Why should polygamy be illegal?

[ponderingturtle]

But if you look at why two-person relationships break up, some of the most common causes are rooted in the exclusivity.

Evidence, as well as that this model of non monogamous relationship is better.

 

[toddjh]

I say that the state needs a compelling reason to prohibit the citizenry from doing what they should be permitted to do in the first place. I'm funny like that.

This isn't an issue of individual liberty. You're free to pursue any kind of relationship you want (or you should be -- I'm 100% behind you on that one). But what you're asking is for the government to recognize your relationship. To grant special privileges to it. It's perfectly fair for the government to say, "Okay...why?"

For same-sex marriage, the answer to that question is, "Since you recognize opposite-sex relationships, and since it's a legal no-no to discriminate on the basis of gender and (in some jurisdictions) sexual orientation, not recognizing same-sex marriage represents a violation of equal protection and due process." It's a good argument, and I think it will eventually prevail in the courts.

But what's the answer for polygamy? You could try to make a similar equal protection or due process case, but I don't think it would fly, since there are no legal no-nos involved. I think the government is perfectly within its rights to say, "Look, it would cost a ton of money and be an awful lot of work. We don't really want to jump through all those hoops, at taxpayer expense, for just a handful of people."

 

[El_Spectre]

We don't really want to jump through all those hoops, at taxpayer expense, for just a handful of people."

What a horrific thing for a government to say...

 

[toddjh]

What a horrific thing for a government to say...

Once again, I'm not talking about upholding the rights of citizens. The government must do that. I'm talking about public policy decisions where there are no rights being violated and no thorny constitutional issues involved. I think "it would cost a hell of a lot of money" is a perfectly good reason to reject a particular policy.

Think about tax breaks. The government grants tax breaks for things that it believes will promote the national good: having children, buying your first home, education, etc. (A lot of questionable things too, of course, but that's a discussion for another thread).

Is the government violating anyone's rights by offering those breaks? Of course not. Are they obligated to offer tax breaks to any kook who wants them? Of course not. It's the same with polygamy. If you want to change the status quo, you have to either persuade or compel. Persuade the government that it's in their best interest to do what you want (by voting for it), or compel them that they are legally obligated to do what you want.

 

[ponderingturtle]

What a horrific thing for a government to say...

Are you in favor of opening up every single one of marriages thousand plus provisions to any private contract? Nothing else can possibly permit people to be able to have exactly the marriage that they want.

Yes this will make marriage more expensive for everyone, and make any situation that deals with marriage much more expensive for everyone as well as they will need to examine your specific marriage contract.

Of course the poor lose out in this, but they shouldn't be poor then right?

There will always be losers in any decision. The model of poly marriage is likely to not fit the type of poly marriage that many of those who want a poly marriage are after as well. There is no true solution to this, if you create so many varieties of marriage you are then requiring people to have to know the intricacies of all the different kinds of marriage.

Marriage can never be one size fits all, it is only ever one size fits most. Now expanding it to cover homosexuals is something that we have very good ideas about how to create it legally and what the effects are. The nebulous cries of not legally recognizing poly relationships do not provide a clear way to resolve the unfairness that is being decried.

 

[El_Spectre]

Once again, I'm not talking about upholding the rights of citizens. The government must do that. I'm talking about public policy decisions where there are no rights being violated and no thorny constitutional issues involved. I think "it would cost a hell of a lot of money" is a perfectly good reason to reject a particular policy.

Think about tax breaks. The government grants tax breaks for things that it believes will promote the national good: having children, buying your first home, education, etc. (A lot of questionable things too, of course, but that's a discussion for another thread).

Is the government violating anyone's rights by offering those breaks? Of course not. Are they obligated to offer tax breaks to any kook who wants them? Of course not. It's the same with polygamy. If you want to change the status quo, you have to either persuade or compel. Persuade the government that it's in their best interest to do what you want (by voting for it), or compel them that they are legally obligated to do what you want.

Persuade the government that it is in ITS best interest to respect the will of citizens? We're getting more horrific here...

 

[Cavemonster]

Persuade the government that it is in ITS best interest to respect the will of citizens? We're getting more horrific here...

No, persuade the government that it is indeed the will of it's citizens.

 

[toddjh]

Persuade the government that it is in ITS best interest to respect the will of citizens? We're getting more horrific here...

Well, first, the government has a responsibility to not heed the will of its citizens, if that will is not constructive. That's why we live in a republic and not a direct democracy. Your way lies the tyranny of the majority.

Second, as Cavemonster points out, polygamy is not the will of the citizens, not by a long shot. Hardly anyone gives it a second thought, or even a first one. What the proponents of polygamy are proposing is that the will of a tiny minority should be forced upon the general population, who will have to foot the bill.

Now, of course, there are times when that's appropriate: when a fundamental right such as equal protection under the law is being violated. Such is the case with same-sex marriage. However, this isn't one of those times. There are no issues of fundamental rights at stake in the polygamy discussion.

