"Why not polygamous marriage?"

[Rasmus]

I just watched a documentary about Mitt Romney and Mormanism. It, understandably, spent a lot of time on polygamy.

Can anyone come up with a rational explanation of why polygamy should be illegal? I can't think of one.

There must be about a dozen threads on this already:

Short version is:

You can live and have sex with as many people as you like. The issue is only what type of marriage the goverment should recognize.

The goverment doesn't seem to be obliged to recognizy polygamous marriages the same way they are obliged to recognize interracial or same-sex marriages. (The latter because the goverment is not allowed to check a person's skin colour or peek down their underpants before deciding what they may and may not do. The goverment, however, is under no obligation to count stuff.)

Marriage right now is a straight forward concept: Two people only results in one relationship that has to be taken into account. It is a binary affair - two people are either married, or they are not.

Entering more people into the picture makes things exponetially more complicated: What would polygamy even mean? Can a marriage consist of more than two people, or can people be in more than one marriage? In either case, does that mean everybody is married to everyone else, or can a 4 people marriage between A, B, C and D have constructs where A and B are married, A is also married to C - but B and C aren't married. D is married only to C, ... etc. etc.

Who are the parents of a child that is born to any of the females in the above scenario?

These questions are not all, per se, unanswerable, but there are no obvious answers. So, whoever asks for goverm ental recognition of polygamy had better spell out what exactly it is they want.

You will soon hear that it would be ever so easy to model everything after contract law or whatever - but I fear this discussion will also fail to give specific solutions to these questions.

There's some argument about social stability - what happens if the rich snag away all the available partners from the poor - but I think this is happening anyway: Rich people can and will have more partners than poor and at the same time if they so whish.

Traditionally, polygamy has been anything but fair to females. The examples we have of it translate into "harems for wealthy men" in which none of the issues I described apply: A man could have many wifes or women, just as he could have many cows, sheeps, servants or houses.

 

[Dancing David]

I just watched a documentary about Mitt Romney and Mormanism. It, understandably, spent a lot of time on polygamy.

Can anyone come up with a rational explanation of why polygamy should be illegal? I can't think of one.

I can't really. However the way divorce and property law works would be a mess.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Ramus hit the majority of the points I have seen made and personally make about why it is hard to legally recognize polygamous marriages. I would also add that unlike interracial marriage and homosexual marriage this could change the legal status of marriage as a whole and so impact my marriage.

So unlike with gay marriage it might negatively impact me directly so I have a strong interest in evaluating a specific proposal to determine its effects.

As a moral principle it would be nice if we could recognize the reality of peoples relationships legally. But individualized marriages seem like they would cause more problems to society than create solutions so I do not support that.

 

[crimresearch]

The better known models of polygamy (Saudi, Jeffs) come too close to the concept of chattel, for most Western politicians to support them.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The better known models of polygamy (Saudi, Jeffs) come too close to the concept of chattel, for most Western politicians to support them.

And polyamorous individuals who would want polygamy are a very small percentage compared to those who would stand against it because they feel it is immoral.

 

[NewtonTrino]

I have no issue with people marrying multiple people.

I do have an issue with people using that legal fiction to control and rape children a la Warren Jeffs. I do have a problem with insular towns run along these lines where they kick all of the boys out because they compete for females (who are actually their age).

 

[JJM 777]

Can anyone come up with a rational explanation of why polygamy should be illegal?

If 51% of the population vote against it in democracy?

If the President vetoes it?

 

[Marduk]

Marriage right now is a straight forward concept: Two people only results in one relationship that has to be taken into account. It is a binary affair - two people are either married, or they are not.
.

common law marriage isn't, according to the laws of my country, I'm legally to be regarded as married twice and I haven't booked a church yet


for polygamy, you need three people, for polygamous marriages, you need a religion

 

[RandFan]

Entering more people into the picture makes things exponetially more complicated: What would polygamy even mean? Can a marriage consist of more than two people, or can people be in more than one marriage? In either case, does that mean everybody is married to everyone else, or can a 4 people marriage between A, B, C and D have constructs where A and B are married, A is also married to C - but B and C aren't married. D is married only to C, ... etc. etc.

