Polygamy at The Root of Problem

[Renegade]

Yes, society should care. If we're going to have to recognize your car as your wife...and entitle her to some rights afforded a spouse!

I guess it depends on if I care that society entitles my car the same rights as a spouse. Maybe I do, maybe I don't. I think there are two issues which should be separated out.

1. Who should I be allowed to enter a contract with? In my view, any adult should be able to enter a contract with any other adult if both can give informed consent. By definition, children, beasts, inanimate objects are excluded. The contract can include terms which are typically included in a marriage, such as mutual financial commitment, pension obligations, child support obligations, etc.

2. Who can I have a conjugal relationship with and declare a "maritial" relationship with?

I think I should be able to have a conjugal relationship and declare maritial status with whomever I choose (provides both parties give informed consent) as I think it is only relevant between those two parties.

However, I agree that society as a stake in enforcing point 1 (who I can enter a contract with), and so can dictate definitions in that area.

[Pliny]

We can blame the government for making divorce easy....but common law is older than this nation. It has never been outlawed.

Point made then! Why would the government have to define it under marriage? Because common law spouses wish to have the rights and privileges government provides recognized marriages. Originally the government promoted families and thus marriage, which was the traditional family recognized by society. The granting of privileges to families was looked at as a good thing but it unfortunately results in unequal treatment by government and inevitably results in complaints from those challenging the system of traditional marriage. It then becomes a legal and not a societal issue. If it remained in the societal realm traditional marriage may have deteriorated in importance but no process would have developed to legally seek recognition of alternative lifestyles. They more than likely would have remained in the closet. Without the collective force of law not enough interest could have been generated to bring about societal change regarding alternative lifestyles. People would live their lives the way they wanted, minorities would be socially ostracized by the majority but if laws made were just then all they would be about is no force being used by one person or one group against another.

Who can say that polygamy, given the societal circumstances, such as one sex being predominant, may be the only way some people would ever have to enter into a family structured environment if that were the desire. I only suggest that society, the environment and circumstance decide what is best and it change according to circumstance, and not by the force of law.

[betsy]

You are absolutely correct. There is no such legislation, nor should there be. This is my point. Just because society thinks monogamous marriage is "good" it shouldn't legislate it. It should leave it to people to do for themselves what comes naturally.

But that's the point. Child-rearing was a part of our values, and came just naturally....whereas polygamy isn't.

So making it a law to legislate that it becomes "natural" is actually going against what you are advocating. There should be no legislations to make it legal!

[betsy]

I guess it depends on if I care that society entitles my car the same rights as a spouse. Maybe I do, maybe I don't. I think there are two issues which should be separated out.

If the law legislates it, the car will get it - whether you care or not..

Edited August 15, 2007 by betsy

[Renegade]

But that's the point. Child-rearing was a part of our values, and came just naturally....whereas polygamy isn't.

So making it a law to legislate that it becomes "natural" is actually going against what you are advocating. There should be no legislations to make it legal!

No you misunderstand what I am advocating. I'm not suggesting that a law be passed making it legal. I'm avocating that the law stay neutral on the kind of relationship between consenting adults. If marriage is natural, why do you need a law allowing it? If polygamy is unnatural why do you need a law to ban it?

Society should simply stay silent and let people decide for themselves.

[Renegade]

If the law legislates it, the car will get it - whether you care or not..

Precisely why I think the law should stay out of such legislation.

[betsy]

I guess it depends on if I care that society entitles my car the same rights as a spouse. Maybe I do, maybe I don't. I think there are two issues which should be separated out.

1. Who should I be allowed to enter a contract with? In my view, any adult should be able to enter a contract with any other adult if both can give informed consent. By definition, children, beasts, inanimate objects are excluded. The contract can include terms which are typically included in a marriage, such as mutual financial commitment, pension obligations, child support obligations, etc.

2. Who can I have a conjugal relationship with and declare a "maritial" relationship with?

I think I should be able to have a conjugal relationship and declare maritial status with whomever I choose (provides both parties give informed consent) as I think it is only relevant between those two parties.

However, I agree that society as a stake in enforcing point 1 (who I can enter a contract with), and so can dictate definitions in that area.

Society dictating definitions, changing meanings, tweaking....to suit its need for the moment.

In this case, the definition of marriage.

Moral Relativism - that is a good example of what I've been explaining.

I rest my case.

Edited August 15, 2007 by betsy

[Renegade]

Society dictating definitions, changing meanings, tweaking....to suit its need for the moment. In this case, the definition of marriage.

Moral Relativism - that is a good example of what I've been explaining.

I rest my case.

Actually I don't see your case at all. It is precisely because definitions change that society should minimize the number of definitions it has to resort to.

I suggest that the minimal definiton a society should resort to is who can give informed consent. Lets say it is determined that any human over 18 can give informed consent.

Society doesn't need to define marriage. Any two people who can give informed consent can enter into whatever contract they want to.

Sure, the definition of who can give informed consent can change (for example from age 18 to age 21) however it doesnt requre redefinition of marriage or a host of other definitions.

[Guest American Woman]

Society doesn't need to define marriage. Any two people who can give informed consent can enter into whatever contract they want to.

There are legal issues that apply to marriages, so while consenting adults can enter into whatever contract they want, that doesn't mean the law will recognize the rights of multiple spouses, granting them the same legal rights as a two-partner marriage.

