Gay Marriage is GO...

[bigb]

Obviously there is a lot to be considered in this circumstance. I hadn't even thought of some of those.

 

[LogGrad98]

agree on still having a ways to go...
It didn't seem the hesitation was anywhere near 4 seconds, and it seemed to occur more in deciding what term to use to refer to her girlfriend more so than in acknowledging that she was sharing her joy with someone special to her



and maybe my additional husband would know how to take out the garbage!

So are any of you seriously advocating that polygamy be elevated to a legal status similar to a marriage between two people? Because I'm wondering what parameters you would consider reasonable.

For instance, if two people were married, and one of them wanted to add a third person to the marriage, would the other partner have to agree? And would all three be married to each of the others?

It doesn't seem that you should allow one of the spouses to have a second spouse if it would create an unequal relationship between the three spouses. And, if it is a situation with multiple women, do all the women in the marriage have full custody rights to a child that any of them gave birth to?

Or in the case of multiple men, is it presumed that both are the father of any children born during the marriage, again with full custody rights regardless of what any paternity test might show?

Just curious how you geniuses would work out all these issues.

I am no genius, but I'll give it a whirl.

I have mentioned this issue tongue-in-cheek (or tongues in this case? =) more than once. I cannot fathom why this would not be allowed when we allow all other adults to enter into marriage arrangements. To me that is the top parameter: must be of legal age. It would not really be that hard to draft legislation governing this. Something like this:

1. All parties must be of legal age to marry in their state. No one under legal age will be allowed into a multiple-partner arrangement, regardless of parental consent. Since the Supreme Court has already set the precedent that marriage is a constitutional institution then the legal age for multiple partner marriages could be set at a fixed level regardless of state laws (say 21, just to be fully arbitrary).
2. Options should exist for one partner only to marry one other partner, or for all partners involved to marry each other, or a combination, as they determine best fits their individual circumstance. Would only need signatures on the marriage license of all "connected" parties that they agree with the arrangement. So I could picture a scenario like this:

* One group consists of a single male and 2 females.
* Another group consists of a single female and 2 males.
* The single male from the first group, and the single female from the second group want to get married. All parties from both groups agree.
* The marriage is carried out, and everyone involved signs off on it.

3. Mothers would be the defacto legal guardians of children born into such marriages. In relationships with one male and multiple females, the male is the defacto father of all children born in the arrangement (his name is on the birth certificate same as always). In other arrangements, fathers can claim paternity but it must be proven (paternity tests), no different than if a woman becomes pregnant and does not know who the father is. At that point the father can either be added to the birth certificate as the father at the birth of the child, or adopt the child if this occurs later. Current paternity laws would apply in the event of divorce - so if a woman leaves a relationship between say 3 men and 4 women, she can claim support from the father, same as if she were seeking support from a one night stand or something else.
4. Most issue that would arise would be in the case of divorce realistically. I see no reason why standard divorce statutes could not apply here given the above mentioned parameters. Marital assets can be ordered split by the number of participants, etc. and litigated just as it is now litigated. Not a lot different really.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Right after the US won the World Cup one of the players ran to the stands and starting kissing and hugging her partner. There was about 4 seconds of silence as if there was an indecision as to whether or not to acknowledge the obvious. Now if she ran to her husband......

Anyway we still got a ways to go.

people still need to know to cheer or not it is diffuicult

man thinks he is woman: cheer
white woman thinks she is balck : boo


**** that i would stay silent cus me myself dont like it. but its her freedom!


it means i cand isagree and not cheer it

 

[DutchJazzer]

agree on still having a ways to go...
It didn't seem the hesitation was anywhere near 4 seconds, and it seemed to occur more in deciding what term to use to refer to her girlfriend more so than in acknowledging that she was sharing her joy with someone special to her



and maybe my additional husband would know how to take out the garbage!

So are any of you seriously advocating that polygamy be elevated to a legal status similar to a marriage between two people? Because I'm wondering what parameters you would consider reasonable.

For instance, if two people were married, and one of them wanted to add a third person to the marriage, would the other partner have to agree? And would all three be married to each of the others?

It doesn't seem that you should allow one of the spouses to have a second spouse if it would create an unequal relationship between the three spouses. And, if it is a situation with multiple women, do all the women in the marriage have full custody rights to a child that any of them gave birth to?

Or in the case of multiple men, is it presumed that both are the father of any children born during the marriage, again with full custody rights regardless of what any paternity test might show?

Just curious how you geniuses would work out all these issues.

Imho the gov should get out of mariage but if htey are stubborn and stay into mariage. as long as all parties consent mariage should be legal

if tomorow 100 people come to courthouse that wanna have a intermarriage as long as all 100 consent .


as for custody how do they do it when 2 men adopt. in my traditional view the dad and mom ar the parents. they "owe" the children.

dont know how teh gays do it. so have not thought about the polies

 

[Stoked]

agree on still having a ways to go...
It didn't seem the hesitation was anywhere near 4 seconds, and it seemed to occur more in deciding what term to use to refer to her girlfriend more so than in acknowledging that she was sharing her joy with someone special to her



and maybe my additional husband would know how to take out the garbage!

So are any of you seriously advocating that polygamy be elevated to a legal status similar to a marriage between two people? Because I'm wondering what parameters you would consider reasonable.

For instance, if two people were married, and one of them wanted to add a third person to the marriage, would the other partner have to agree? And would all three be married to each of the others?

It doesn't seem that you should allow one of the spouses to have a second spouse if it would create an unequal relationship between the three spouses. And, if it is a situation with multiple women, do all the women in the marriage have full custody rights to a child that any of them gave birth to?

