Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Blog Update

I have made some changes. I have modified the text to the right under "About This Blog" as well as the "About This Blog" page.

This was mostly to reflect my support for people to not only be able to choose "all-with-all" marriages of three or more spouses (compatible with community property law), but also having the alternative option of "dyadic networks" marriages instead of "all-with-all." Having either option allows the greatest freedom to marry. The important thing is requiring the consent of all spouses.

I also added a disclaimer at the bottom of the template.
— — —


  1. But "requiring the consent of all spouses" is counterproductive and bad public policy!

    The law should not be structured in a way that artificially raises the probability of divorce; it should instead aim to minimize the likelihood of divorce.

    Now suppose that in a dyadic network, A & B are married, and B then decides to marry C.

    Under the "consent" scenario, when A refuses consent, the most likely result is that B goes immediately to divorce court, and afterward proceeds to marry C anyway. The effect is that the disagreement between A & B is routed through divorce court. But the very process of divorce tends to escalate disagreements and promote estrangement. This is a bad outcome and it is bad public policy to promote such outcomes.

    The correct legal approach is to instead specify that entering into a dyadic network marriage constitutes implied consent to all subsequent marriages that one's spouse might eventually choose to also enter into. This leads to the correct outcome - even if A is unhappy with the prospect of B marrying C, the B & C marriage can proceed anyway. If A then wants to divorce B, nothing prevents A from doing that (A can simply cite "irreconcilable differences"). However, the most likely outcome is that A will see that B's marriage to C has not diminished B's love for A, and the result then becomes that A cools off and accepts B's marriage to C. In that (most likely) case, nobody ever enters divorce court and we now have two good marriages instead of one (a good outcome). Furthermore, even if A initially deems it necessary to initiate a divorce from B, A may come to realize that divorcing B would be unnecessary and counterproductive and therefore withdraw the divorce petition - in that case, the result is again two good marriages instead of one (a good outcome). Worst case is that A divorces B, thus one marriage is replaced by another, but this is the least likely outcome.

  2. This does not contradict my requirement for consent. If one enters into a marriage with the default consent that their spouse may take on other spouses, that is their choice, and one to which they consent.


To prevent spam, comments will have to be approved, so your comment may not appear for several hours. Feedback is welcome, including disagreement. I only delete/reject/mark as spam: spam, vulgar or hateful attacks, repeated spouting of bigotry from the same person that does not add to the discussion, and the like. I will not reject comments based on disagreement, but if you don't think consenting adults should be free to love each other, then I do not consent to have you repeatedly spout hate on my blog without adding anything to the discourse.

If you want to write to me privately, then either contact me on Facebook, email me at fullmarriageequality at protonmail dot com, or tell me in your comment that you do NOT want it published. Otherwise, anything you write here is fair game to be used in a subsequent entry. If you want to be anonymous, that is fine.

IT IS OK TO TALK ABOUT SEX IN YOUR COMMENTS, BUT PLEASE CHOOSE YOUR WORDS CAREFULLY AS I WANT THIS BLOG TO BE AS "SAFE FOR WORK" AS POSSIBLE. If your comment includes graphic descriptions of activity involving minors, it's not going to get published.