You keep trying to phrase things in an inflammatory way, like I'm saying jack-booted thugs should be keeping everyone at the point of a gun or something. I'm talking about public policy issues, not individual liberties. I'm completely in favor of everyone's rights being respected at all times; this is something separate from that.

 

[El_Spectre]

You keep trying to phrase things in an inflammatory way, like I'm saying jack-booted thugs should be keeping everyone at the point of a gun or something. I'm talking about public policy issues, not individual liberties. I'm completely in favor of everyone's rights being respected at all times; this is something separate from that.

Nope, I'm objecting to specific statements, actually. Also, I don't quite see the difference between 'personal liberties' and public policies that infringe on them. Its the same issue.

So far as expense goes, thats not a decent argument. Any number of - unpopular at the time - civil rights changes have been costly to implement. One of the basic tenets of our system of law is that even a tiny minority has rights. Even if they are expensive to implement. Just sayin'

 

[toddjh]

Nope, I'm objecting to specific statements, actually. Also, I don't quite see the difference between 'personal liberties' and public policies that infringe on them. Its the same issue.

What liberties are being infringed upon with the polygamy ban? Being free to pursue any kind of relationship you want is a fundamental liberty, I'll completely agree to that. But getting your relationship recognized by the government as deserving of special status? Not so much.

The government doesn't have to recognize or condone everything. Sure, there are rules it has to follow to make sure no one is being deprived of their fundamental rights along the way, but so long as those rules are followed, yes, it is allowed to take a position on something. Those rules are being followed in this case.

So far as expense goes, thats not a decent argument. Any number of - unpopular at the time - civil rights changes have been costly to implement. One of the basic tenets of our system of law is that even a tiny minority has rights. Even if they are expensive to implement. Just sayin'

This isn't a civil rights issue. The civil rights of polyamorous people are being fully respected (or, if they're not, I share your outrage). Their freedom of expression is intact. Their freedom of association is intact. Until someone here makes an argument to the contrary that doesn't boil down to "because I said so," I see no reason to believe their right to equal protection is being violated, either.

Having the government grant your preferred style of relationship special privileges, absent any legal requirements to do so, is not a civil right. It's a public policy decision.

 

[El_Spectre]

What liberties are being infringed upon with the polygamy ban? Being free to pursue any kind of relationship you want is a fundamental liberty, I'll completely agree to that. But getting your relationship recognized by the government as deserving of special status? Not so much.

And other adult relationships are inherently more deserving of special status?

The government doesn't have to recognize or condone everything.

Having the government grant your preferred style of relationship special privileges, absent any legal requirements to do so, is not a civil right. It's a public policy decision.

Agreed. The government is not compelled to do so. It is also not compelled to give special rights to more traditional 'styles of relationship', and yet it does. Funny, that.

 

[Lonewulf]

Maybe the problem isn't "deserving of special status", but "special status". I'm slowly starting to agree that the government should stay out of marriages, or just make them all available as a social contract, as long as all of those signing said contract are eligible (I.E., not underage).

 

[El_Spectre]

Maybe the problem isn't "deserving of special status", but "special status". I'm slowly starting to agree that the government should stay out of marriages, or just make them all available as a social contract, as long as all of those signing said contract are eligible (I.E., not underage).

Agreed.

 

[Cavemonster]

Maybe the problem isn't "deserving of special status", but "special status". I'm slowly starting to agree that the government should stay out of marriages, or just make them all available as a social contract, as long as all of those signing said contract are eligible (I.E., not underage).

I agree to this in principle, but it wouldn't be very practical.
For one thing, it wouldn't have popular support.
Marriages are honored in legal ways in many many countries, it seems likely that non-government endorsed social contracts would not.

Looking at all the agencies with policies regarding marriage, even if the transition to pure social contracts was fairly straightforward, you're looking at a huge amount of money just reorganizing everything. And then when the law of unintended consequences kicks in, it get's more expensive and wacky.

This isn't to say that the cost and the effort should deter a government action that's right. Just that we don't live in an ideal world and we can't do everything we should. In an ideal world, a child would never starve on the streets, and the brutal reality is a lot of ills could be fixed with more money and work thrown at them.

In a cost/benefit analysis, neither abolishing state recognized marriage nor expanding it to polygamy come close to doing enough good to justify the cost. For similar amounts of money, other, more pressing problems can be tackled.

 

[Uncayimmy]

This isn't an issue of individual liberty. You're free to pursue any kind of relationship you want (or you should be -- I'm 100% behind you on that one). But what you're asking is for the government to recognize your relationship. To grant special privileges to it. It's perfectly fair for the government to say, "Okay...why?"

C'mon, now. Polygamy was made illegal a long, long time ago. Granted, it's been a while since the laws were enforced, but you can't make something illegal for 150 years and then pretend like it's just a matter of the government not "recognizing" it. Furthermore, the "problems" with all the laws were a direct result of the government's actions.

