First decriminalization, then plural marriages

[Michael Hardner]

WIP

I haven't found any of your posts on this subject deal with the fact that there are clear examples of harm to people within polygamous cults, and to the general society as a whole if the institution of polygamous marriage becomes commonplace. On the contrary, for all the arguments I've heard from conservatives condemning gay marriage, I haven't found one example that recognizing same sex marriages would harm others. And that should be the determining factor here. Who cares what people are offended or not offended by, it's a matter of what effects allowing polygamy will have on society that determines whether it should or should not be allowed.

And if we are going to maintain some organized, civil society, we are going to have to put an end to this concept that religious freedom trumps everything. Different religions all have their own so called perfect divine laws and standards. Allowing people to live by their own religious codes, even where they violate state law means we end up legitimizing Jehovah's Witnesses refusing to allow blood transfusions for their children, Muslims using an unfair legal code, illegal and inhumane methods of animal slaughter (kosher and halal butchery), polygamy, Christian Science and other cults who refuse to vaccinate their children....and the list likely goes on and on. Sometimes the government steps in immediately to stop religious idiocy, while other times they are too afraid to offend a potential voting block to take a stand for the principle of having rules and laws that apply to everyone.

I think Molly's response is on the mark here.

Molly,

In the real world, and with just a bit of hyperbole: If a 'good man' dies, are his sister-wives still married to one another, and required to either divorce one another, or only marry again as a collective unit? If not, then are we clearing the way for marriage chains, in which I sponsor an immigrating spouse(or two, or three), who sponsors a spouse, who sponsors a spouse, who sponsors a spouse....

Anybody?

I don't see anybody asking for that but it may be that the entire question of spousehood (clearly not a word, as it was underlined in red by my Firefox spellchecker) may just have to be defined within a larger definition of family, as 'heads of family'.

[Molly]

LOL... which pretty much means dumping defining/licensing/recording 'marriage' at all.

[Molly]

Unfortunately, the state is still stuck with mediating disagreements, and covering dependents butts.

[Michael Hardner]

VS

SSM was attained through a systematic erosion of all the barriers to equivalent to spouse benefits. Having attained the status of de facto marriage, it was a simple and logical conclusion that the status might as well be de jure if and when the parties should seek it.

Your assessment of the legal path is correct, but I'm more interested in the arguments made in living rooms, and here on this board - which, after all, are more instrumental in getting these things changed.

In those arguments, people tend to argue from the perspective of tastes and personal morality, rather than legal reasoning.

[GostHacked]

benny,

The government certainly has no obligation to promote religion of any kind, and as a friend of mine told me once - the best way to ensure the decline of religion is to allow its absolute freedom.

I would buy that statement. Eventually they will have the freedom to run themselves into the ground in the long run. It would get pretty extremist, and few would stay signed on to the reilgion.

[GostHacked]

I am also wondering where is the separation of church and state is here.

There seems to be none If there is no religion in the state's affairs, then SSM would be allowed and partners would be granted the same benifits and perks as a man and a woman marrying. The state only recognizes the traditional marriage.

However, some states are slowly shrugging off the religious cloak.

[85RZ500]

Michael

How about societal morality?

If a public vote was held today ssm and polygamy may well be rejected by a majority.

I'll admit there are different factors in this, some migrants abhor homosexuality yet practice polygamy. Over time as their population grows we may see outwardly visible reactions to it all.

As to homosexuality, it seems our youth are using the descriptive terms as insults in their arguments/discussions in a most negative way.

Times are a-changing.

[Michael Hardner]

How about societal morality?

They have a real effect on our laws, however the laws are supposed to align with our constitution. When there's a conflict, then it gets interesting.

