Bigamy

[rachelbean]

Me and Pappa didn't do an engagement ring. I really don't like the idea, particularly since my idea of a marriage is a partnership it seems like a bad idea to start that with a man spending a bunch of money for a token that shows other people that I'm taken, meanwhile I spend nothing on him and he has no such outward symbol. I guess it might make sense if I was planning on being a kept woman, then it would be setting a precedent. We do have matching wedding rings he picked out (lovely wood on the inside, titanium on the outside)

Anyway, I know that makes me the odd one, and I did participate in the ritual with my ex (though I insisted he spend very little and that the stone be lab created), but as I had time to reflect on the meanings and motives behind the traditions I realized how uncomfortable it made me. I am honestly surprised it's still as common as it is, even among progressives.

[Coito ergo sum]

Me and Pappa didn't do an engagement ring. I really don't like the idea, particularly since my idea of a marriage is a partnership it seems like a bad idea to start that with a man spending a bunch of money for a token that shows other people that I'm taken, meanwhile I spend nothing on him and he has no such outward symbol. I guess it might make sense if I was planning on being a kept woman, then it would be setting a precedent. We do have matching wedding rings he picked out (lovely wood on the inside, titanium on the outside)

Anyway, I know that makes me the odd one, and I did participate in the ritual with my ex (though I insisted he spend very little and that the stone be lab created), but as I had time to reflect on the meanings and motives behind the traditions I realized how uncomfortable it made me. I am honestly surprised it's still as common as it is, even among progressives.

That's why Ratz women are so awesome. You lovely ladies are generally ahead of the curve.

[Thinking Aloud]

Me and Pappa didn't do an engagement ring. I really don't like the idea, particularly since my idea of a marriage is a partnership it seems like a bad idea to start that with a man spending a bunch of money for a token that shows other people that I'm taken, meanwhile I spend nothing on him and he has no such outward symbol. I guess it might make sense if I was planning on being a kept woman, then it would be setting a precedent. We do have matching wedding rings he picked out (lovely wood on the inside, titanium on the outside)

Anyway, I know that makes me the odd one, and I did participate in the ritual with my ex (though I insisted he spend very little and that the stone be lab created), but as I had time to reflect on the meanings and motives behind the traditions I realized how uncomfortable it made me. I am honestly surprised it's still as common as it is, even among progressives.

That's why Ratz women are so awesome. You lovely ladies are generally ahead of the curve.

There's another explanation for the relative positions of that curve and one's viewpoint.

[camoguard]

I'm for bigamy as an option. I'm against defining it specifically. I'd rather see a general approach to adult unions by which you declare who is important to you in only the following aspects.
1. Who has hospital visitation
2. Who has decision making authority if you are incapacitated
3. Who needs to know about your death or similarly huge news
4. Who has mixed financial investment.
4. Who is on whose insurance.

I don't care who's fucking who how unless I'm involved somehow. In that case, it's awesome.

[rachelbean]

Yeah, I agree on all those points

[Thinking Aloud]

One additional issue with multi-adult groupings is immigration. It's probably one of the biggest concerns for any authority, in terms of finding loopholes through which people can be trafficked. One adult and one adult is manageable and very closely contained - how do you separate the genuine grouping from the bogus?

[camoguard]

One additional issue with multi-adult groupings is immigration. It's probably one of the biggest concerns for any authority, in terms of finding loopholes through which people can be trafficked. One adult and one adult is manageable and very closely contained - how do you separate the genuine grouping from the bogus?

It's fair to say there is a difference between dating and marriage. Similarly, there are levels of involvement in any shape of relationship. We would want room for subjectivity and room for objectively determining a minimum standard for a significant other. Normally, I would say this problem is the government's problem because most people would find more than monogamy to be offensive. Hispanics are often Catholic for example. But, the government could counter with the idea that a person's relationships are self defined but need to maintain a minimum time in said relationship structure. For example, let's say the government establishes a 6 month window of time. If you say you are in a multi way relationship and it does not last 6 months, then the government can consider any action that was contingent on a multi way relationship void. That would be like marrying someone who needs to immigrate who then wants to divorce. In that case, there are time requirements as well.

[Seth]

One additional issue with multi-adult groupings is immigration. It's probably one of the biggest concerns for any authority, in terms of finding loopholes through which people can be trafficked. One adult and one adult is manageable and very closely contained - how do you separate the genuine grouping from the bogus?

It's fair to say there is a difference between dating and marriage. Similarly, there are levels of involvement in any shape of relationship. We would want room for subjectivity and room for objectively determining a minimum standard for a significant other. Normally, I would say this problem is the government's problem because most people would find more than monogamy to be offensive. Hispanics are often Catholic for example. But, the government could counter with the idea that a person's relationships are self defined but need to maintain a minimum time in said relationship structure. For example, let's say the government establishes a 6 month window of time. If you say you are in a multi way relationship and it does not last 6 months, then the government can consider any action that was contingent on a multi way relationship void. That would be like marrying someone who needs to immigrate who then wants to divorce. In that case, there are time requirements as well.

