Gloria Steinem and Cornell West support recognition for the polyamorous

[Wella]

This article is from 2013 and it describes the activism that is happening under the surface

http://thecoloradoobserver.com/2013/03/polyamorist-group-wants-legal-recognition-for-multiple-marriages/

WASHINGTON — Same-sex couples are not the only ones who want government recognition of their relationships. Those in polyamarous relationships do too.

Loving More, a national non-profit organization based in Loveland, Colo., plans to release a survey next month of 4,000 self-identified polyamorists that shows more than two-thirds would choose concurrent or multi-partnered marriage if it were legal.

Robyn Trask, the executive director, said the results confirmed her belief about the breadth of support among its members for poly-marriage. “I think many people would want a commitment ceremony for three or four people,” she said.

...In 2006, feminist icon Gloria Steinem, Princeton professor Cornell West, and novelist Armisted Maupin were among the hundreds of signatories to “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision For All Our Families and Relationships.” The document endorsed “(c)ommitted, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner.”...

[KittyWampus]

1. Polygamy is a societal step BACKWARDS. We have evolved away from it.

Wanting to go backwards is regressive.

And having Cornel West in your corner isn't necessarily a plus.

[Wella]

2. Says Kitty Wampus. But apparently others disagree.

And having Gloria Steinem in your corner--especially when people say how much polymarriage will hurt women--is.

[KittyWampus]

4. No- says Social Science. You seem very concerned with this issue.

[Wella]

10. Really? How does social science PROVE that polymarriages are a step backward?

Especially since polygamy, at any rate, continues to exist into the 21st century.

[tymorial]

7. You won't reach them.

These people are white knighting and worse than that, they are using the same arguments as the anti same-sex marriage crowd. The cognitive dissonance is obvious.

The people largely against polygamy are only considering men marrying multiple women. It doesn't matter if the women state that they are happy. It doesn't matter if the women aren't abused. These people believe otherwise. If we were talking about women marrying multiple men, would these people argue? How about multiple men or women marrying within the same sex? They are white knighting the situation.

[Wella]

11. Cognitive dissonance is the word.

What does "white knighting" mean?

[tymorial]

35. In simplest terms

When someone believes someone to be a perceived victim and rushes to their aid. In this instance the focus on polygamy has largely been about men marrying multiple women. They believe that those women are victims of oppression, that no woman could possibly be happy in a polygamous marriage and therefore, they need saving by actively opposing polygamy and polyamory in general . It is true that there are oppressive polygamous marriages. They are reprehensible. There are also men and women who have polyamorous relationships where oppression does not exist. The white knight does not believe the second is possible. They would believe that someone is lying or brainwashed etc etc. Their desire to save and defend overrides objectivity and reason which is why they use the anti-same sex marriage arguments without realizing the hypocrisy.

[Wella]

38. Thanks for the explanation.

Appreciate it.

[JackInGreen]

124. I hadn't considered it 'white knighting'

but it kinda is isn't it?

[tymorial]

125. Sadly, yes I believe it is.

[pnwmom]

20. The document Gloria Steinem signed calls for eliminating the legal benefits and recognition of marriage

and turning it into a private affair only.

In other words, now that LGBT people can marry in all 50 states, let's do away with legal marriage altogether.

That is not what most LGBT people and their supporters have been fighting for.

[shaayecanaan]

96. My gut reaction is: "too bad"

if neither gays nor straights can legally marry then that solves the problem of discrimination.

I'm uncomfortable with married spouses having less rights than de facto spouses, and I'm dead against children born out of wedlock having less rights than children born in wedlock.

[pnwmom]

99. That is my reaction, too.

To people who demand the "right" to legalized polygamy.

[stone space]

127. Scorched Earth Politics.

In other words, now that LGBT people can marry in all 50 states, let's do away with legal marriage altogether.

[LittleBlue]

8. One could argue we're evolving away from marriage

It's an institution that younger generations are increasingly seeing as unnecessary.

[Wella]

12. Then why did the GLBT community fight so hard for it?

I don't think that marriage is actually ending any time soon.

[Major Nikon]

81. Because the government and other organizations have bestowed legal and financial benefits to it

[Wella]

83. But if it's on its way out, what's the point of fighting for it?

It's like fighting for the right to own a flip phone.

[Major Nikon]

115. Because there's no telling how long the government will continue the licensing effort

So long as the government and other organizations continue to bestow rights and privileges with the license, it's not like a flip phone.

[stone space]

128. If a flip phone allowed my wife and I to cohabitate...

....here in this country without governmental interference, then we'd fight for our right to own a flip phone.

It's like fighting for the right to own a flip phone.

[KittyWampus]

17. There are now more options than typical marriage. But you may well be right!

Edit- it's an interesting topic and I wish it went further than what is currently going through the DU echo chamber.

[JackInGreen]

126. I've been considering

that maybe the poly folks need their own forum so that we can have a place to discuss this and share community without anyone accusing us of coat-tailing or other worse.