[benny]

For a lot of Muslims, women's emancipation, gay rights, etc., are nothing but the decadent moral aspect of Western imperialism. And indeed, we have to argue that the events of '68, that produced gay rights, feminism, essentially have only helped to give a new push to capitalism. At a more general level, pseudo-naturalized ethno-religious conflicts are the form of struggle which best suits global capitalism. In the age of 'post-politics', when politics proper is progressively replaced by expert social administration, the sole remaining legitimate sources of conflict are cultural (religious) or natural (ethnic) tensions. To get rid of capitalist exploitation, we have now to be against human rights. Politics has to become a politics of subtraction.

http://libcom.org/library/against-human-rights-zizek

[WIP]

Polygamous 'cults', WIP?

Separate that out. Aspects of the 'cult' may well be harmful/deeply undesireable, but is actual polygamy, sans cult, harmful to either the individual or society in general? I mostly doubt it. We aren't talking about throwing a wrench into particular religious groups (and would be committing direct religious discrimination if we were), but are limited to actual multiple marriage, which may or may not have any religious connection at all.

Right now, the FLDS Mormons are a cult, but many sociologists and historians suspect that legalizing polygamy would make it once again a sanctioned Mormon doctrine, since they outlawed the practice for political reasons, and there are many mainstream Mormons with "celestial" plural marriages, since any deceased wives would join them and the last wife in a polygamous, heavenly afterlife. And then there's the Muslims! There are already wealthy Muslims trying to get recognition for their extra wives and families; as I understand, right now the government of England is stupid enough to consider the requests.

The ways and manner polygamy is practiced around the world cannot be separated from deciding this issue in some sort of dry, clinical examination. Are there any non-traditional polygamous relationships that last longer than a one night stand three-way? It's hard enough to keep a marriage between two people together, uniting three, four or more is only accomplished by forcing girls through religious indoctrination to marry some 60 year old man and becoming his third or fourth wife. And then the religious law is applied if she runs away or tries to resist the union. That's the way it's done in the real world and that's the way it will happen here if we are relativistic enough to stop making moral judgments and let anything go! The fallout for the larger, non-polygamous community is that there will be sharper divisions between wealth, surplus young males who can destabilize society since they will not be able to get married at all. And of course we are back to the traditions of many nomadic warrior cultures where women are a commodity to be bought, or traded for other goods.

[benny]

Right now, the FLDS Mormons are a cult, but many sociologists and historians suspect that legalizing polygamy would make it once again a sanctioned Mormon doctrine, since they outlawed the practice for political reasons, and there are many mainstream Mormons with "celestial" plural marriages, since any deceased wives would join them and the last wife in a polygamous, heavenly afterlife. And then there's the Muslims! There are already wealthy Muslims trying to get recognition for their extra wives and families; as I understand, right now the government of England is stupid enough to consider the requests.

The ways and manner polygamy is practiced around the world cannot be separated from deciding this issue in some sort of dry, clinical examination. Are there any non-traditional polygamous relationships that last longer than a one night stand three-way? It's hard enough to keep a marriage between two people together, uniting three, four or more is only accomplished by forcing girls through religious indoctrination to marry some 60 year old man and becoming his third or fourth wife. And then the religious law is applied if she runs away or tries to resist the union. That's the way it's done in the real world and that's the way it will happen here if we are relativistic enough to stop making moral judgments and let anything go! The fallout for the larger, non-polygamous community is that there will be sharper divisions between wealth, surplus young males who can destabilize society since they will not be able to get married at all. And of course we are back to the traditions of many nomadic warrior cultures where women are a commodity to be bought, or traded for other goods.

You are getting very close to Marxism with its infrastructure (material wealth) and superstructure (ideological indoctrination). Accumulating wives (the best ones) as an extension of wealth accumulation can only operate if the male bachelors have been indoctrinated to see themselves as an underclass.

