Why should polygamy be illegal?

[toddjh]

First, we, the people, are the government. Second, what makes you think the cost would be high? Where's your evidence or at least a hypothesis as to why?

I've given lots of reasons in other threads. I'll repeat them if you really want, but I'd really rather not. The short version is, it would be a regulatory nightmare. Two-person marriages are quite simple: one relationship, one contract, no fuss. Polygamy leads to marriage graphs of arbitrary size. Every decision that needs to be made regarding a marriage would be complicated exponentially (well, okay, geometrically, if you want to get technical).

Could the issues be resolved? Maybe. Would it be worth the effort and expense, not to mention the extra burden on the legal system? Given that I really don't think too many people are interested in polygamy, I seriously doubt it.

It saddens me to hear someone say, "I can't say I see a reason why it should be legalized." I prefer a society where we need damned good reasons to make things illegal.

If this were an issue of individual liberty, then I would agree 100 percent. Sleep with whoever you want, live with whoever you want, raise children with whoever you want. But this isn't an issue of liberty, even though I know it's tempting to couch it as one. This is about whether the government -- the people, as you point out -- should be forced to enter into a contract against its will. It's about whether you, as a participant in the government (and, presumably, a taxpayer), should be forced to enter into a contract against your will, and foot the bill for it to boot. I think that you shouldn't.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Could the issues be resolved? Maybe. Would it be worth the effort and expense, not to mention the extra burden on the legal system?

How is it any more complicated than what goes on every day in commercial real estate transactions? There you have all sorts of entities taking all sorts of positions on a deal.

 

[toddjh]

How is it any more complicated than what goes on every day in commercial real estate transactions? There you have all sorts of entities taking all sorts of positions on a deal.

I don't know if polygamy would be more or less complicated than real estate, but real estate transactions are vital to the functioning of our society -- that's the difference. What does the government have to gain by recognizing polygamy? Satisfying a handful of people who like the idea? Sure, that's a noble sentiment, but it has to be weighed against the cost.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

How is it any more complicated than what goes on every day in commercial real estate transactions? There you have all sorts of entities taking all sorts of positions on a deal.

Whether there exists something equally complicated already is not, in itself, justification for adding another system with that level of complication. And I am not convinced polygamy is less or even equally complicated. Just for starters, you have to completely overhaul divorce laws, child custody laws, including child support, and tax law. Then there are the countless little places marriage pops up all over the map that have to be taken care of. I offered the example of federal financial aid eligibility (since it's an area I'm familiar with), but there are many more. Marriage is bloody everywhere, and everywhere it is, the statutes would have to at least be considered, and most likely changed considerably, were polygamous marriages recognized.

On top of all that, polygamous marriage is open to significant abuses, which would have to be legislated and policed, adding yet more cost. For example, we allow people (with considerable red tape) to bring in a marriage partner from farn parts. Ideally, we don't want people getting married just to get into the country. Of course, the system does get abused as is and must be policed, but to a large extent, we rely on the hesitance of people to spend their one marriage slot (at a time, anyway) to import their friends. If everyone has an unlimited supply of concurrent marriage slots to fill, the temptation to use them frivolously goes up.

How big of a problem would that be? Again, I don't know. As with all of the problems, it is admittedly not insurmountable on its own. Solutions and policies could be enacted. Add all of the problems together, though, and you have quite a lot of work to get done and quite a lot of money to spend to do it.

Ultimately, it comes down to the status quo. The status quo is not necessarily right, but if people want to change it, it is their responsibility to propose a compelling reason to do so and at least suggest workable solutions to the problems so created by the change. Merely stating that it could be done and that you want it done is not good enough. State how it could be done, and why it should be.

 

[tyr_13]

I really don't see the problem with legally marrying one person and just calling a bunch of other people you live your husband or wife (or princess number five for all I care)?