[arely staircase]

3. West jumped the Shark years ago

I guess GS did too, I just didnt notice.

[Wella]

15. Jumped the shark how? I can't see West as a right winger

in any universe.

[arely staircase]

65. who said anything about wingers? nt

[HFRN]

48. Henry Winkler was ahead of his time, he jumped the shark in 1977 nt

[LittleBlue]

5. Both are far right wing types, obviously

[KittyWampus]

6. probably more like Libertarian. However, Steinem would know better if she looked at facts.

Polygamy hurts women and children.

[Wella]

13. Steinem is a libertarian?

Ok......

[eridani]

122. How does having two husbands hurt a woman? n/t

[pnwmom]

9. Cornell West is a narcissistic blowhard who has called the President a "niggerized black person."

His opinions are worth next to nothing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026899166

[Wella]

14. And Steinem?

Cornell West is still a major advocate for the poor.

[pnwmom]

22. Steinem, by signing the document you sited, says she's against

the legal recognition and benefits of any kind of marriage.

She isn't for legal recognition of polymarriage.

[Wella]

23. Where do you get that?

The document specifically mentions poly situations.

[pnwmom]

32. It's a long document, but I read the whole thing. You must have missed this part:

http://beyondmarriage.org/full_statement.html

The Principles at the Heart of Our Vision

We, the undersigned, suggest that strategies rooted in the following principles are urgently needed:

. . . . The separation of benefits and recognition from marital status, citizenship status, and the requirement that “legitimate” relationships be conjugal



____________


So, now that LGBT people can finally get married, let's eliminate the institution altogether. We can all hold hands and sing Cum-bay-yah.

[Wella]

34. It's the same philosophical goal: to level the playing field.

It's coming at it from a different direction.

The only way you can support removing special right from the monogamous is by believing that polyrelationships are equivalent.

[pnwmom]

37. Right. Now that gay people can get married, let's eliminate any government benefits to marriage.

That's what we've all been striving for all these years.

[Wella]

41. That's what Steinem wants, according to you. Of course, we could legalize polymarriage a extend

benefits.

[pnwmom]

44. No, that's the statement Steinem signed. But we have no need to legalize multiple marriages

in order to keep benefits for legal marriage. Our democracy has no obligation to support multi-marriage -- but it may do so by the democratic process.

So knock yourself out.

[Wella]

50. The quesiton is not about need or obligation but about legal recognition of rights.

Period.

[pnwmom]

51. Which will happen if and when a majority of Americans ever support it. n/t

[Chan790]

56. How majoritarian of you. n/t

[Wella]

58. No, it will happen if the courts decide that they cannot legally disallow it

And right now, there is a strong argument that, thanks to the recent SCOTUS decision, there is no justification for disallowing it.

http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2015/06/obergefell-and-the-future-of-polyamorous-marriage.html

Obergefell and the Future of Polyamorous Marriage

...It seems to me that the reasoning in the Court's opinion today is legally and politically helpful for poly partners. Kennedy offers four reasons for treating marriage as a fundamental right: (1) personal choice about marriage is "inherent in the concept of individual autonomy"; (2) marriage "supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals"; (3) marriage safeguards children and promotes the stability of families; and (4) marriage is "a keystone of our social order."

These rationales seem to apply just as well to polyamorous partnerships as to monogamous marriages. Decisions about how to arrange poly and families are "among the most intimate that an individual can make," and many people in polyamorous partnerships may "wish to define themselves by their commitment to each other." If "[m]arriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there," how much better do two marriages (or more!) provide an assurance of companionship and understanding! As for children, the present legal treatment of polyamory provides very limited and problematic protection of the stability of poly families and also makes it difficult, e.g., to plan for the death of a parent or for the termination of a relationship. Finally, the difficulty that many polyamorous partners have in accessing the rights, benefits, and responsibilities attached to marriage injure them directly (e.g., making it difficult to visit partners in the hospital) and stigmatize them less directly by demeaning poly relationships.

As Roberts points out, Kennedy often talks about the significance of two person unions, but "offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not." Even if the sort of unions that marriage supports are essentially two person unions, why might a person not be part of more than one such union at a time? And the rationales of personal autonomy, enabling people to define themselves through their intimate relationships, and providing stability for children and families would seem to apply to non-monogamous partnerships just as well as to exclusive two-person marriages. ...

[pnwmom]

60. The Courts won't make that decision. Being polygamous is a choice. Being gay is not a choice.

And a SCOTUS decision specifically supporting a "two-person union" has nothing to do with polygamy.

[Wella]

62. How many times are you going to repeat the same notion--one that can be easily taken down?

It's like an article of faith with you, not a well reasoned argument.

1. There is no proof of any gay gene and SCOTUS did not require one. For SCOTUS to require a polyamory gene would be quite unfair under the circumstances and might be considered discriminatory.

2. There is plenty of biological research supporting the notion of humans as polyamorous creatures. Most mammals are not monogamous and that includes humans. And according to evolutionary biologists, that's hard wired.

