changing as the people who engage in the construct.

[booley]

240. There's another problem

In the OP there is this:

Marriage was its most powerful when its purpose was for societal--not personal--fulfillment. The original purpose of marriage was to provide a place for the offspring of a sexual union to be protected, nurtured, and connected to its family and culture.

Ok but lets think about the history of marriage. Under that history that is exactly why polygamy was considered a good thing.

IF we accept the premise of the OP then that door in favor of polygamy was open long before gay marriage . OF course clearly it didn't lead to having polygamy made legal again.

so why think that will change now?

[romanic]

219. To you "liberals" duped into defending poly-whatever marriages

and trying to equate it with the well-earned right for us in the gay community to marry; here's what I have to say:

[Wella]

243. Duped? Polyamory is not some new thing and it's not about fooling anyone.

At some point, polyrelationships may want some recognition. It's not just the Sister/Wives crowd. It's atheists, it's Democrats, it's libertarians. There are people on this board in poly relationships.

[DebJ]

221. Hm, if two people are already married, then how can you have a contract

established with a third without violating the first contract?

[joeybee12]

223. Offensive and totally wrong...gay is trait, black is a trait,

anything inherent in a person cannot be cause for discrimination, and denying anything because of a trait is wrong. Polygamy is behavior...see the obvious difference? FFS, if it were a snake, it would have bit you

[Wella]

246. Actually, there is more evidence for polygamy/polyandry than there is for the hardwired gayness

Even some gays in the media are backing off the "born that way" thing:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116378/macklemores-same-love-sends-wrong-message-about-being-gay

...It’s time for the LGBT community to stop fearing the word “choice,” and to reclaim the dignity of sexual autonomy.

The aversion to that word in our community stems from belief that if we can’t prove that our gayness is biologically determined, then we won’t have grounds to demand equality. I think this fear needs to be addressed and given up. In America, we have the freedom to be as well as to choose to be. I see no reason to believe that the only sexualities worth protecting are the ones over which one has no control. After all, isn’t trans activism fueled by the belief that the government has the responsibility to protect all of us regardless of our sexual choices? And aren’t protections for bisexuals based upon the same presupposition of sexual autonomy? Perhaps the L and G factions of our community would do well to follow the political lead of the Bs and Ts on this issue.

One of the reasons I think our activism is so insistent on sexual rigidity is because, in our push to make gay rights the new black rights, we’ve conflated the two issues. The result is that we’ve decided that skin color is the same thing as sexual behavior. I don’t think this is true. When we conflate race and sexuality, we overlook how fluid we are learning our sexualities truly are. To say it rather crassly: I’ve convinced a few men to try out my sexuality, but I’ve never managed to get them to try on my skin color. In other words, one’s sexuality isn’t as biologically determined as race. Many people do feel as if their sexuality is something they were born with, and I have no reason to disbelieve them. But as I and other queer persons will readily confirm, there are other factors informing our sexualities than simply our genetic codes.

[SidDithers]

226. No, it hasn't...

Sid

[Rex]

231. I wouldn't go so far as to say an inherent trait and a lifestyle choice are the same thing.

As for gay marragie, the law is passed and now it is just marragie. We finally recognized that gay people are born that way and it would be cruel to force a standard that is not consistant with being fair and impartial to couples. See we are talking about two people here. The long fight was for people of any gender to be able to legally marry.

Now if you want to say swingers are good and that sometimes they fall in love with each other, each other...more power to ya! Just don't confuse what cannot be helped, with what is a choice in life. Now you want to move to another goal and say more than two people should be able to legally marry.

Go for it, but this ruling does not give weight to polygamy. That will have to be a seperate argument, because it is a choice. You can reply about Love Love Love...and I will say go for it, but still comparing apples to oranges (legaly) is just that.

Goodluck in your fight to get polygamy legalized.

Let us know how it turns out.

[Wella]

251. Actually, humans are inherently poly--plenty of research on that.

Monogamy is a lifestyle choice.

[Rex]

260. Polygamy is also a lifestyle choice.

Again, apples to oranges.

[Wella]

261. If humans are inherently poly, polyamorists can argue that they are "born this way."

We all could, quite frankly. And we'd have proof from biology. Eventually, SCOTUS will have to succumb to that argument since gay marriage was founded on the same premise.

Polymarriage is coming. I give it 20 years, maybe 15.

[Betty Karlson]

238. Homophobic scaremongering. Stop posting this bovine excrement.

Gay couples have fought God knows how long before their love and commitment were accepted to meet the existing definition of marriage. Therefore, marriage was not redefined when it was extended to bestow dignity of same-gender couples.

To imply that actually this sets the tone for a redefinition of marriage is to hurl one more insult to the gay couples, and passively aggressively whine that "now marriage is no longer what it used to be".

I am getting very close to using profane language to express my disgust at OPs like this one, and I am seriously wondering whether there is a sudden emergence of nasty individuals trying to bait LGBT forum members into a flame war.

The OP should be ashamed of himself. (S)he should feel very small for inferring LGBT people like this.

[Wella]

241. No, it's the real deal. The polyamorous are now slowly coming out of the closet.

Some are interested in marriage rights, some are not.

One polyamorist blog can be found here:

polyamorydiaries.com

[Betty Karlson]

244. Poly-amory is a choice. Sexual orientation, even when at times fluid, is never a choice.

Equating choices and immutable characteristic is homophobic.

That doesn't mean I disapprove of poly-amory. It just means no-one in their right mind should equate or allign equal marriage rights for same-gender couples (who adhere to, and are recognised for their adherance to the existing definition of marriage) and legal recognition of non-binary-composed families.