 

[Uncayimmy]

I don't know if polygamy would be more or less complicated than real estate, but real estate transactions are vital to the functioning of our society -- that's the difference. What does the government have to gain by recognizing polygamy? Satisfying a handful of people who like the idea? Sure, that's a noble sentiment, but it has to be weighed against the cost.

How exactly is the government incurring costs as a result of people creating complicated real estate transactions?

What other types of complicated contracts are outlawed simply because they are not "vital" to society and cost too much?

 

[toddjh]

How exactly is the government incurring costs as a result of people creating complicated real estate transactions?

I have no idea how much real estate transactions do or don't cost anyone. You were the one who brought up real estate, not me. However, MdC did give a very good summary of some of the costs polygamy would involve.

What other types of complicated contracts are outlawed simply because they are not "vital" to society and cost too much?

Are you seriously asking for a list of things that don't exist?

 

[luchog]

Because western society, in general, is not polygamous. Polygamous societies tend to create more losers in the sex game.

Only if the culture accepts polygyny exclusively, and not polyandry. As long as it accepts both equally, then things balance out.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Only if the culture accepts polygyny exclusively, and not polyandry. As long as it accepts both equally, then things balance out.

It's possible that they would, but what makes you think it would be so? Just because both are accepted equally does not mean they will be practiced equally.

 

[luchog]

In a democracy, what we like and dislike, to the extent this can reasonably be determined, should be the basis of what the law says. In a constitutional democracy, constitutionally entrenched rights are supposed to be the core of the checks and balances on majoritarian abuses.

Except that anytime laws are based on what "we" like and dislike, there will always be majority abuses and marginalization of minorities. We saw it with Jim Crow, and "seperate but equal".

Polygamists will have to make the case that their rights are being unjustly violated. It will be a hard sell.

It shouldn't have to be sold to anyone. Constitutionally, there should be no basis for government interference in marriage, or any sort of official state recognition or prohibition of homosexual, polyandrous, polygynous, or polymorphous marriages. All legal aspects of such relationships should be dealt with strictly through civil contract. For those who say this is unworkable, it's obviously not, since that is exactly what government-recognized marriage is right now, a civil contract enforced by the state. The only difference is that through marriage laws, the state limits the types of marriage contracts it will consider valid. It's those limits that need to be removed, and prohibition of different types of contracts between consenting adults ended.

 

[politas]

I am saying that it will not work legaly. This is about rights and laws not love.

You can not recognise two people as being the both who are most close to you.

So which of a child's parents are "most close to them" legally?

I think this argument is absurd. You're describing issues that already exist, just in slightly different circumstances.

 

[luchog]

Actually its more likely to reduce the number, as a man can marry multiple women at the same time. And many other men don't have women to marry.

But as we see with the 'lost boys' a society with lots of polygamy is far less stable then the current one. The only solution to that is to reduce the number of born males.

Why is everyone assuming "polygamy" automatically equals "polygyny"?

 

[toddjh]

All legal aspects of such relationships should be dealt with strictly through civil contract.

If you want to argue that government should get out of the marriage business entirely, well, I'm not sure I'd agree with that, but I'm not sure I'd disagree either. I can see the appeal. However, it's important to realize that the types of "private marriage contracts" that would exist in the absence of government recognition would be very different from what we think of as marriage now in some important ways. You can't recreate all aspects of marriage through private contracts alone; at some point you have to get the government to play ball, too.

 

[politas]

How exactly is the government incurring costs as a result of people creating complicated real estate transactions?

What other types of complicated contracts are outlawed simply because they are not "vital" to society and cost too much?

In Australia, Real Estate transactions are a source of income for governments, not a cost. Don't other countries have Stamp Duties?

 

[politas]

I really don't see the problem with legally marrying one person and just calling a bunch of other people you live your husband or wife (or princess number five for all I care)?

Well, there's no problem with that, legally. The problem comes when you're in hospital and the one member of your family who is legally allowed to tell the hospital what you want is unavailable for some reason, so the hospital has to go to talk to your parents, because they can't legally take directions from the other people you have decided you trust and want to spend your life with.