If you want to keep saying that homosexual attraction is not a choice but that multiple partner attraction is a choice, go ahead, but you'd be biologically wrong (at least for the second half of the statement) and logically inconsistent.

[pnwmom]

64. Most humans are probably attracted to multiple people. That does NOT mean that they cannot choose

one single person to be involved with in a legal marriage relationship. They can and do.

Gay people can now legally marry a single person, just as straight people have always been able to. But gay people can't marry MULTIPLE gay people concurrently, just as straight people can't.

Before gays were barred from marrying their preferred partners because of their gender -- a biological trait. Now they aren't. But they are still barred from entering into legal multi-person unions. And so is everyone else.

[Wella]

68. Your opinion is nice, but legally it is disciminatory to curb the civil right of marriage because

some other form of marriage is out there, despite its appropriateness or acceptability to the individual who has those civil rights.

And you're beginning to sound like the right wing: if gay men want to get married, they can marry a woman. If the polyamorous want to get married, they can just marry one person.

[pnwmom]

72. Sorry, you can't show me a single court case supporting YOUR opinion that it's legally discriminatory

to limit legal marriages to two spouses.

Until recently, gay men have been barred from marrying other men because of their gender. That was wrong, because they were being discriminated against based on the gender of the people involved.

There is nothing discriminatory about defining marriage as a union of 2 people -- not 3 or 5 or 10 or 100. It just requires all people who wish to marry to select one other adult person, without regard to gender, orientation, skin color, or other inborn trait, to form that particular legal relationship with.

[Wella]

73. Disingenuous: the case with such an argument has not hit SCOTUS yet

You clearly haven't been reading some of the articles that explore these arguments:

Polyamorous Attorney Agrees SCOTUS Decision Could Lead To Group Marriage
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/04/same-sex-marriage-polygamy_n_7705744.html

Andy Izenson, an attorney with Diana Adams Law and Mediation who also identifies as polyamorous, explained to host Nancy Redd that the same legal reasoning to protect same-sex marriage under the 14th Amendment "could plausibly" be extended to protect group marriages, presuming it's consensual.

"The idea that a three-person or four-person union between consenting adults is not fundamentally different from a two-person union between consenting adults is absolutely legit," Izenson said.

Comment: Why polyamorous marriages are the next step to equality
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/05/04/comment-why-polyamorous-marriages-are-the-next-step-to-equality/

...At the centre of the issue lies a fundamental inequality: monogamous relationships have legal rights and protections whilst nonmonogamous ones do not. Yet we have the opportunity for a straightforward solution: why not take the now-defunct concept of civil partnerships, and open them to polyamorous households? Each registered family would receive the same partnership rights as any other form of union, and be subject to the same obligations. Most importantly, it would provide legal recognition and protection to the increasing number of alternative households in Britain today.

For many this seems like a radical concept, and perhaps unsurprisingly, many of the arguments against it closely mirror those against same-sex relationships in general: that we’re unnatural, that our relationships are unstable and unhealthy (of course leading to incest and bestiality), even that our love will invoke the wrath of a furious God. Simply replace ‘same-sex’ with ‘polyamorous’, and the whole debate looks painfully familiar.

In fact, LGBT communities have a long history of polyamory—one dating all the way back to Lord Byron and the Shelleys, continuing through to Harvey Milk and the Radical Faeries. A 2006 study showed that 28% of lesbians, a third of bisexuals, and almost two thirds of gay men are open to nonmonogamous relationships. As any polyamorous bond will automatically involve at least two men or two women, all feature some form of same-sex relationship. Polyamorous families are queer families.

At the same time, the arguments in favour of marriage for same-sex couples also apply to trios. Parents should not face losing custody of their children because they’re in a nonmonogamous relationship. Families shouldn’t risk losing their home because inheritance rights favour ‘traditional’ couples. No-one should suffer being barred from their partner’s funeral because their love isn’t recognised....

It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-decision-polygamy-119469.html#.VZsiwUWTlZU

The question presents itself: Where does the next advance come? The answer is going to make nearly everyone uncomfortable: Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals? The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy—yet many of the same people who pressed for marriage equality for gay couples oppose it.

This is not an abstract issue. In Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion, he remarks, “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.” As is often the case with critics of polygamy, he neglects to mention why this is a fate to be feared. Polygamy today stands as a taboo just as strong as same-sex marriage was several decades ago—it’s effectively only discussed as outdated jokes about Utah and Mormons, who banned the practice over 120 years ago...

[pnwmom]

74. Show me the court case at ANY level in ANY state that decided that limiting

the number of people in a marriage to 2 people was discriminatory.

[Wella]

77. Show me a case from 1960 that decided that limiting gay people from marriage was discriminatory

You won't find any. And for the same reason.