Or in the case of multiple men, is it presumed that both are the father of any children born during the marriage, again with full custody rights regardless of what any paternity test might show?

Just curious how you geniuses would work out all these issues.

I absolutely am. My criteria:

- Consenting adults
- No minors
- Open to any mix of numbers and genders
- All partners have to agree to adding a new husband or wife as the new partner would be marrying them all


If a woman marries three men and they are all adults who want it that way then what business is it of ours?

As for custody issues. A few extra lines on a BC are easily fixable. Any of them can make medical, financial or educational decisions. In the case of a divorce the biological parents get first crack after that the other husbands and/or wives.

It could look like this on a BC:

Biological Mother:

Jane Dow

Additonal Mothers:

Judy Dow
June Dow

It doesn't take a genius to butt out of people lives and to simply make room.

 

[Deleted member 848]

This is all déjà-vu from Canada of ten years ago.

Gay marriage was legalized. Polygamists started hollering for their marriages to be accepted.


Moved all the way up to the Supreme Court. Evidence showed that members of polygamist families routinely sustain a ton of physical and psychological abuse, to the extent where allowing them was considered a detriment to citizen safety. Thus, the Supreme Court maintained the ban on polygamy.

Yall will figure this out in another five years or so.

 

[LogGrad98]

This is all déjà-vu from Canada of ten years ago.

Gay marriage was legalized. Polygamists started hollering for their marriages to be accepted.


Moved all the way up to the Supreme Court. Evidence showed that members of polygamist families routinely sustain a ton of physical and psychological abuse, to the extent where allowing them was considered a detriment to citizen safety. Thus, the Supreme Court maintained the ban on polygamy.

Yall will figure this out in another five years or so.

Were the cases that went to the supreme court involving only consenting adults? Doesn't sound like it to me. Are there abusive regular marriages? Damn straight. What are we supposed to figure out? That Canada makes Supreme Court decisions that affect everyone based on anecdotal evidence. Sounds legit to me.

 

[Gameface]

agree on still having a ways to go...
It didn't seem the hesitation was anywhere near 4 seconds, and it seemed to occur more in deciding what term to use to refer to her girlfriend more so than in acknowledging that she was sharing her joy with someone special to her



and maybe my additional husband would know how to take out the garbage!

So are any of you seriously advocating that polygamy be elevated to a legal status similar to a marriage between two people? Because I'm wondering what parameters you would consider reasonable.

For instance, if two people were married, and one of them wanted to add a third person to the marriage, would the other partner have to agree? And would all three be married to each of the others?

It doesn't seem that you should allow one of the spouses to have a second spouse if it would create an unequal relationship between the three spouses. And, if it is a situation with multiple women, do all the women in the marriage have full custody rights to a child that any of them gave birth to?

Or in the case of multiple men, is it presumed that both are the father of any children born during the marriage, again with full custody rights regardless of what any paternity test might show?

Just curious how you geniuses would work out all these issues.

I think you bring up a lot of interesting questions and I don't think they've really been addressed in the other responses.

Where Dutch says gov out of marriage business, that fails to recognize the role of government in resolving disputes and splitting up assets and custody after a divorce. Looks like it gets extremely complicated very fast.

 

[LogGrad98]

I think you bring up a lot of interesting questions and I don't think they've really been addressed in the other responses.

Where Dutch says gov out of marriage business, that fails to recognize the role of government in resolving disputes and splitting up assets and custody after a divorce. Looks like it gets extremely complicated very fast.

Yes but current laws deal with all kinds of scenarios that could be applied to nearly any mix of married and non-married individuals in a polygamous relationship. It would not be very hard to draft legislation to accomplish this, considering that the majority of divorces either end amiably or with full on litigation regardless of the current statutes.

 

[Gameface]

Yes but current laws deal with all kinds of scenarios that could be applied to nearly any mix of married and non-married individuals in a polygamous relationship. It would not be very hard to draft legislation to accomplish this, considering that the majority of divorces either end amiably or with full on litigation regardless of the current statutes.

I don't want to write up a huge list of "what ifs" but I think there are unique situations that would be much harder to resolve in plural marriages. It's already messy dealing with divorce as it is and there is a tremendous amount of injustice in the resolutions, especially concerning custody and child support payments.

 

[DutchJazzer]

I think you bring up a lot of interesting questions and I don't think they've really been addressed in the other responses.

Where Dutch says gov out of marriage business, that fails to recognize the role of government in resolving disputes and splitting up assets and custody after a divorce. Looks like it gets extremely complicated very fast.

it works in israel!
splitting up the ceremony of marriage as a purely and only religious institute!
and then calling into live a complex set of cohabitation rights which could apply to all sort of odd couples.

basically it is the standard marriage rights, without ever calling it marriage to respect different religions.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Were the cases that went to the supreme court involving only consenting adults? Doesn't sound like it to me. Are there abusive regular marriages? Damn straight. What are we supposed to figure out? That Canada makes Supreme Court decisions that affect everyone based on anecdotal evidence. Sounds legit to me.

Sounds like you didn't really dig into the substantiation of the Supreme Court verdict to me. Sure the case was exacerbated by one special case-- but then the court digs deep into research in order to carry one stance or another. Do you know how legal proceedings work?


If you think the Canadian Supreme Court is so stupid that it would let one anecdotal case steer an entire case involving civil liberties, then that's quite telling.



Again, you don't have to believe me. But I'll make sure to holler "told you so" 6 years from now