Federal judge strikes down part of Utah’s ban on polygamy

Yeah, just wait for the redundant food-stamp or insurance and loan applications. Otherwise, probably can't arrest people for just living together.

 

The way I see it polygamy exists already, and these laws are just a method of protecting more than 2 people who may need protections.

Honestly I can't imagine a single reason why any rational woman would agree to it or any rational man would desire it (contractually), but if all parties are consenting then I think it's best for all given how often the polygamous relationship occurs anyway.

 

Agreed.
I said this was coming in the debates on Gay Marriage.

Marriage WAS: a contract be between a man and woman [general description]
it moved to
Marriage IS: a contract be between two individuals [general description]
moving toward
Marriage will be: a contract be between individuals [general description]

Small word changes make big differences

Rocket River

 

I honestly don't see what the huge fuss is about polygamy but I may be a little ignorant on the topic. Why does the government care who marries who? It isn't their business if a guy marries a guy or a guy marries a girl or a guy marries 3 girls. If they aren't being coerced into anything I don't understand what the problem is. We are free adults who make our own choices.

 

Agreed. The Government should not be in the Marriage business at all

Rocket River

 

I don't know how polygamy works with respect to property rights.

In Texas we are a community property state. Every dollar earned by either spouse during a marriage is presumed to be community property unless that presumption can be rebutted.

So in a marriage with a man and two wives...how does that work?

And does wife 1 have to consent to wife 2? What if he marries wife 2 without wife 1 knowing about it?

It seems there are property rights issues here...I just don't know how Utah dealt with those historically.

 

I just don't understand why so many people give a **** about other people's marriages. Is it exclusively religious reasons why polygamy is banned or are there other logistical and logical reasons why it is banned?

 

I'm with you on this in a sense

I think Marriage should be between people, not the government and people.
However, the Government does set tax exemptions, child support laws, property rights laws, and other regulations depending on the marital status of people.

 

I find tax exemptions to be discriminatory against single people.
Child Support imo should be more contractual. I have many issues with this system. Add into it the custody issue etc etc etc - alot of it is very anti man. At the end, this seems like it should be a civil matter.
Property laws etc are still not unlike negotiations and contracts between corporations [who are considered people] . . why not give people those same type of contracts

I think the movement toward interpersonal agreements over governmental enforcement maybe the way to go .

Rocket River

 

Oh gee! Why didn't we just rebuild the whole legal marriage system years ago when the gays started whining? Instead they wanted to cry about equality. It wasn't about equality. It was like crying because big brother had a toy you didn't have.

If we rebuilt the system, then:
Straights would have it easier
Gays would have it easier
Poly's would have it easier
Anyone else who comes along later and cries foul would have it easier.

Liberals and their idiocracy ... is why I have a hard time supporting them.

 

In the case of the Brown family, Kody is only legally married to his first wife. The other 3 were just ceremonies.

I don't see what the problem is, given that they are 5 consenting adults.

 

I brought this up in the other thread but yes the sexes of the parties involved are irrelevant in this day when women legally have equal rights as men. A genderless "spouse" can be used as much "husband" and "wife" in a system of two parties where both are already granted equal rights without a major change in the laws.

With polygamy though we don't a system that can address co-wives, co-husbands or co-spouses and will require a much greater changes to the laws than just considering marriage gender neutral but still between two parties.

 

Right now you can have a contract that defines any relationship; enforceability though is the issue.

The argument for gay marriage though is different. We have in fact a legal entity called marriage where certain rights and privileges are assigned to a legal partner. Equal Protection requires these same rights and privileges be available to all people.

My recent example of not allowing people to choose their own partner is that when my brother-in-law passed away last year, his partner of 40+ years was not allowed to sign to have his body cremated and my wife had to as next of kin. That's just ridiculous and obvious.

On the other side, my brother-in-law purposely lived off of debt for his last year, legally transferring all his assets, and when he died he left his debts unpaid. Because his partner was not recognized by the State he was not responsible for the debt.

So, Gay Marriage isn't about defining new ground, it's about extending the existing laws to cover all people, allowing everyone the same rights and requiring the same responsibilities.

 

Yes it was about equality. The 14th Amendment specifies equal protection under the law and as such it was discriminatory to recognize gender different marriage while not same gender marriage when the genders are legally considered equal. If the genders weren't legally equal then there is an argument that same gender marriage is qualitatively different and wouldn't fall under equal protection. The problem with that is equal protection already states that genders are legally equal.

That said I agree with you that there are many problems with the institution of marriage as is and that I for one would like to see it handled under contract law. The problem though is no one brought that up until Gay marriage became an issue and I've yet to see any major movement to actually get government out of marriage.

 

So expansion to includes multipartners should not be that big of a deal

Rocket River

 

ahhh..interesting. I'm not sure how that actually qualifies as polygamy, then. That's just people sharing a house.

Though I'm guessing...were they in Texas...one of those extra non-ceremonial wives would end up with homestead rights to the house, even if they didn't have legal title.

 

Remove the state from the child support game and you'd be left with the welfare of children being subject to children hiring attorneys on their own behalf. We don't do that to children in any form or fashion. Courts even appoint attorneys to represent them in personal injury cases where their parents are involved to make sure a settlement is fair to them.

Leaving child support up to mere contract law would be a nightmare. You have an obligation, under law, to care for and support financially your children.

 

Thanks Obama.