But you will find them quite soon. In fact, Jonathan Turley's defense of the Sister/Wives crowd has started the ball rolling:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/12/16/sister-wives-defeat-polygamy-law-in-federal-court

A federal judge ruled late Friday that a key section of Utah law criminalizing polygamy is unconstitutional, granting multi-spouse families the right to live together without facing arrest, so long as they do not acquire multiple marriage licenses.

U.S. District Court Judge Clark Waddoups ruled Utah's criminalization of cohabitation violated the due process and First Amendment religious freedom rights of the Brown family, which includes husband Kody Brown and his four wives.

First comes decriminalization--think Lawrence v Texas. Next, comes the fight for marriage recognition.

[pnwmom]

79. No, it won't happen. Because the old laws discriminated based on gender.

The 2 person marriage laws do not discriminate based on any human trait.

And de-criminalizing polygamy is a separate issue. They should have a right to live together in polygamous groups, based on the right to privacy, as long as they don't abuse children or spouses.

What they don't have the right to is legal recognition of multi-marriages.

[Wella]

87. ANY kind of discrimination can be a problem when you're talking about a fundamental right.

Not just gender.

[pnwmom]

88. Multi-marriage is NOT a fundamental right. It can be regulated as easily

as alternate-side-of-the-street parking.

Not everyone gets society's sanction for every desired practice.

There are mountains of data showing the social harm from polygamy, so there would be plenty of rational basis for judges to rule that a law not recognizing these marriages did not constitute illegal discrimination.

There was no such evidence for same-sex marriage.

[Wella]

91. The right to marriage is a fundamental right which exists in the person

The state has to show a compelling interest to restrict this right in any way. In my lifetime, SCOTUS will see an argument smashing any idea that the state has a compelling interest in restricting marriage to only two people.

[pnwmom]

93. Polygamy is not a fundamental right.

The state needs a rational basis for limiting marriage to two people and it has one. There is a small mountain of data showing the harm to individuals and society that occurs with polygamy -- and doesn't with two-person marriages.

[Wella]

94. MARRIAGE is a fundamental right. It resides in the person.

And show me this mountain of data that shows the harm in polyamorous situations.

[pnwmom]

95. Two-person marriage is a fundamental right. Polygamy is not.

Here are a couple of articles that discuss the evidence of harm caused by polygamy -- and the dearth of comparable evidence with regard to same-sex marriage.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/polygamy-not-next-gay-marriage-119614.html#.VZtNi2C4mgx

I'm not just making this up. There's an extensive literature on polygamy.

Here’s a 2012 study, for example, that discovered “significantly higher levels of rape, kidnapping, murder, assault robbery and fraud in polygynous cultures.” According to the research, “monogamy's main cultural evolutionary advantage over polygyny is the more egalitarian distribution of women, which reduces male competition and social problems.”

The study found that monogamous marriage “results in significant improvements in child welfare, including lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death, homicide and intra-household conflict.” And: “by shifting male efforts from seeking wives to paternal investment, institutionalized monogamy increases long-term planning, economic productivity, savings and child investment.”
There’s more, but you get the idea.

In this article, I noted other research suggesting that societies become inherently unstable when effective sex ratios reach something like 120 males to 100 females, such that a sixth of men are surplus commodities in the marriage market. That's not a big number: "The United States as a whole would reach that ratio if, for example, 5 percent of men took two wives, 3 percent took three wives, and 2 percent took four wives—numbers that are quite imaginable, if polygamy were legal for a while."

By abolishing polygamy as a legal form of marriage, western societies took a step without which modern liberal democracy and egalitarian social structures might have been impossible: they democratized the opportunity to marry. It's no coincidence that almost no liberal democracy allows polygamy.




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eliyahu-federman/gay-marriage-polygamy-incest_b_1261374.html

In 2008 the California Supreme Court distinguished polygamy from the right to same-sex marriage by explaining that polygamy is "inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry." Polygamist leaders like Warren Jeffs, who last year was convicted of multiple sexual assaults and incest-related felony counts, illustrate how polygamy is inherently conducive to power imbalances, sexual subjugation, and other abuses that do not inherently exist in the case of same-sex marriage.

There isn't a shred of modern sociological evidence to support the claim that gay marriage is harmful to society, whereas there is a plethora of historical and contemporary evidence to illustrate the dangers associated with polygamy. One could even argue that there is less of a power imbalance in same-sex couples compared with opposite-sex couples, because both spouses are of the same sex. With opposite-sex couples, there is arguably a greater power imbalance because men are generally physically stronger than women. The bottom line is that the rate of domestic violence in both gay and straight marriage is basically the same. Aside from gender, the unions are exactly the same.

Every circumstance needs to be judged on its own merits. When looking at incest, for instance, it is quite clear that permitting consanguineous relationships will lead to power imbalances, psychological damage, sexual abuse, and a high rate of genetic diseases. Again, the basis for society's objection is not a religious one based on "family values" but one based on provable harm to society. The same cannot be said of two same-sex consenting adults getting married. Where is the evidence that children raised by gay parents are harmed? Where is the evidence that gay marriage will lead to the end of civilization? Show me one peer-reviewed, modern, mainstream study demonstrating the inherent dangers of gay marriage. You will not find it.