[Wella]

249. Actually, there is more evidence for polygamy/polyandry than there is for the hardwired gayness

And there are changes coming in the perception of what it means to be gay now that marriage rights have been won:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116378/macklemores-same-love-sends-wrong-message-about-being-gay

Arguing that gayness is as genetically fixed as race might have bolstered our rhetoric a few years ago, but is it necessary to argue that way now? I understand that the genetic argument for homosexuality is a direct response to the tired “You weren’t born that way” rhetoric of religious people. But in my opinion, we could strip that religious argument of much of its power if we responded like this: “Maybe I wasn’t born this way. Now tell me why you think that matters.” I imagine many religious people haven’t really thought through the implications of their own rhetoric. (What, for instance, does a socially-constructed word like “natural” even mean?)

[Betty Karlson]

264. "arguing it was genetically fixed" is a turn of phrase that implies the sexual orientation was not

proven in fact. You are treading in very bigoted waters here.

[Jamastiene]

275. They are getting closer to admitting

what all of these all of a sudden polygamy threads are for.

They are also totally ignoring the horrid crap gays have had to go through with the stupid reparative therapy and ex-gay movements based on the idea that being gay is somehow changeable.

With this many threads and that much harping on the subject of polygamy on DU this last week or so, it's almost like we are being preached to.

The thing is, I am not even against polygamy if that is what those consenting adults in those relationships want, but the way the OP and others are framing the debate is by using right wing rhetoric is enough to make even those of us who don't have a problem if others want polygamy (as long as they are consenting adults) want to start trashing the threads.

[Betty Karlson]

276. I was just alerted to older posts (from january)

by some of these poly-marriage advocates. That was when they accused DU of being pro-atheism just for a thread of religious support (and comfort) for LGBT people.

The bigotry is and was always thinly veiled... but still bigotry.

(And I agree with you on the way the OP and others are framing the debate is by using right wing rhetoric is enough to make even those of us who don't have a problem if others want polygamy (as long as they are consenting adults) want to start trashing the threads. )

[Wella]

239. Interesting Blog by a Polyamorist (for people who are not familiar with the community)

http://polyamorydiaries.com/

[Zenlitened]

252. But your OP is still based on a flat-out false premise.

As noted several times in the replies.

[Wella]

255. Actually it's not.

And polymarriage will have its day in court with just these sorts of arguments.

[Zenlitened]

262. Not the argument that pretends marriage has suddenly been changed.

That's the falsehood you began with.

The Supreme Court didn't redefine marriage. It re-affirmed it.

[PoliticAverse]

253. Not really, there's no chance the Supreme Court is going to rule in favor of polygamy...

in the near future.

[Wella]

259. I give it 20 years

Maybe 15.

The SCOTUS decision has fast tracked some things.

[gollygee]

265. That is asinine speculation.

Everything you've said in this thread is.

[Wella]

282. Wanna put a $50 on it?

I'm serious about that. It really is coming.

[gollygee]

291. Bullshit.

[Adrahil]

277. The reasoning of this decision does not easily extend to plurals.

I have no moral objection to plurals, other than its history of misogyny, but legally, it's a very different animal from the either interracial or same-sex marriage. In both those cases, it was group of people demanding access to already existing societal benefits. Plural marriage would require a complete restructuring of those societal benefits.

I'm not saying it won't happen, but it's relationship to same-sex marriage is thin at best.

[Wella]

269. Same-Sex to Plural Marriage? (Psychology Today)

Apparently, I'm not the only "crazy" one:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-polyamorists-next-door/201507/same-sex-plural-marriage

The recent US Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges legally recognizing same-sex marriage has potentially opened the door to multiple-partner/extra-dyadic marriage...

...Polyamory differs significantly from polygyny in at least four significant ways. First, polyamory is not based on a religion that dictates a specific family structure. Second, some people in polyamorous relationships are not and do not want to be married. Third, people have same-sex polyamorous relationships, as opposed to the heterosexual coupling that goes with polygyny. Fourth and most importantly, women in polyamorous relationships can have multiple partners as well as men. In fact, women in polyamorous relationships have as much freedom and social power as women in monogamous relationships, and possibly even more because women are highly sought after in many poly communities. These significant differences mean that polyamorous marriages would not look the same as polygynous marriages.

So how would they look? And how could society deal with plural marriage when it comes to things like taxes and custody of children? I explore these questions in my next blog....

[geek tragedy]

274. This is homophobic bigotry.

In the end, we are witnessing the end of marriage as a social institution with its focus on social stability.

That is the OP's reaction to marriage equality being the law of the land.

That is bigotry.

Bigotry, bigotry, bigotry.

Marriage still exists to provide social stability, and does so EVEN MORE SO when no classes of people are excluded.

[Wella]

279. That phrase includes many factors like divorce, having children out of marriage, etc.

I mention divorce in the OP.

[geek tragedy]

280. none of which change the role of marriage in providing stability. nt

[Wella]

281. Certainly they do. When 50% of all new marriages end in divorce

you can't talk about a stable institution. You can only talk about temporary resting places between chaos.

[geek tragedy]

284. oy. we see you. nt

[Wella]

286. Uh....what?

?

[ibegurpard]

287. Yeah bullshit

[Bradical79]

296. Maybe, but I think at minimum it's a long way off.

Unlike homosexual marriage which is exactly the same as heterosexual marriage, polygamy has a very real and negative history, potential genetic problems like pointed out in an earlier thread, greater legal complexities, and hasn't had nearly the public support that gay marriage has.