Marriage is quite simply a contract. Let's see how current law works with other contracts. Business contracts for instance.

• Can I enter into a business contract with more than one person?
• Can I enter into multiple business contracts with multiple people, each business being made up of differing parties?

I realize that there are nuances that make marriage different and perhaps move it out of the realm of simple contract law but I've yet to see anything significantly problematic.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Marriage is quite simply a contract. Let's see how current law works with other contracts. Business contracts for instance.

• Can I enter into a business contract with more than one person?
• Can I enter into multiple business contracts with multiple people, each business being made up of differing parties?

I realize that there are nuances that make marriage different and perhaps move it out of the realm of simple contract law but I've yet to see anything significantly problematic.

And marriage is not a contract but a status, hence I can not write up my own marriage and have it have legal force. My marriage is just like yours legally.

To say marriage is a contract is like saying adoption is a contract.

 

[RandFan]

And marriage is not a contract but a status, hence I can not write up my own marriage and have it have legal force. My marriage is just like yours legally.

To say marriage is a contract is like saying adoption is a contract.

I don't understand your argument. Two people can live together as if they are married. In order to have the status of being married requires a license and contract between them identifying the obligations and responsibilities both implicit and explicit (see vows). I don't know what "status" means outside of that context. Adoption is similar but children cannot form consent. The obligations and rights granted are between the parent(s) and the state. So you will need to clarify your argument.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I just watched a documentary about Mitt Romney and Mormanism. It, understandably, spent a lot of time on polygamy.

Can anyone come up with a rational explanation of why polygamy should be illegal? I can't think of one.

The sex ratio at birth is pretty close to 1:1. Unless that ratio changes significantly by age 20, a polygamous society will have a lot of unattached men. This means trouble. Basically, the answer to "What's wrong with polygamy?" is the same as the answer to "What's wrong with an unequal distriburion of __X__ (fill in the blank)?" for any highly valued X.
Mormonism is a current topic because Mitt Romney is a Mormon and the LDS sanctioned polygamy a century ago. Unlike Barak Obama's father, neither Mitt Romney nor his father had multiple wives.

 

[RandFan]

Let me guess. State. Violence. Force. AIDs. Blah blah blah. The ignore feature can be a good thing.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't understand your argument. Two people can live together as if they are married. In order to have the status of being married requires a license and contract between them identifying the obligations and responsibilities (see vows). I don't know what "status" means outside of that context. Adoption is similar but children cannot form consent. So you will need to clarify your argument.

No it requires a license and an agreement to be spouses. There was a distinct lack of individually recognized obligations and responsibilities in my wedding. And if it was a true contract I could sell off the limited marriage rights to get visa to me. We are a kind of marriage, but it only involves me getting money and they getting a visa. Possibly the most simple form of marriage contract.

As you need forms and it gives responsibilities and obligations why isn't adoption just as much a contract as marriage?

 

[ponderingturtle]

The sex ratio at birth is pretty close to 1:1. Unless that ratio changes significantly by age 20, a polygamous society will have a lot of unattached men. This means trouble. Basically, the answer to "What's wrong with polygamy?" is the same as the answer to "What's wrong with an unequal distriburion of __X__ (fill in the blank)?" for any highly valued X.
Mormonism is a current topic because Mitt Romney is a Mormon and the LDS sanctioned polygamy a century ago. Unlike Barak Obama's father, neither Mitt Romney nor his father had multiple wives.

That is only an issue if we are talking about only polygyny. If wives also have multiple husbands you get either groups of married people or interconnecting networks.

As for modern examples of effective polygyny charlie Shean does not seem to be great at keeping his harem off the market for long.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

common law marriage isn't, according to the laws of my country, I'm legally to be regarded as married twice and I haven't booked a church yet


for polygamy, you need three people, for polygamous marriages, you need a religion

If your country is England, based on your location info, then there is no such thing as common law marriage in the laws of your country.