[Wella]

102. MARRIAGE is a fundamental right. It resides in the person. The number of persons

is a limitation on that right.

[pnwmom]

104. What the heck does "resides in the person" mean? We live in a democracy

that is run by law. We have a law that defines marriage as between two people, and there is a rational basis for that law -- i.e., a great deal of sociological research and history. Therefore, it isn't discriminatory.

Whatever right you think "resides in the person" -- society isn't required to legalize polygamy, or accord to it the recognition and benefits of legal two-person marriage.

UNLESS this change occurs through the Democratic process, or through the courts. . . .

And there is no evidence of this happening anytime soon.

[Wella]

105. Fundamental rights reside in the person. They were considered by the founders to be God-given

and not to be abridged by government except under extraordinary circumstances where the government could show a compelling interest. Marriage was not officially one of these kinds of rights until the Loving decision. It is this idea of marriage as a fundamental right of a person that allowed the gay marriage argument to proceed. Were it not a fundamental right, gay marriage activists could not claim Equal Protection.

[pnwmom]

107. And we're back to the beginning. Polygamy is a type of relationship that is NOT a fundamental right.

It resembles a 2 person marriage, but it is a different thing altogether.

[Wella]

108. The right to be married is a fundamental right. Which gender/how many you marry is a limitation

Until recently, you could only marry someone of the opposite sex and only one. SCOTUS has now removed the limitation on gender. They can (and will) remove the limitation on number. Justice Roberts made it clear that the legal framework to do away with this limit is now in place thanks to the SCOTUS decision.

[pnwmom]

111. Justice Roberts DISSENTED. He is WRONG and he represents only his own minority opinion.

There is a rational basis, based on much research, for limiting marriage to two people; but not for limiting it to mixed-gender couples. That is why the latter was discriminatory but the former is not.

[Wella]

113. Legal logic and its correctness does not depend who "who wins." SCOTUS is not a sport.

Usually, both sides have valid arguments. This was a 5-4 decision, indicating that the decision was complicated and not totally transparent.

Look at it this way: SCOTUS approved Plessy vs. Ferguson, upholding Jim Crow laws. There was a dissent to that too, but the Jim Crow supporters won. Does that mean that those Justices supporting Jim Crow were "the winners" and that therefore the dissent was "wrong"?

[pnwmom]

114. Here is what was wrong with Roberts's opinion, and why no liberal or moderate or centrist

justice joined it.

It is a long, thorough, well-argued piece. I hope you will take the time to absorb it.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/06/30/supreme_court_gay_marriage_john_roberts_dissent_is_wrong_about_polygamy.html

When the chief justice says that embracing polygamy would be a shorter step than embracing same-sex marriage, he is absolutely correct if the justifiability of rights claims under our Constitution depends upon the depth and breadth of the claim’s rootedness in the historical record. From the standpoint of his constitutional vision, polygamy looms large indeed.

But how do these matters appear from the standpoint of the constitutional vision laid out in Kennedy’s majority opinion?

SNIP


In other words, from a constitutional perspective that takes as its lodestar an ordered system of equal liberty, same-sex marriage is a very important but not a radical reform that builds on, extends, and further entrenches marriage’s egalitarian and constitutional character. This is why women’s groups have so long championed the cause of same-sex marriage. It is why patriarchal societies despise gay rights and know nothing of same-sex marriage.

The striking fact, as I explain in my recently published book Just Married: Same-Sex Couples, Monogamy, and the Future of Marriage, is that gender equality and same-sex marriage, on the one hand, and polygamy, on the other, are on completely different historical trajectories. Nowhere in the world where women are equal is there any broad social movement in favor of plural marriage. Where women are becoming equal but plural marriage continues to exist, as in Africa, women’s groups are typically seeking to end it, or limit and regulate it. For example, 36 African nations (including South Africa) have ratified the African Union’s protocol on women’s rights, which calls for an end to all forms of discrimination against women, insists that “women and men enjoy equal rights and are regarded as equal partners in marriage,” and holds that “monogamy is encouraged as the preferred form of marriage.”

And if we look at plural marriage as a social reality, rather than as a utopian fantasy, we see that the unequal power dynamics that polygamy unleashes are socially destructive and inconsistent with the equal opportunity to enjoy the great good of family life. Even when practiced by only a small minority of privileged men, polygyny increases competition among men and the pool of unmarried males, contributing to greater violence and risk taking. In addition, complex families are prone to jealousy, conflict, and higher levels of violence in the home.

The Constitution’s basic commitment to an ordered system of equal liberty should guide our analysis. Same-sex marriage extends the basic value of equal liberty to a group long subject to prejudice and discrimination. It builds upon and further strengthens the norm of spousal equality within marriage. It offers same-sex couples the equal opportunity to enter into a socially recognized form of mutual commitment of great importance. Same-sex marriage helps secure everyone’s equal standing and fair opportunity to pursue a good and successful life.