Why should the government regulate private relationships at all...except to adjudicate contractual disputes and protect children?

Contract law is sufficient to the task if the notion of domestic relationships is simply defined as a contractual relationship. The state can require "boilerplate" domestic contract provisions regarding protection of children and inheritance, and if a couple, or group, does not file a written contract of domestic partnership then the relationship is considered to be "at will" and the government will only enforce child protection laws.j

[camoguard]

Immigration allows for opportunities to bring your non-American spouse into America. That kind of thing is based on a governmental acknowledgement of your relationship. So things of that nature that involve rules that are based on believing you are in a relationship with another person need verification. The courthouse is the place to put that information. And that's the government.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Immigration allows for opportunities to bring your non-American spouse into America. That kind of thing is based on a governmental acknowledgement of your relationship. So things of that nature that involve rules that are based on believing you are in a relationship with another person need verification. The courthouse is the place to put that information. And that's the government.

Lots of war-bride came to the US that way. Including Carey Grant.

[Coito ergo sum]

One additional issue with multi-adult groupings is immigration. It's probably one of the biggest concerns for any authority, in terms of finding loopholes through which people can be trafficked. One adult and one adult is manageable and very closely contained - how do you separate the genuine grouping from the bogus?

It's fair to say there is a difference between dating and marriage. Similarly, there are levels of involvement in any shape of relationship. We would want room for subjectivity and room for objectively determining a minimum standard for a significant other. Normally, I would say this problem is the government's problem because most people would find more than monogamy to be offensive. Hispanics are often Catholic for example. But, the government could counter with the idea that a person's relationships are self defined but need to maintain a minimum time in said relationship structure. For example, let's say the government establishes a 6 month window of time. If you say you are in a multi way relationship and it does not last 6 months, then the government can consider any action that was contingent on a multi way relationship void. That would be like marrying someone who needs to immigrate who then wants to divorce. In that case, there are time requirements as well.

Why should the government regulate private relationships at all...except to adjudicate contractual disputes and protect children?

Contract law is sufficient to the task if the notion of domestic relationships is simply defined as a contractual relationship. The state can require "boilerplate" domestic contract provisions regarding protection of children and inheritance, and if a couple, or group, does not file a written contract of domestic partnership then the relationship is considered to be "at will" and the government will only enforce child protection laws.j

It isn't sufficient for all tasks.

1. Marriage is a different sort of contract, in that culturally, people have tended to enter into the relationship based on cultural norms. I.e. - you get "married" and a host of rules applied without more -- examples were "the husband had an obligation to support children of the marriage, and his wife (even if they get divorced)" -- dowery/courtesy rights - marital property laws, etc. etc. So, in order to switch to an express contract system, the culture needs to change.

2. Contract law is insufficient to govern the issues of who can legally be a spouse for company benefit plans, who can be a spouse for immigration purposes, and other such legal matters. Like, if the government has no rules concerning marriage, then any number of people can get together and file a joint tax return, or any number of spouses could immigrate to the US on theback of one eligible immigrant or one US citizen.

3. Polygamy is conceptually easier in a male-dominated world where there is one head of household who is responsible for all the wives, and if one of them leaves, she leaves, but takes nothing with her other than what he consents to give her or what she can abscond. However, think about an "all people are equal under the law" scenario -- that means in a mixed group of 3 men and 4 women married together, if there is a divorce where one of the women decides to leave, the issues of custody, visitation and child support, and alimony, all become far more complicated. Would all the 6 remaining spouses pay alimony to the divorcing woman? Would the divorcing woman get custody of all the children? Only her biological children? Only the children she proves she provided material parenting to? None of them? Would she pay child support to children "of the marriage" even if she did not give birth to them? What if she divorces and the kids are 12, 13 and 14 years old and she was the primary caretaker of the three of them for their entire lives -- now she wants to leave -- does she pay child support? What if she isn't their biological mom? It gets crazy.

[Seth]

One additional issue with multi-adult groupings is immigration. It's probably one of the biggest concerns for any authority, in terms of finding loopholes through which people can be trafficked. One adult and one adult is manageable and very closely contained - how do you separate the genuine grouping from the bogus?

It's fair to say there is a difference between dating and marriage. Similarly, there are levels of involvement in any shape of relationship. We would want room for subjectivity and room for objectively determining a minimum standard for a significant other. Normally, I would say this problem is the government's problem because most people would find more than monogamy to be offensive. Hispanics are often Catholic for example. But, the government could counter with the idea that a person's relationships are self defined but need to maintain a minimum time in said relationship structure. For example, let's say the government establishes a 6 month window of time. If you say you are in a multi way relationship and it does not last 6 months, then the government can consider any action that was contingent on a multi way relationship void. That would be like marrying someone who needs to immigrate who then wants to divorce. In that case, there are time requirements as well.

Why should the government regulate private relationships at all...except to adjudicate contractual disputes and protect children?