Just as an example.

 

[luchog]

Is there a name for two couples teaming up, or is it polygamy?

Polygamy covers any multiple marriage situation. In this case it would be a combination of polygyny and polyandry, regardless of the sexual orientation of those involved.

 

[luchog]

I've given lots of reasons in other threads. I'll repeat them if you really want, but I'd really rather not. The short version is, it would be a regulatory nightmare. Two-person marriages are quite simple: one relationship, one contract, no fuss. Polygamy leads to marriage graphs of arbitrary size. Every decision that needs to be made regarding a marriage would be complicated exponentially (well, okay, geometrically, if you want to get technical).

Which is why corporate business partnerships involving more than two people simply don't exist.

Oh, wait...

This is about whether the government -- the people, as you point out -- should be forced to enter into a contract against its will. It's about whether you, as a participant in the government (and, presumably, a taxpayer), should be forced to enter into a contract against your will, and foot the bill for it to boot. I think that you shouldn't.

Red Herring. The government doesn't have a "will". The government is simply a collection of laws and structures for the preservation of an orderly society. There is nothing in this statement that is not a complete red herring; otherwise corporations would never be able to exist.

 

[luchog]

It's possible that they would, but what makes you think it would be so? Just because both are accepted equally does not mean they will be practiced equally.

Irrelevant, since there's no reason to assume that they wouldn't be practices equally. A look at the polyamoury subculture is a good indication of that.

In any case, as long as they're accepted equally, then it doesn't matter too much what the practices is, since it wouldn't deviate significantly from the current situation. It's only when restrictions come into play that significant deviation occurrs.

 

[luchog]

If you want to argue that government should get out of the marriage business entirely, well, I'm not sure I'd agree with that, but I'm not sure I'd disagree either. I can see the appeal. However, it's important to realize that the types of "private marriage contracts" that would exist in the absence of government recognition would be very different from what we think of as marriage now in some important ways. You can't recreate all aspects of marriage through private contracts alone; at some point you have to get the government to play ball, too.

Why?

What aspects of current marriage laws could not be represented by some combination prenup agreements, conditional power of attourney, and wills? That's pretty much how homosexual couples deal with things already in the absences of government recognition.

There is no reason that standardized contracts covering every common eventuality could not be drafted. Corporate parternerships do it all the time. Indeed, just like laws regarding corporate contracts, marriage contracts vary widely from state to state. Monogamous heterosexual marriages are not even standardized in the US, so what's the objection to other non-standardized marriages? The only difference would be some minor alterations to tax laws, which are in dire need of a major re-write anyway.

 

[toddjh]

Which is why corporate business partnerships involving more than two people simply don't exist.

For like the fifth time now, I'm not saying that the difficulties associated with polygamy couldn't, through herculean effort, be dealt with. I'm just saying that the government doesn't consider it worth the cost, and it's not under any legal obligation to think otherwise.

Red Herring. The government doesn't have a "will".

In the U.S., sure it does: the will of the people, through their elected representatives, and under the rights enumerated in the Constitution. The ban on polygamy exists entirely within this framework.

What aspects of current marriage laws could not be represented by some combination prenup agreements, conditional power of attourney, and wills?

Like I said before, just try to use private contracts to file your taxes jointly.

Edit: A few more things off the top of my head:

Social Security. A person would not be eligible to collect his or her spouse-by-contract's social security after death.

Legal protections. For example, spouses can't be compelled to testify against each other in court. Spouses-by-contract could be.

Insurance. If my wife and I weren't legally married, she'd have to pay for her own insurance instead of sharing my plan.

FMLA Leave. A person would not be guaranteed time off work to care for a sick spouse-by-contract.

Asset sharing. Buy your spouse-by-contract a new car? They'll have to claim it as income on their taxes next year.