SNIP

Political conservatives often seem to take their bearings on marriage from elsewhere. The chief justice and his fellow dissenters favor an understanding of marriage that is prepolitical, has existed for millennia, that “arose in the nature of things,” as the chief says. Leading conservative thinkers have long argued that “traditional” marriage is a “two-in-one flesh communion of man and woman” that originates in the Book of Genesis. Marriage so understood has typically been patriarchal and has often been polygamous, if later books of the Old Testament and the insights of anthropologists are to be believed. From this point of view, same-sex marriage is indeed anathema.

At the end of the day, the most basic question of all is: Are we prepared to treat the Constitution as supreme law?

[Wella]

117. The Slate article doesn't attack the Roberts' legal LOGIC at all: it just brings up

typical prejudices against polymarriage--and specifically polygamy--and it gives the writer's opinion on "the trajectory of history." It's a hodgepodge of opinion and wishful thinking on why polygamy will never happen.

It doesn't address Roberts' main point.

Roberts said that the arguments made by the majority (Kennedy) could have been just as easily made to support polymarriage and this article does not in any way address that head on or "prove" Roberts wrong.

Now, let's get back to the lesson I was trying to teach you in the last post:

1. Just because an opinion is in the minority (it doesn't "win&quot doesn't mean it is wrong. Nor is its legal argumentation wrong. Plessy v. Ferguson and the overturning of Prohibition both speak to the fact that the "winning" side later became the "losing" side.

There is nothing inherently superior about legal argumentation that "wins". In this case, 5 justices agreed and 4 disagreed: the closest margin you can have. It wasn't, in sports parlance, "a slam dunk." There's lots of room for argument.

[pnwmom]

119. Yes, it most certainly does. Roberts's legal "logic" is that marriage is based on a long "tradition"

and "history" -- a long tradition and history that also included polygamy.

But Justice Kennedy says that history and tradition is NOT the correct legal basis for the decision.

Obviously, you didn't take the time to read the article, much less absorb its meaning.

[Wella]

120. Have you actually read what Roberts wrote and not just what the Slate writer chose to

quote?

[pnwmom]

121. Yes, I read both Kennedy's and Roberts' decisions. Here's a link

in case you didn't bother to read Kennedy's.

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

[Mojorabbit]

109. How is allowing two couples to marry eliminating the institution?

It is still marriage. A bit more work for lawyers to figure out the particulars but?

[pnwmom]

110. The signers of that statement are advocating for the elimination of the institution,

as a legal entity, not its expansion.

Again, this is what they called for:'

"The separation of benefits and recognition from marital status."

So they think everyone should play nice and recognize each others household arrangements, but there should be no legal "benefits and recognition" based on marital status.

So, as soon as gay people in all 50 states qualify for marriage, people here are pushing the idea that legal marriage -- with legal recognition and benefits -- shouldn't exist at all.

[Mojorabbit]

112. That is not what I am reading on the board

I am seeing poly posters reamed a new one and called all kinds of names because they too might want to be married with all the legal protections that couples get. It makes total sense to me that poly families seeing the recent success of the latest ruling have dared to hope they might have a chance of doing the same.

[pnwmom]

118. Then you are not reading thoroughly. The OP this very thread has responded to

points approvingly to the declaration that Gloria Steinem and Cornell West signed -- a declaration that called for the elimination of legal recognition and legal benefits to marriage.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

92. Steinem and other white feminist activists never gave a shit about poor, minority women.

That's why many black women broke away, and bell hooks and other black feminists started referring to themselves as "womanists".

Then, she showed her ass during Obama's campaign.

Steinem and West belong together; they both hate Obama so maybe it works for them.

[Starry Messenger]

16. So what?

[Wella]

18. People have been arguing that there is no political support on the left for polymarriage recognition

Everyone seems to think that only Mormons and Muslims want polygamy for religious purposes. If Steinem is on the side of polymarriage recognition, shouldn't we at least look at it?

[Starry Messenger]

19. Two people and some bloggers is not political support.

Do the math. Steinem also used to be transphobic, a position she has since relinquished and apologized for. So she's hardly infallible. Cornel West is a hot mess.

[Wella]

24. There is more than just some bloggers. There are advocacy groups, lawyers and academics all arguing

for polymarriage recognition of some sort.

[Starry Messenger]

26. How nice for them.

There are all kinds of supporters for the Confederate flag too. History is against them too.

[Wella]

28. Confederate flag? What does that have to do with polymarriage?

Good Lord!

[Starry Messenger]

30. Reading, it can help.

I must say, DUers have certainly have found a unique way to shit on the LGBT community again. Every silver lining has a cloud.

[Wella]

33. Reading about the Confederate flag can help understand polymarriage?

What?

[Starry Messenger]

40. Tragic.

I'm sure you'd love to tie up DU with more of this idiocy. There is only 16% support in US society for polygamy. Now waste someone else's time.

