Why should polygamy be illegal?

[Skeptic]

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

Wait until your rich husband decides to take a "trophy wife" when you're not as young and good-looking as you used to be... without bothering with divorce or alimony or giving you anything at all.

It would be fun to see both of you begging for his attention -- you claiming the right for the prime place due to your age and the bearing of his children, she because she's younger and more beautiful and besides, he loves her more now, anyway.

To be on the safe side, both of you would try to make damn sure he's satisfied with you. No talking back or arguing, for instance, let alone developing your own career or being out of the house too often -- who knows what the other woman would then do to get him to love her more? And if he beats you a little bit when you deserve it, hey, no big deal -- shutting up about it would prove to him you love him more than she does.

But apart from that, which is the woman's lot in polygamous marriage, polygamy is fine. As a man, I'm all for it. Like you, I see nothing wrong with polygamy. Women were been having way too many rights lately, anyway.

 

[Cavemonster]

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

snip

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.

I can't say you've never heard this argument, but it is different in essential ways from what I hear from from gay marriage activists.

When past restrictions on marriage (race, class etc) have been brought up, it is almost always in response to someone defending traditional marriage.

The point isn't that all restriction are bad, it is that changes in this supposedly timeless system have been recent and clearly positive.

They are not attacking restriction, they are showing that marriage has become better and stronger by accepting appropriate change, and that change itself is not an attack on marriage.

 

[Cavemonster]

Wait until your rich husband decides to take a "trophy wife" when you're not as young and good-looking as you used to be... without bothering with divorce or alimony or giving you anything at all.

Why would divorce law change?
Just like you could if your husband was just bonking a younger woman, you have every right to divorce under alienation of affection and get alimony, child support and half of his stuff if there wasn't a pre-nup.

How does polygamy negate any rights that can already be exercised?

 

[Uncayimmy]

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.

What about simply calling yourselves married like in this case?

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=16904
But Chief Justice Christine Durham said Holm's bigamy conviction should not be upheld.
In a dissenting opinion, Durham said applying the bigamy statute to marriages solemnized only in religious ceremonies "oversteps lines protecting the free exercise of religion and the privacy of intimate, personal relationships between consenting adults."

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.

I understand what you're saying about it being facially neutral. You're correct in that it in fact affects all religions equally. Of course, it's not like you have a bunch of Catholics interested in polygamy anyway, but we can snicker and say that it really does affect everybody equally. I can live with that.

But there still needs to be a rational basis. It's a religious practice. The state needs a compelling reason to prohibit the conduct. I'm not convinced there are any compelling reasons. People cite statutory rape and the trafficking of women, but those things are already illegal. We got that covered.

The argument about the practical mess has some merit, but I think that can be worked around. If nothing else, you should be allowed to have an official marriage and as many unofficial ones as you want with no special legal recognition.

BTW, if I've come across as this being a black and white issue, that's not my intention. While I disagree with the other side, I don't think their positions are without merit. It's not a slam dunk either way.

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.

Interesting point.

 

[toddjh]

What about simply calling yourselves married like in this case?

No problem as long they don't try to pass themselves off as legally married (e.g. to insurance companies or whatnot). However, I think that would happen an awful lot. I can see both sides, but I'd come down on the side of saying "You have to wait until they actually commit fraud before you charge them with anything," because hey, that's just how I roll. Until then, it's free speech.

I understand what you're saying about it being facially neutral. You're correct in that it in fact affects all religions equally. Of course, it's not like you have a bunch of Catholics interested in polygamy anyway, but we can snicker and say that it really does affect everybody equally. I can live with that.

Well, that's not really what I'm saying. I'm not a fan of that kind of logic when people snicker and say that a gay guy can marry a woman just like a straight guy can, either.

This discussion is complicated by the fact that we do have explicit anti-bigamy laws. I don't like those laws, and I do think they are religious discrimination. If states don't want to recognize polygamy, that's within their authority, but calling it a crime isn't justifiable. Like I said before, charge it as fraud or perjury if it meets the criteria for those, but anything else is stupid. Likewise, if a state does want to recognize polygamy, I have no problem with that. Well, I do have a problem with that, since I think it's a terrible idea, but I acknowledge it's within their authority to do so. Just be ready for a monumental legal nightmare when some states recognize it and others don't...

But there still needs to be a rational basis. It's a religious practice. The state needs a compelling reason to prohibit the conduct.

For the criminal anti-bigamy laws I was just talking about, I'd agree. But when it comes to the government not recognizing polygamy, I think they meet the criteria. Laws which recognize only monogamous marriages may have incidental religious implications, but their primary effect is secular. Keeping marriage and divorce and child custody and tax laws manageable is a legitimate secular purpose. I think they would easily pass the Lemon test.

If nothing else, you should be allowed to have an official marriage and as many unofficial ones as you want with no special legal recognition.

Sure, no problem with that. But I think that's already the case. I knew a poly woman a long time ago who was married to a man but would introduce another woman she was in a long-term relationship with as her wife. As far as I know she was never arrested.

