"Why not polygamous marriage?"

[Weak Kitten]

I actually have no problem with polygamous marriages. You would just have to make marriage contracts more like corporate contracts. Thus each person would have an agreed upon percent of the marriage benefits and would be provided that percent if and when they chose to leave the marriage. Companies could continue to offer medical benefits to only one spouse if they chose to do so, the potential cost of offering to all members of a marriage being unlimited and thus not reasonable.

Frankly, though, I would rely upon anyone requesting the legalization of polygamy to provide a full analysis of everything that would need to be changed in the current laws and how to change it. If they want it, they should be willing to do their homework.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Someone mentioned immigration. All that would be required is the party's to the marriage create such a contract that covers all the predefined points.

Before the law passes, NORCO will have fill in forms for it.

Easy Peasy.

So I can then sell immigration status through a contract right? It is all contract law and why shouldn't I be able to sell that.

It would also extend wrongful death to business partners or remove it from spouses.

Marriage does things nothing else can do. So you either have to get rid of those things or make them not unique to marriage.

 

[The Greater Fool]

So I can then sell immigration status through a contract right? It is all contract law and why shouldn't I be able to sell that.

Does the law allow selling that right now? My presumption was that other than the polyamory, they were qualified immagrants. It's not like people don't get married NOW to defraud immigration.

Perhaps immigration law would require a certain length of contract (currently life), and that (as now) the marriage(s) last a minimal specific amount of time to be considered legitimate.

It would also extend wrongful death to business partners or remove it from spouses.

Perhaps wrongful death should apply do business partners, they have a similar financial exposure as spouses, no?

Marriage does things nothing else can do. So you either have to get rid of those things or make them not unique to marriage.

If marriage only allows two people to share a benefit, then the marriage contract, if between more than two will define which two (within the existing law) benefit, and if those benefits should then be (if able) shared with other partners.

Obviously there would be necessary legal tweaks, like ALLOWING poly marriage to begin with, which is no small tweak in itself. I would expect some of those "only marriage benefits" to address some of the current marriage standard. If not, contractually assign those benefits to the specific number allowed by (current at the time) law.

 

[lomiller]

Why does government define this type of interpersonal relation to begin with?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Why does government define this type of interpersonal relation to begin with?

Because it's a very useful shorthand in inheritence, property, and family laws.

Assuming that most people intend certain consequences to these areas when they decide to get married, registering the marriage and then conveying certain rights and responsibilities to those who register is a relatively easy way to bring about those consequences.

 

[lomiller]

Because it's a very useful shorthand in inheritence, property, and family laws.

It’s established itself in those things, but that doesn’t really answer the question of WHY should this be the case.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Because, as I said, most people intend (and in fact, desire) certain consequences in those areas when they decide to get married.

When Bob marries Alice they both intend for the two of them to share a household, share property, have joint custody of kids they produce together, call the shots when the other is incapacitated, and get the stuff when one of them dies.

And, rather than Bob and Alice being unusual in their intent and desire, a large chunk of other couples (in fact, the vast majority of such couples), want all of these same things to be true.

Rather than forcing each of these couples to work all this out in an explicit contract, the State creates a status that includes all this stuff, and lets any couple that wants to go through a very simple registration process to get that status.

In other words, these rules can be thought of as the state recognizing what most people want to happen anyway, and creating an easy "default option" that serves this need.

 

[Bikewer]

Years ago, in one of Heinlein's novels, he speculated about contractual marriage. Essentially, you would "buy in" to a family, signing a binding contract as to property, kids, and so forth and then reap the benefits of family life.
Women inclined to raise and care for kids could do so, those inclined to careers could do so, etc, etc.
In the story, it all worked a treat... I fear in real life the typical jealousies and conflicts would arise.

 

[KingMerv00]

It’s established itself in those things, but that doesn’t really answer the question of WHY should this be the case.

Because, whether for good or ill, that seems to be what society wants.

 

[lomiller]

Because, as I said, most people intend (and in fact, desire) certain consequences in those areas when they decide to get married.

When Bob marries Alice they both intend for the two of them to share a household, share property, have joint custody of kids they produce together, call the shots when the other is incapacitated, and get the stuff when one of them dies.

And, rather than Bob and Alice being unusual in their intent and desire, a large chunk of other couples (in fact, the vast majority of such couples), want all of these same things to be true.

Rather than forcing each of these couples to work all this out in an explicit contract, the State creates a status that includes all this stuff, and lets any couple that wants to go through a very simple registration process to get that status..

What does any of that have to do with governments defining how peoples interpersonal relationships should work?

In other words, these rules can be thought of as the state recognizing what most people want to happen anyway, and creating an easy "default option" that serves this need.

But the state isn’t “recognising” these things it’s defining them and imposing them. If it were simply recognition these things as valid there would be no need to say “you must do it this way”.

 

[lomiller]

Because, whether for good or ill, that seems to be what society wants.

If society wants it why does is there a need to impose it with laws? I’m not questioning the structure I’m questioning why these structures need to be imposed in the form of laws.

 

[AvalonXQ]

But the state isn’t “recognising” these things it’s defining them and imposing them. If it were simply recognition these things as valid there would be no need to say “you must do it this way”.