For same-sex marriage, the answer to that question is, "Since you recognize opposite-sex relationships, and since it's a legal no-no to discriminate on the basis of gender and (in some jurisdictions) sexual orientation, not recognizing same-sex marriage represents a violation of equal protection and due process." It's a good argument, and I think it will eventually prevail in the courts.

Agreed. Except it should only be for chicks, 'cause lesbian sex is like luxury yacht sailing on a gentle ocean. Gay man sex is like a jeep climbing over a boulder.

But what's the answer for polygamy? You could try to make a similar equal protection or due process case, but I don't think it would fly, since there are no legal no-nos involved.

If you look at the history, it was clearly a religious thing. Check out the hassle Utah had trying to get admitted to the union. They basically had to make polygamy illegal in their constitution. Check out this article from 1887 and this article on the history of polygamy.

I think a reasonable case could be made for it being a religious issue. The initial arguments against it were that it was traditional for a marriage to be between a man and a woman, with traditional being implicitly defined as most Christian Europeans.

On a side note, the USA is the land of serial polygamy anyway. Personally, I don't want to be a parallel polygamist. What a headache!

 

[toddjh]

And other adult relationships are inherently more deserving of special status?

The government thinks so. If you think they're wrong, you're more than welcome to persuade them by organizing voters. If you think they're making that determination illegally, you're more than welcome to bring it to the courts. It's the democratic process.

Agreed. The government is not compelled to do so. It is also not compelled to give special rights to more traditional 'styles of relationship', and yet it does. Funny, that.

Why is it funny? The government believes that monogamous marriage provides a foundation for stable families. It doesn't believe that polygamy does, and it believes that the cost would be prohibitive. So yes, it sees fit to support monogamous marriage but not polygamy.

You might disagree with any of the above, in which case you are again free to persuade them with votes or compel them with courts.

 

[Anna Kadabra]

I don't see anything wrong with polyandry/polygamy.

 

[toddjh]

C'mon, now. Polygamy was made illegal a long, long time ago. Granted, it's been a while since the laws were enforced, but you can't make something illegal for 150 years and then pretend like it's just a matter of the government not "recognizing" it. Furthermore, the "problems" with all the laws were a direct result of the government's actions.

I agree that there's no need to single out polygamy as some special kind of crime. I'm fine with calling it fraud and/or perjury (lying on the marriage license), and rendering all marriages after the first one null and void.

I think a reasonable case could be made for it being a religious issue. The initial arguments against it were that it was traditional for a marriage to be between a man and a woman, with traditional being implicitly defined as most Christian Europeans.

Maybe, but that's irrelevant legally. The convention in this type of challenge is that it doesn't matter if the original intent of the law is wrongheaded as long as the law fulfills some rational purpose, even unintentionally. In this case, it fulfills the rational purpose of saving the taxpayers a lot of money and trouble.

On a side note, the USA is the land of serial polygamy anyway. Personally, I don't want to be a parallel polygamist. What a headache!

I read an interesting article a while ago about how, in many ways, a lot of people really are in polygamous relationships. With divorce being so common, and so many divorced couples sharing custody of their kids, it's impossible for them to separate their lives even when they move on to other relationships. Their new spouses accept that their old spouses will have to continue to be a part of their lives, and that they will have to maintain a cordial, if platonic, relationship with them for the sake of the kids.

 

[Skeptic]

Fixed it [the past definition of "marriage"-Sk.] for you [to "marriage was defined as between man and woman of the same class and race"-Sk.]

Yes yes yes, in the past marriage between classes and/or races was looked down upon. Therefore, obviously, ALL restrictions on marriage are bad.

And in the past, black men killing white men were punished more severly than white men killing black men. Therefore, obviously, ALL restrictions on killing people are bad.

It's simple logic! If one type of behavior X was in the past unjustly banned, clearly all types of behavior X whatever must now be allowed.

Makes sense to me. Oh wait, no it doesn't.

This obviously logical fallacy wouldn't worry me that much, if it wasn't used as one of the main arguments, if not the main argument, of the pro-gay-marriage side. As the Hebrew expression has it, do these people's ears hear what their mouth is saying?

P.S.

Now, naturally, of the pro-polygamy side, too, despite the pro-gay-marriage folks saying there is no way recognizing gay marriage would lead to recognizing polygamy. They were simply lying on that one, weren't they?

 

[toddjh]

Now, naturally, of the pro-polygamy side, too, despite the pro-gay-marriage folks saying there is no way recognizing gay marriage would lead to recognizing polygamy. They were simply lying on that one, weren't they?

Well, first, what "pro-gay-marriage folks" are you referring to, and what exactly did they say?

Second, in order to be lying they'd have to believe it wasn't true. Are you sure they did?

Third, who's trying to recognize polygamy? Certainly not any states in the U.S. (edit: okay, maybe Utah!). I don't think anybody's even campaigning for it, or at least anyone who wasn't already campaigning ten years ago. Do you have any evidence that it's more of a political issue now than it ever was?

I sure hope you're not basing a statement like that merely on the fact that there was a polygamy discussion on an internet forum where gay marriage was also discussed?