 

[El_Spectre]

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.

Nonsense, its just people doing what they always do, which is to insist on THEIR way of living, and the status quo.

 

[toddjh]

Nonsense, its just people doing what they always do, which is to insist on THEIR way of living, and the status quo.

Well, that's part of it, I'm sure. Like you say, that's what people do, and good luck stopping it. If you think someone's rights are being violated in the process, that's another story, but I don't think that's the case here. If you disagree, would you mind pointing out exactly what rights you think are being abridged?

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

No you just seem to be doing random sniping to try to get good quotes in.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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 see fifth amendment provisions of nonincimination of business partners going into many contracts.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

Yes. Marriage is about the last legal status left. What you seem to want would be incredibly expensive to everyone, and open up all kinds of potential abuses.

I say seem to want because you have made no indication about what system you think would work better.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

This is not what this discussion is about though. It is about extending the status of marriage to such relationships.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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?

Sure, just like those who thought that giving women rights would lead to gay marriage. If women went back to being property it would solve both homosexual marriage and poly marriage.

Homosexual marriage would make no sense, women can not own property(other women) and men are not property and so can not be owned by other men. So keeping marriage traditional solves the whole gay marriage problem.

It also permits polygamy as it removes the legal problems of men owning more than one wife, as they have all the power over all their wives and the wives don't have any legal power over them.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I can see the how wonderful pure contract marriage will be now

"Ok so there is a $500 fee to have one of our marriage contract lawyers review your marriage contract, to determine the exact effects it will have on the rights you are trying to claim"

Expense is never permited as a justification as to why something is wrong, so this is good, it make marriage a luxury good, not something the common people can possibly afford.

 

[El_Spectre]

No you just seem to be doing random sniping to try to get good quotes in.

Actually, no. While you may disagree with me, I'm certainly not being random or just trying to provoke a fight. However, if we're now at the point where we're discussing *the conversation*, as opposed to the subject, perhaps its time to end this.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Actually, no. While you may disagree with me, I'm certainly not being random or just trying to provoke a fight. However, if we're now at the point where we're discussing *the conversation*, as opposed to the subject, perhaps its time to end this.

Then stop making dumb snipes and do something constructive, like propose the solution you think would be better.

No one is claiming the existing system is perfect, but criticising it is not helpful unless you have some alternative.

So you seem to be avoiding addressing any substantive point, but just trying to get snipes in. So maybe if you don't have anything substantial to contribute maybe you shouldn't be posting.

 

[El_Spectre]

Then stop making dumb snipes and do something constructive, like propose the solution you think would be better.

No one is claiming the existing system is perfect, but criticising it is not helpful unless you have some alternative.

So you seem to be avoiding addressing any substantive point, but just trying to get snipes in. So maybe if you don't have anything substantial to contribute maybe you shouldn't be posting.

Yeah, we're done. Have fun.

 

[El_Spectre]

Wait until your rich husband decides to take a "trophy wife" when you're not as young and good-looking as you used to be... without bothering with divorce or alimony or giving you anything at all.

It would be fun to see both of you begging for his attention -- you claiming the right for the prime place due to your age and the bearing of his children, she because she's younger and more beautiful and besides, he loves her more now, anyway.

To be on the safe side, both of you would try to make damn sure he's satisfied with you. No talking back or arguing, for instance, let alone developing your own career or being out of the house too often -- who knows what the other woman would then do to get him to love her more? And if he beats you a little bit when you deserve it, hey, no big deal -- shutting up about it would prove to him you love him more than she does.

But apart from that, which is the woman's lot in polygamous marriage, polygamy is fine. As a man, I'm all for it. Like you, I see nothing wrong with polygamy. Women were been having way too many rights lately, anyway.

This scenario requires poor communication. While that is certainly not rare, it *is* possible to communicate about what each person needs, wants, can't abide, etc. It can be hard to do, but lots of people do it, every day. If respect and communication are there, all parties can be happy. Assuming that women are automatically victims here is not tenable.

 

[toddjh]

Yeah, we're done. Have fun.

Before you go, I'm still very interested in hearing your opinion about how not recognizing polygamy violates anyone's rights. You've said several times that it infringes on individual liberties and civil rights, and I'm having difficulty understanding how. Can you clarify?

 

[quarky]

Removing government incentives for a particular life-style choice would be a good start.
It would level the playing field. This would include no tax breaks for having children.

 

[toddjh]

Removing government incentives for a particular life-style choice would be a good start.

That's a tempting position, but it's also a little more complicated than it might seem. The underlying issue is, should the government be permitted to encourage individuals to do things which it believes are in the public's best interests?

Because lifestyle choices aren't the only thing here. If you want to eliminate tax breaks for having children, then the same principle would also require you to eliminate tax breaks for, say, charitable donations, or going to college, or buying a house.

The question of whether the government should be empowered to make any public policy decisions at all is a difficult one, and yes, I can definitely see the appeal of a libertarian point of view. But I'm not convinced that system would produce anything close to the best results in the real world.