"There is no such thing as ‘common law marriage’."

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/governmentcitizensandrights/yourrightsandresponsibilities/dg_10026937

 

[RandFan]

No it requires a license and an agreement to be spouses. There was a distinct lack of individually recognized obligations and responsibilities in my wedding. And if it was a true contract I could sell off the limited marriage rights to get visa to me. We are a kind of marriage, but it only involves me getting money and they getting a visa. Possibly the most simple form of marriage contract.

As you need forms and it gives responsibilities and obligations why isn't adoption just as much a contract as marriage?

I'm still not getting your point. I've already answered your question about adoption. Children cannot give consent. The contract is between the parents and the state. This discussion isn't going to go well if you don't read what I write.

Anyway, the point about "visa" is a non-sequitur. A contract doesn't necessitate visa. There are different types of contracts with different rights and obligations.

Finally, marriage carries both rights and obligations. If you enter into another marriage contract and don't tell your spouse you have breached your contract (bigamy).

So honestly, aside from some negative arguments, I've no idea what your point is. Do you deny that marriage necessitates both rights and legal obligations? If not then we are talking about contracts and all the rest is irrelevant.

 

[tyr_13]

Primacy.

Who is empowered to make medical and legal choices for you, who gets control of pensions and fiances if you're incapacitated, and several other factors only work when one other person has primacy and there is a hierarchy afterword.

Marriages, as has been pointed out, get increasingly complex as marriage networks would form. Tom marries Lisa and Janet, but Janet marries Greg who is also married to Stan. What are Greg's or Stan's rights and responsibilities with regards to Tom or Lisa? Who can make choices for the offspring of such marriages? If Janet divorces Tom, how much of the household(s) property is she entitled to? And perhaps most importantly, for that situation to work, how would it be any different than friends and room-mates who shag?

The changes that would make it work, also make it pointless to do. Call whoever you want your wife or husband, but from a governmental standpoint it works best if only one is 'legally' sanctioned.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm still not getting your point. I've already answered your question about adoption. Children cannot give consent. The contract is between the parents and the state. This discussion isn't going to go well if you don't read what I write.

Anyway, the point about "visa" is a non-sequitur. A contract doesn't necessitate visa. There are different types of contracts with different rights and obligations.

You do know that marriage visas exist right? People have decided that married couples get special consideration in immigration, yet they can have their relationship examined to see if they really fit some standard of marriage?

Finally, marriage carries both rights and obligations. If you enter into another marriage contract and don't tell your spouse you have breached your contract (bigamy).

I think you will find that a spouse who is aware will not make the state happy that you tricked it into recognizing more than one spouse.

So honestly, aside from some negative arguments, I've no idea what your point is. Do you deny that marriage necessitates both rights and legal obligations? If not then we are talking about contracts and all the rest is irrelevant.

I think it is not a contract and should not be treated as such. I have lots of obligations I never agreed to, like paying my taxes. Taxes are not a contract, unless you are broadening the term to lose all meaning.

Fine as all things that involve more than one person are a contract it is one. But them so is adoption. And of course all parental rights and so on.

 

[xjx388]

It would wreak havoc with insurance for one thing. If I marry 5 women and have 3 kids with each, that's 15 kids and 5 spouses an insurance company would have to cover under my premium. This could be covered with higher premiums so I guess this is more of a practical reason than a legal reason.

Legally, it would make divorce and custody problematic: Do the "sister wives" have rights for the other woman's kids? That's really all I can imagine.

I think SCOTUS had the same issues back when they ruled on polygamy in Reynolds v. United States. The best they could come up with was:

Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people. At common law, the second marriage was always void (2 Kent, Com. 79), and from the earliest history of England, polygamy has been treated as an offence against society.

So, in effect, there really isn't any good legal reason.