(May 23, 2012 at 7:11 pm)Ben Davis Wrote: Anyone/any number of people should be free to commit to whomsoever they choose in whatever 'marital' construct they see fit as long as all parties are consenting & uncoerced. Matters of will, testament, decision-making etc. should be based on standard, free legal agreements (similar to tenancy contracts) which are freely available, binding when completed according to due process (witnesses etc.) and subject to change, without state interference, according to the will of the parties involved.
Ben Davis, if the real world actually worked like that, I would have no problem extending legal recognition to polygamous groups of whatever size and gender composition the members please. However, as far as I'm aware, the real world doesn't do that, and so I hesitate.
I see one key and fundamental difference between gay marriage and polygamous marriage: complexity. For the most part, I think, marriage laws (at least in the United States) have evolved to the point where the gender of the participants is not as big of an issue as it used to be; in same cases, it's completely irrelevant. To use taxes as an example, does it really matter in any concrete way whether it's Adam and Steve or Adam and Eve's names that are on top of that form? And if Adam and Steve divorce, then existing divorce laws can accommodate their situation, whatever it is.
However, polygamy is a whole other ball game. What if Adam, Eve, and Sarah's marriage breaks apart? Who gets what stuff? Is a three-way split of all assets necessarily the best way to go? What if Sarah was the housewife, so to speak, while Adam and Eve worked? Should Adam and Eve both pay her alimony until she gets on her feet? Or, what if any children born into the marriage are only Adam and Eve's? Does Sarah get visitation rights? If so, does she have to pay child support? What if Adam wants to leave the relationship, but Eve and Sarah want to stay together? Etc., etc.
In other words, setting up a system whereby all parties in a polygamous marriage get a fair and equitable deal strikes me as being an enormous headache for any legislature that takes that challenge on. And any system that is not fair and equitable to all parties would not have my support. However, I would support a compromise arrangement in which all parties are required to work out these details on their own in advance, pending approval by a judge and/or some other governmental oversight. (Did somebody already suggest this? If so, your idea was great!)
With that all being said ... in the meantime, if a group of people wants to live in the same house, have sex with each other, fork out whatever legal fees are necessary to set up contracts to protect themselves if it all goes to shit, and call themselves married (in social situations, that is, not legal ones)? As long as all parties are truly consenting adults, I say knock yourselves out. I've got more important things to do with my life than judge your choices.