Contract law is sufficient to the task if the notion of domestic relationships is simply defined as a contractual relationship. The state can require "boilerplate" domestic contract provisions regarding protection of children and inheritance, and if a couple, or group, does not file a written contract of domestic partnership then the relationship is considered to be "at will" and the government will only enforce child protection laws.j

It isn't sufficient for all tasks.

1. Marriage is a different sort of contract, in that culturally, people have tended to enter into the relationship based on cultural norms. I.e. - you get "married" and a host of rules applied without more -- examples were "the husband had an obligation to support children of the marriage, and his wife (even if they get divorced)" -- dowery/courtesy rights - marital property laws, etc. etc. So, in order to switch to an express contract system, the culture needs to change.

Nonsense. That hasn't applied since the first time the government prosecuted a husband for "raping" his wife. What used to be is not what must be in the future. A contract provision regarding child support is more binding than the implied duty under common law. Besides, if a woman doesn't want the man's support, or the man doesn't want to support the children and that's a mutual agreement between the two individuals, the state's only interest is to ensure that one of the two DOES support the children, which is why the government can mandate "boilerplate" child welfare and support provisions in all such contracts that ensure that children don't become wards of the state. But if the woman is willing to undertake the support (or the man) why should the government be involved? If a woman want's some genius' sperm to make a baby that she hopes will be a genius too, why can't she make that arrangement without the man having to worry about being dunned decades later for back "child support?" You do realize that the courts have done EXACTLY that to supposedly anonymous sperm donors don't you?

No cultural change is needed because the cultural norms would still apply to those who wish to follow them voluntarily. You get "married" as a Catholic, then it's your faith that guides your conduct. not the state. All the state should do is store and adjudicate disputes in the underlying civil contract.
2. Contract law is insufficient to govern the issues of who can legally be a spouse for company benefit plans, who can be a spouse for immigration purposes, and other such legal matters. Like, if the government has no rules concerning marriage, then any number of people can get together and file a joint tax return, or any number of spouses could immigrate to the US on theback of one eligible immigrant or one US citizen.

3. Polygamy is conceptually easier in a male-dominated world where there is one head of household who is responsible for all the wives, and if one of them leaves, she leaves, but takes nothing with her other than what he consents to give her or what she can abscond. However, think about an "all people are equal under the law" scenario -- that means in a mixed group of 3 men and 4 women married together, if there is a divorce where one of the women decides to leave, the issues of custody, visitation and child support, and alimony, all become far more complicated. Would all the 6 remaining spouses pay alimony to the divorcing woman? Would the divorcing woman get custody of all the children? Only her biological children? Only the children she proves she provided material parenting to? None of them? Would she pay child support to children "of the marriage" even if she did not give birth to them? What if she divorces and the kids are 12, 13 and 14 years old and she was the primary caretaker of the three of them for their entire lives -- now she wants to leave -- does she pay child support? What if she isn't their biological mom? It gets crazy.

All that depends on the content of the domestic partnership contract. Absent any written contract the only provisions that would apply would be the state-mandated child support provisions applying to every parent regardless of partnership contract.

You do the work UP FRONT with such a contract. All the responsibilities and rights are set forth in the contract so there are no surprises and nobody intervening to change the contract terms. No contract, no responsibilities other than state-mandated child support provisions applicable to ANY parent.

[camoguard]

On Coito's 2, I'd like to see marriage replaced by the idea of a self assembling small business. I don't expect that to actually happen. But if a group of people filed a document saying 9 adults got married; that three of them have financial sovereignty over the joint assets; all 9 have hospital visitation interests; etc... then a lot of clarity would be possible. I'm pretty uninformed about immigration. But, I see a relationship between an immigrant having a job and gaining citizenship. This could then be seen like that since the contract could establish resource sharing terms sufficient enough for immigration services.

[Coito ergo sum]

On Coito's 2, I'd like to see marriage replaced by the idea of a self assembling small business. I don't expect that to actually happen. But if a group of people filed a document saying 9 adults got married; that three of them have financial sovereignty over the joint assets; all 9 have hospital visitation interests; etc... then a lot of clarity would be possible. I'm pretty uninformed about immigration. But, I see a relationship between an immigrant having a job and gaining citizenship. This could then be seen like that since the contract could establish resource sharing terms sufficient enough for immigration services.

There is no relationship between having a job and gaining citizenship. There is also no relationship between having a job and a family based green card. The spouse who sponsors the foreign person would have to have the means to support the foreign person.

The self assembling business or contract relationship works well until children are factored in. They did not not consent to any of the contracts. So the big questions arise when, say, wife 4 didn't give birth to any kids, but was the primary caretaker of three kids fathered by her husband with other wives. If wife 4 files for divorce, does she have any claim to custody or visitation of her nonbiological children?

What happens to the marital home if husband 2 did the bulk of the financing of the home, but he files for divorce and wants husbands 1, and 3, and wives 1 through 4 out of the house, but he wants to stay married to wife 5?

[Bella Fortuna]

There is no relationship between having a job and gaining citizenship.

Not strictly true, but that's far astray of the thread topic...