There isn't any "you must do it this way". Nobody is forced to get married, at least not by the State; and most details of marriage can be modified if you want to make your own agreement (ie, a prenup).
Marriage provides a convenient option for those who want to trigger a certain legal relationship.

 

[bookitty]

Years ago, in one of Heinlein's novels, he speculated about contractual marriage. Essentially, you would "buy in" to a family, signing a binding contract as to property, kids, and so forth and then reap the benefits of family life.
Women inclined to raise and care for kids could do so, those inclined to careers could do so, etc, etc.
In the story, it all worked a treat... I fear in real life the typical jealousies and conflicts would arise.

Heinlein had some...interesting thoughts on polyamory. It was basically a tribe which shared wealth. (And part of that wealth was that every adult was always emotionally & physically ready to sleep with any other adult.)

In the real world, a sex-based commune would work very well as a sex-based commune. But sexual attraction alone has not proven to be the basis for a strong marriage. (Although it can be a pretty nifty perk.)

Right now we have legal guidelines for protecting all partners in a polyamorous relationship, using either a civil contract or basing it on a corporate one. Because polyamory is not recognized, I wonder how solid the contracts would be. If one partner in the relationship died, would the recognized spouse have greater legal leverage if they decided not to abide by the term of the contract?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Does the law allow selling that right now? My presumption was that other than the polyamory, they were qualified immagrants. It's not like people don't get married NOW to defraud immigration.

Sure but now we only allow you one marriage and un immigration they check to see an entanglement of lives. This would get rid of that fraud by legalizing it.

Perhaps wrongful death should apply do business partners, they have a similar financial exposure as spouses, no?

Maybe, but were does it stop? How much can that be extended? What about testimony, are we letting in can not be compelled to testify into contracts seems like a great thing for employers and the like to put in.


As marriage is not a contract but a status it does not have a lot of the features of contracts and involves things that can not be attained any other way.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Right now we have legal guidelines for protecting all partners in a polyamorous relationship, using either a civil contract or basing it on a corporate one. Because polyamory is not recognized, I wonder how solid the contracts would be. If one partner in the relationship died, would the recognized spouse have greater legal leverage if they decided not to abide by the term of the contract?

In many states, and depending on the exact circumstances, yes. See elective share.

As usual, there are ways around this. The most obvious would be to actually have the family assets held by a trust or partnership -- and, of course, to not have a legal marriage with any of the parties. This last is aided by the fact that most states have done away with common law marriage.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It’s established itself in those things, but that doesn’t really answer the question of WHY should this be the case.

Broadly because people want legal recognition of their marriage as separate from roommates who occasionally have sex. They want their next of kind of to be their spouse not parents or a sibling.

 

[KingMerv00]

If society wants it why does is there a need to impose it with laws? I’m not questioning the structure I’m questioning why these structures need to be imposed in the form of laws.

Marriage arrangements don't need to be legally codified but there certainly are lots of reasons supporters want them to be. People want consistency, legitimacy, and the ability to arbitrate disputes in court.

 

[Marduk]

So while I have no fundamental problem with recognizing poly relationships I would want to see the legal structure and its impacts before supporting any specific proposal.

from what I've seen I wouldn't worry about finding yourself with multiple women anytime soon, but if you do, there's that famous example
Abraham, Hagar and Sarai


my relationships have always been too complicated for marriage, who needs it, for what, its just another form of state sponsored oppression imo anyway!
I hear you can't do it without either God or state approval, the day I need to invite God or state into my sex life is the day I finally go postal

 

[The Greater Fool]

Sure but now we only allow you one marriage and un immigration they check to see an entanglement of lives. This would get rid of that fraud by legalizing it.

How so? Immigration has laws on what constitutes (for their purposes) a legitimate marriage. They would have more people to investigate (possibly) for fraud, as even with polyamory, the evidence of a fraudulent relationship would be as it is now. In fact, it may give immigration more evidence of a fraudulent relationship, if the people are not living to the terms of the contract.

Maybe, but were does it stop? How much can that be extended? What about testimony, are we letting in can not be compelled to testify into contracts seems like a great thing for employers and the like to put in.

Again, tweak. In marriage, a "spouse" cannot be compelled to testify. Regardless of the business contract, it is not a marriage contract, and the parties are not "spouses."

If your next argument is that a business would form as a marriage, surely that can be easily addressed... is it a profit venture, or a relationship venture? Especially when employees enter the picture.

As marriage is not a contract but a status it does not have a lot of the features of contracts and involves things that can not be attained any other way.

Which is why when many marriaged end then end up in... court? To suss out the legal obligations of each party upon the end of the marriage. Pre-Nuptual contracts are already in use to define the legal aspects of marriages, and are valid and enforcable in court when the marriage ends. Such pre-nuptuals are basically "marriage contracts", no?

 

[crimresearch]

If society wants it why does is there a need to impose it with laws? I’m not questioning the structure I’m questioning why these structures need to be imposed in the form of laws.

The 'Why' is obvious, it is so that the government can grab more money.

If you are really asking 'Why isn't the world different from the way it really is?', I can't help you.