[Wella]

43. Why did you mention the Confederate flag? That has nothing to do with polymarriage

And, with all due respect, support for gay marriage was in the single digits back in the 70s. I imagine the supporters for polymarriage will change as well.

[Starry Messenger]

45. Nope.

I'm sure you'll figure it out. Clever little fellow like you.

[Wella]

55. You were just trying to smear polymarriage then by trying to link it with the Confederate flag

Clever little fellow like you.

[pnwmom]

21. Steinem is NOT on the side of legal recognition of polymarriage.

She supports separating legal benefits and recognition from any kind of marriage, and substituting private arrangements instead.

http://beyondmarriage.org/full_statement.html

The Principles at the Heart of Our Vision

We, the undersigned, suggest that strategies rooted in the following principles are urgently needed:

Ø The separation of benefits and recognition from marital status, citizenship status, and the requirement that “legitimate” relationships be conjugal

[Wella]

25. Steinem supports eliminating monogamy entirely

Doesn't that worry you?

[pnwmom]

29. No, I'm not worried about what Steinem supports. n/t

[Wella]

36. Why not?

Just curious.

[pnwmom]

39. Why should I? I have actual things to worry about. Steinem's opinion on something

won't keep me awake at night.

[Wella]

46. Because she's a major feminist icon.

And people like this still have influence.

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. The document isn't about laws permitting polygamy, though, and neither is the article

The mention in the document is as one of a long list of households that should be seen as 'worthy':

To have our government define as “legitimate families” only those households with couples in conjugal relationships does a tremendous disservice to the many other ways in which people actually construct their families, kinship networks, households, and relationships. For example, who among us seriously will argue that the following kinds of households are less socially, economically, and spiritually worthy?

· Senior citizens living together, serving as each other’s caregivers, partners, and/or constructed families

· Adult children living with and caring for their parents

· Grandparents and other family members raising their children’s (and/or a relative’s) children

· Committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner

· Blended families

· Single parent households

· Extended families (especially in particular immigrant populations) living under one roof, whose members care for one another

· Queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households

· Close friends and siblings who live together in long-term, committed, non-conjugal relationships, serving as each other’s primary support and caregivers

· Care-giving and partnership relationships that have been developed to provide support systems to those living with HIV/AIDS

Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others. While we honor those for whom marriage is the most meaningful personal ­– for some, also a deeply spiritual – choice, we believe that many other kinds of kinship relationship, households, and families must also be accorded recognition.

http://www.beyondmarriage.org/full_statement.html

And the article you link in the OP says:

Also, Trask notes that unlike same-sex marriage supporters, polyamorists are not clamoring for government recognition of their conjugal relationships. “Not at the moment,” Trask said. “There has been talk of it. But most of the talk is about how (if they come out publicly) they can lose their job or children or their home.”

Both opponents and defenders of traditional marriage said they will follow the Supreme Court’s cases next week. Rauch said if the court rules in favor of same-sex marriage supporters on equal-protection grounds, the decision would not help the polyamorist movement.

“The ruling would be, ‘marriage should be extended to people who can’t get married, not those unable to marry six people,” Rauch said in an interview.

[Wella]

31. Yes, a long list of households seen as worthy: which means that special rights for monogamy

of any kind should go by the wayside. The same ends are achieved with different means. If monogamy is not special, then all relationships--poly as well--should be on the same playing field. Philosophically, this achieves the same goal as legalized polymarriage.

[pnwmom]

42. Now that LGBT people have the right to marriage, you're saying we should go on to eliminate

any legal benefits.

No. Just no. Don't you get how this sounds?

[Wella]

54. No, that's what Gloria Steinem allegedly signed (according to you)

I believe in EXTENDING those benefits to polymarriages.

[pnwmom]

59. You're the one who posted about her signing the document. Read your own OP.

Then read the document. She is NOT supporting extending legal benefits to polymarriages. She signed a document calling for eliminating the legal benefits and recognition of all marriages.

[Wella]

63. I posted about Gloria Steinem. Yes. I believe the benefits of marriage should be extend to poly

siutations. End of story.

You're creating an issue that is not there.

[lunatica]

47. Speaking for myself

If I could and had their consent, there are quite a few people I would consider marrying. Of both sexes. For myself I don't consider sex itself of any importance, so even though I wouldn't want to have sex with many of them, I would certainly love being married to them. They're quite a varied group. I love people mostly for their minds. But gentleness and humorous wit are a must.

[Wella]

69. Lovely post!

Thanks for sharing that.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

49. Any marriage contract should require consent of all the other parties

For example, a man shouldn't be able to enter a legally binding marriage with wife #2 unless wife #1 also gives her legal consent. Divorce must also be an absolute right, whether any of the other parties agree or not. If wife #1 wants out, she must commence divorce proceedings against both husband and wife #2, with issues such as child custody and the division of community property requiring adjudication among all parties.

[Wella]

70. I think this is spot on.

And consent would be THE major issue to be dealt with in polymarriages.