[tango]

Right now, the FLDS Mormons are a cult, but many sociologists and historians suspect that legalizing polygamy would make it once again a sanctioned Mormon doctrine, since they outlawed the practice for political reasons, and there are many mainstream Mormons with "celestial" plural marriages, since any deceased wives would join them and the last wife in a polygamous, heavenly afterlife. And then there's the Muslims! There are already wealthy Muslims trying to get recognition for their extra wives and families; as I understand, right now the government of England is stupid enough to consider the requests.

The ways and manner polygamy is practiced around the world cannot be separated from deciding this issue in some sort of dry, clinical examination. Are there any non-traditional polygamous relationships that last longer than a one night stand three-way? It's hard enough to keep a marriage between two people together, uniting three, four or more is only accomplished by forcing girls through religious indoctrination to marry some 60 year old man and becoming his third or fourth wife. And then the religious law is applied if she runs away or tries to resist the union. That's the way it's done in the real world and that's the way it will happen here if we are relativistic enough to stop making moral judgments and let anything go! The fallout for the larger, non-polygamous community is that there will be sharper divisions between wealth, surplus young males who can destabilize society since they will not be able to get married at all. And of course we are back to the traditions of many nomadic warrior cultures where women are a commodity to be bought, or traded for other goods.

I don't think you, or I, can make these judgments as we are not part of that minority and do not understand their cultural ways. I think our opinion is irrelevant.

I know there are plural marriages in existence. Why should they have to hide that fact and why not legalize? None of our business really. They are small minorities, not going to affect our rights in any way, imo.

[benny]

I don't think you, or I, can make these judgments as we are not part of that minority and do not understand their cultural ways. I think our opinion is irrelevant.

I know there are plural marriages in existence. Why should they have to hide that fact and why not legalize? None of our business really. They are small minorities, not going to affect our rights in any way, imo.

Careful! Global capitalism creates minorities, as its main strategy, to thrive.

[tango]

Careful! Global capitalism creates minorities, as its main strategy, to thrive.

Whaaaat??

I don't get the connection.

You are saying it's 'a plot'?

[benny]

Whaaaat??

I don't get the connection.

You are saying it's 'a plot'?

Capitalism concentrates wealth by using human (which are formal and individualistic) rights to get mobility from us. In other words, allowing (barely, minimally, for the form only) "consenting" individuals to do whatever they want has become the most powerful marketing tools.

Edited April 8, 2009 by benny

[tango]

Capitalism concentrates wealth by using human (which are formal and individualistic) rights to get mobility from us. In other words, allowing (barely, minimally, for the form only) "consenting" individuals to do whatever they want has become the most powerful marketing tools.

What the hell does that have to do with minorities whose culture includes polygamy, who simply want to be legal?

[benny]

What the hell does that have to do with minorities whose culture includes polygamy, who simply want to be legal?

Capitalist societies (that is, liberal democracies) legalize every social practice that is unstable enough to generate more business activities. If same-sex marriage is being legalized more rapidly than polygamy, it is because SSM is clearly more socially destabilizing.

[Who's Doing What?]

Capitalist societies (that is, liberal democracies) legalize every social practice that is unstable enough to generate more business activities. If same-sex marriage is being legalized more rapidly than polygamy, it is because SSM is clearly more socially destabilizing.

LMFAO Hahahahahahahahaha

What a garbage statement.

SSM is finally getting accepted because people are realizing the Homophobic mantra of the religious right is wrong. Having two dads or two moms will not bring down the so-called institutiuon of marriage. This institution which has roughly a 50% success rate.

If Jim is happy to kiss Fred I could care less.

[benny]

If Jim is happy to kiss Fred I could care less.

Gay marriage is not about kissing it is about two intimately related matters. 1) Forming unions that will allow individuals to shelter their wealth away from the public purse and 2) having access to fewer types of holes. To fully understand, you have to witness the link in between having live through a traumatic anal stage and compulsive behavior to collect things.