[Renegade]

There are legal issues that apply to marriages, so while consenting adults can enter into whatever contract they want, that doesn't mean the law will recognize the rights of multiple spouses, granting them the same legal rights as a two-partner marriage.

Yes I understand that is the way the law is now, what I was proposing was that the law change to accomodate whatever contractual relationship two or more willing parties want to enter into.

Edited August 15, 2007 by Renegade

[capricorn]

In terms of marriage, the law already stipulates the age of consent to marry is 18. Parents can give consent for teenagers aged 16 and 17 to marry. The law is pretty well the same across Canada.

http://marriage.about.com/library/bllteenca.htm

Of course, none of this applies if the teenager enters into a common-law relationship. That's the way teenagers can avoid having to obtain parental consent in order to cohabitate. It would therefore seem that polygamous communities who want 16 year olds to enter a relationship would not press for marriage should it be evident such parental consent would not be forthcoming.

Perhaps there should be an amendment to existing marriage laws concerning teenagers to extend it to common-law relationships. This may seem like an encroachment on the rights of teenagers but it might protect 16 year olds from making uninformed or rash decisions.

[Guest American Woman]

Yes I understand that is the way the law is now, what I was proposing was that the law change to accomodate whatever contractual relationship two or more willing parties want to enter into.

It's not that simple. For example, a man has a dozen wives and dies of 'old age' but his wives live on. How are the social security benefits he earned supposed to be paid to 12 wives? Where is that money to come from? What about insurance premiums. Right now they cover a spouse. How much more will that policy have to pay out if it covers a dozen wives? How are employers supposed to be able to pay that? One of the wives wants to divorce. Seems to me it would be pretty complicated to have a law that covers what her share of the assets would be. And what about the other wives? Would they be able to fight the divorce settlement? What about tax exemptions on income tax returns? Would he be able to claim 12 wives and get the tax exemptions allowed for a spouse for all 12?

Edited August 15, 2007 by American Woman

[capricorn]

It's not that simple. For example, a man has a dozen wives and dies of 'old age' but his wives live on. How are the social security benefits he earned supposed to be paid to 12 wives?

The Courts make decisions of a similar nature all the time. In our society, many monogamous persons have a string of marriages and common-law relationships during their life. As an aside, they are called serial monogamists but that's another issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_monogamy

In the case of a male who dies intestate, it is not uncommon for more than one woman to put a claim against the man's estate. It is then up to the Courts to divvy up the goodies, depending on the strength of the claim made by the women. When children are involved, this also sways the Court's decision on entitlement.

For example, a close relative had lived common-law with a man for 14 years then he passed away. He had been married and separated from his wife but never divorced. Up for grabs were a military pension and CPP survivor benefits. The wife made a claim for both benefits. So did my relative. The Court decided the wife gets the military pension because he was living with the wife while he paid into the pension. My relative receives the CPP benefits because he retired during the common-law years.

Like, if there's $100,000.00 insurance policy and the person has a will that pretty well ends the matter unless a party wants to contest the will. If there's no will the booty is divided up as the Court sees fit, after hearing the parties' claims.

But I agree, with all these scenarios, it can get awfully confusing. Lawyers love it.

[Renegade]

It's not that simple.

Yes agreed, but just because it makes things complicated it doesnt mean we should prohibit it.

Let me take a shot at each one of these:

For example, a man has a dozen wives and dies of 'old age' but his wives live on. How are the social security benefits he earned supposed to be paid to 12 wives? Where is that money to come from?

He should get the same total spousal benefit regardless if he has one wife or 100. The benefit should be equally shared among all wives pesuming that the have the same communal marriage contract.

What about insurance premiums. Right now they cover a spouse. How much more will that policy have to pay out if it covers a dozen wives?

I'm assuming you mean policies that pay out upon the policy holder's death to the beneficiary. In this case if the benefiicary are a dozen wives they each get 1/12th.

If the spouse is going to undertake to support 12 wives, he needs to undertake the life insurance of sufficent payout value to pay each of them on his death. If he can't afford it, then he cannot afford 12 wives.

How are employers supposed to be able to pay that?

As with social secuity, employers should pay the same spousal benefit regardless of the number of wives. The benefit is shared.

One of the wives wants to divorce. Seems to me it would be pretty complicated to have a law that covers what her share of the assets would be.

Personally I don't think the government should pre-define the split of assets. That should be part of the contract they sign upfront upon marriage, however if what you are asking is how you extend current divorce settlement to multiple wives, I think there is an answer. You simply generalize what you have today. Today generally the spouse walks away with 50% of joint assets unless there is a prenup. If there are 12 wives, she should walk away with 1/13th of joint assets. IMV, the best way is to define upfront what % of the joint assets she has ownership for.

And what about the other wives? Would they be able to fight the divorce settlement?

Sure they would. In effect a single wife doesn't just divorce the husband, she divorces the entire commune of spouses as she entered a contact with all of them.

What about tax exemptions on income tax returns? Would he be able to claim 12 wives and get the tax exemptions allowed for a spouse for all 12?

Absolutely. 1/12 of the total exemption for each, either that or put a limit on the dollar amount of the tax exemption.

----------------------------------------------

All of these are good questions and examples and show that a multi-spouse arrangement can be complicated. But is complication a reason we should preclude people from freely entering these relationships?

Divorce itself is complicated even in monogamous couples, should we then ban divorce?

Edited August 15, 2007 by Renegade