[orpupilofnature57]

52. Sticking up for Cornell West helped get me kicked out of the AA Group, BUT he's

a brilliant couragous man, and this is another place where his brilliance and courage apply .

[Wella]

61. I think of Cornell West as "her majesty's loyal opposition"

He says the things that need to be said, even if he gets himself into hot water at times. He has been furious at the current administration's neglect of the poor and its Wall Street donors. He's right.

[orpupilofnature57]

67. + 1000 Well Put !!!!!!

[romanic]

53. So?

I still think don't support it.

[zappaman]

57. They're both wrong.

But your concern is...fascinating.

[tammywammy]

66. +1 n/t

[Wella]

71. Polyamorous Rights Advocates See Marriage Equality Coming for Them (USA Today)

Polyamorous Rights Advocates See Marriage Equality Coming for Them
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/06/29/polyamorous-rights-advocates-see-marriage-equality-coming-for-them

Like others across the country last week, a Washington, D.C., couple and their housewarming guests buzzed about the Supreme Court's ruling that legalized gay marriage in all 50 states. But they were far more interested in Chief Justice John Roberts' dissent than the majority opinion that made same-sex marriage the law of the land.

The couple – a husband and his wife – are polyamorous, and had just moved in with their girlfriend. And in Roberts' dissent, they saw a path that could make three-way relationships like theirs legal, too.

“Did you see we were mentioned by Roberts?” the husband beamed as he welcomed guests the day after the ruling. The chief justice wrote that polygamy has deeper roots in history and that the decision allowing gays to marry "would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.”

“If the majority is willing to take the big leap," he added, "it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one.”

[pnwmom]

75. So now you're claiming a supporter in that right-winger, Justice Roberts?

First Cornell West to support your position, then Justice Roberts.

Great.

[Wella]

76. I posted a USA Today article: I didn't claim a supporter--In fact, I said nothing at all in the post

So I don't know where you got your accusation from.

[pnwmom]

78. Do you ever read the things you post? The article you posted is about how

this polyamorous couple feels supported by Justice Roberts's dissent. Justice Roberts is named in the very first paragraph you quoted, so it would be hard to miss.

[Wella]

80. The polyamorous folks in the ARTICE feel supported by Justice Roberts.

You claimed that I personally did. Perhap you should read the things I post and those that you post as well. Then you might see the logical inconsistencies of your comments.

[pnwmom]

82. Why do you post things you don't agree with? nt

[Wella]

84. I agree that the article is important and that it's worth looking at the opinions of the polyamorous

in those articles.

Many polyamorous people are agreeing with Justice Roberts, even though he is clearly on the opposite wing from themselves. Why do they agree with him? Have they all suddenly become right wing?

Why no. It's because there's an inherent logic to Justice Robert's opinion that transcends daily politics and the personal feelings of one pnwmom.

Sometimes, intelligent people look at the logic of the argument being made and not just whether or not that person fits into their circle of political friends.

[pnwmom]

85. They are agreeing with him because they'll side with anyone who seems to be on their side

on the issue, even though the last thing he would do is support polygamous marriage.

[Wella]

86. They agree with his LOGIC--which stands separate from his personal opinion

For example:

You can tell me that if it rains, most people will carry an umbrella.

a. You could be my friend telling me this, in which case, I agree with your logic and I like you as a person.

b. You could be my enemy telling me this, in which case, I agree with your logic, but dislike you as a person. In fact, I could hate your guts but still agree with you that most people will be carrying umbrellas if it rains.

The polyamorous fall into the second group when it comes to judge Roberts. The agree with his logic but don't necessarily like him as a person.

There is actually no need to like a person or agree with his other opinions in order to acknowledge that his logic is sound.

[pnwmom]

90. His "logic" fails to recognize that there is a rational basis,

backed up by reams of sociological studies, for laws that don't recognize polygamy. Polygamy causes harm, both to society and individuals, that same-sex marriage doesn't cause. Therefore, disallowing legal polygamy doesn't constitute unlawful discrimination.

[Wella]

97. His LOGIC doesn't have to. He's following the lines of argument in the SCOTUS decision

I'm guessing you never took a logic class.

[pnwmom]

98. You're guessing wrong. I have. And his argument was not part of the DECISION,

and it didn't follow from it.

His incorrect argument was in his DISSENT.

[Wella]

100. Then you either failed the class or don't remember much.

The Chief Justice explained the the same lines of argument in Kennedy's decision are applicable to and support for polymarriage. Since legal theories and precedent are the basis of future decisions, Justice Roberts has every reason to connect the dots.

[pnwmom]

106. Except his "logic" wasn't accepted by a single one of the justices in the majority.

And not by the other dissenting justices, either, who felt compelled to write their own opinions.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

89. Can't stand either one of them, so fucking what?

[RandySF]

101. Oh God, it's hard enough to get ONE person to love me...

much less more than one. I'll quit while I'm ahead.

[Wella]

103. That is a good point.

[ibegurpard]

116. That's nice

Not interested