[Oleg Bach]

If Jim and Fred are good people I have no problem with them fighting human lonelyness - BUT - recently a trusted young friend of the family who is supposedly gay - has started stalking my youngest son..this person HATES woman and in my books is not gay but a common sodomist son of a bitch - My kid trusted him and attempted to have a liberal attitude towards this person - Now if I see this jerk - I will give him a piece of my mind - gay or not - no way is he going to even THINK of demasculating one of my male heirs - besides my kid has the most exotic girlfriend a man could want...just don't like shifty people - gay or not.

[benny]

In 1991, Olive Watson adopted her same-sex partner, Patricia Spado. By doing so, Olive made Patricia her "child" so that she would be able to inherit from her upon Olive's death.

In 2004, Olive's father's widow died triggering trusts which provide distributions to Olive's father's grandchildren. Patricia, as an adopted grandchild, is claiming that she is entitled to a share of the trust.

However, the relationship between Olive and Patricia is no longer harmonious and Olive's family is attempting to set aside the adoption by claiming that the proceeding was somehow fraudulent, e.g., that Patricia lied about her state of residence or that she deceived the court about the adoption by not telling the court about her sexual relationship with Olive.

This case is receiving national attention because the family consists of the descendants of Thomas J. Watson, Sr., the founder of I.B.M.

On April 24, 2008, a probate judge granted the family's request to annul the adoption on the residency issue. The ruling was sealed and was just recently revealed.

Spado has filed an appeal with the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. She is arguing that the adoption should not be annulled because the adoption existed for over 14 years without dispute. The court may hear the case as early as this fall.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/trusts_es...-watson-up.html

[Visionseeker]

VS

Your assessment of the legal path is correct,

Thank you, I'll take this as a compliment.

but I'm more interested in the arguments made in living rooms, and here on this board - which, after all, are more instrumental in getting these things changed.

Uh, really!? Did a political forum inspire some kind of political grass-roots movement that ultimately led to the legalization of SSM? No, it didn't. SSM was gained by systematically eroding barriers regardless of wider public opinion. Real change, real justice, real progress has always come from the judiciary. The judicial branch pulls our heads out of the sand and says: "look here, this is wrong and we must change". And faced with such a challenge, society takes its head out of the sand and starts to come to grips with, and accept the issue as decided.

In those arguments, people tend to argue from the perspective of tastes and personal morality, rather than legal reasoning.

Yes, most people "argue from the perspective of tastes and personal morality" and that is why the legal reasoning of the courts is so important in helping us overcome our own prejudice.

[Who's Doing What?]

Gay marriage is not about kissing it is about two intimately related matters. 1) Forming unions that will allow individuals to shelter their wealth away from the public purse and 2) having access to fewer types of holes. To fully understand, you have to witness the link in between having live through a traumatic anal stage and compulsive behavior to collect things.

I literally laughed until I choked. (dirty mind, I know)

I assume you mean LOOPholes for tax purposes.

HEy man, the straight rich have been scamming and hiding a lot more money from us tax payers than a few homosexuals ever will. Have you not been watching the news for the last 5 years or so?

[Who's Doing What?]

If Jim and Fred are good people I have no problem with them fighting human lonelyness - BUT - recently a trusted young friend of the family who is supposedly gay - has started stalking my youngest son..this person HATES woman and in my books is not gay but a common sodomist son of a bitch - My kid trusted him and attempted to have a liberal attitude towards this person - Now if I see this jerk - I will give him a piece of my mind - gay or not - no way is he going to even THINK of demasculating one of my male heirs - besides my kid has the most exotic girlfriend a man could want...just don't like shifty people - gay or not.

I hear ya. IF someone is scum they are scum no matter what they like.

[WIP]

You are getting very close to Marxism with its infrastructure (material wealth) and superstructure (ideological indoctrination). Accumulating wives (the best ones) as an extension of wealth accumulation can only operate if the male bachelors have been indoctrinated to see themselves as an underclass.

Marxism! How about any secular democratic society, since the winner-takes-all ethic that polygamy inspires is antithetical to principles of equality.