Translate

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Another Example of Grasping at Straws

…to try to justify denying poly people the right to marriage.

Diane Wuesthoff of Southwest Portland was not happy that a columnist, writing about “Sister Wives,” pointed out that polygamy is "simply another family choice outside the norm." Well, I could take issue with that, too. Is it really outside the norm? If it is, it is only because someone lives with their partners at the same time, instead of divorcing one while taking on another. Certainly, lifelong heterosexual monogamy in which someone practices abstinence until legally marrying one person of the opposite sex, never engaging in any sexual activity with anyone else and remaining married until death… is not the norm, either.

Wuesthoff also complains that the columnist…

compares advocates for polygamy to supporters of gay marriage.

Certainly the freedom to marry someone of the same sex isn’t the same thing as the freedom to marry more than one person, but both freedoms are important ingredients to full marriage equality, and both are about allowing consenting adults to share love, sex, and marriage as they see fit for themselves.

However, like many people who base their beliefs about marriage on religious or moral convictions accompanied by a limited understanding of what a state interest in marriage comprises, she completely neglects discussion of the legal issues about which the state has a clear and compelling interest: property sharing and transfer, inheritance issues and contract law.

All of those can work under polygamy.

Civil marriage essentially being a specialized contract between two parties only, there are special statutes that apply to that particular contractual relationship, to its dissolution and to the continued care of the human product of that relationship, children.

Why only two parties?

Not all marriages produce children. Not all children are produced in a legal marriage. Legalizing polygamy (and consanguineous marriage) would allow more children who are going to be born either way to be born into a legal marriage.

If we were to allow unlimited numbers of people to enter a single legal marriage -- and that would necessarily include, by the way, women with multiple husbands -- we would have a great deal more than tax laws and employer practices to overhaul.

Oh, I see. Some people should not have the freedom to marry because it would mean lawmakers and employers might have to… react. That’s a compassionate way of thinking, isn’t it? “We can’t end segregation, it will mean taking down all of those signs!”

What happens when a multiple marriage ends in divorce?

That would depend on the law and any pre- or post-nuptial agreement, now wouldn’t it? I wonder if the letter writer is the kind of person who says that a road should not be built because it will mean that they city will have to go out and buy traffic signs and then have the patrol the road, too? Such a hassle!

Would all the partners have to divorce, dissolving the marriage contract entirely, or would the ones who wanted to stay together simply vote the undesired partner off the island?

Purely from a legal perspective and not necessarily anyone’s personal beliefs or social function, what I would like to see is a marriage being between all involved. Under such a model, going from two people to three people would legally be a new marriage for all and requiring the consent of all, even if two of the people don’t personally consider themselves married to each other, only to the third person. Likewise, if one person wanted to leave, they could, and the remaining two would legally begin a new marriage at that moment. What is important is consent. If one person (A) no longer wants to be legally married to one of the other spouses (C), either A convinces C to leave, or convinces B (and D, if there is a D), and A and B (and perhaps D) leave C. Or, B (and/or D) can say no, and A is free to either stay and bite the bullet, or leave alone or with B or D. Adults can make these choices without having someone else tell them they can’t have any choice in the first place.

Who would get custody of the children, and how would custody battles be approached?

The same exact way they are now. Custody would be determined based on the needs of the child and the lives of the parents. This would be aided by who is named on the child’s birth certificate.

Those who wish to set up more complex domestic relationships have access to existing contract and trust law, as well as other well-established areas of law.

This is the same thing said to same-sex couples as an excuse not to grant them the freedom to marry. If someone wants to marry, they shouldn’t be denied.

Hovde should respect and exercise her own intellectual abilities more than she has in this column.

Pot, meet kettle. Surely the letter writer is intelligent enough to see that the issues raise can deal with?
— — —

3 comments:

  1. My first thoughts turn to the business world. I have set up and run a business or two over my working career, and one of those businesses included a partner. The laws here regarding a co-owned business were very similar to the laws that govern a two-person marriage.

    The legal/contractual ramifications of trust and responsibility were also similar.

    This leads me to believe that a well established working model of a multi-partnered business already exists, with the legal responsibilities already thoroughly worked through. In fact many working models exist, several of which could be used very effectively as models for polygamous type marriages.

    This being the case, I believe that those who have these "legal" objections, are really just hiding a deeper irrational bias, which they do not want to own up to.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If I could make another comment; I do like what you said here:

    "Purely from a legal perspective and not necessarily anyone’s personal beliefs or social function, what I would like to see is a marriage being between all involved. Under such a model, going from two people to three people would legally be a new marriage for all and requiring the consent of all, even if two of the people don’t personally consider themselves married to each other, only to the third person. Likewise, if one person wanted to leave, they could, and the remaining two would legally begin a new marriage at that moment. What is important is consent."

    The foremost leading cause of the breakdown of any marriage or business partnership is broken trust. One, or more, of the partners does something that the other(s) does not agree with, or consent to. This is almost always a result of assumption and poor communication, though quite often it is based entirely in self gratification.

    Consent is the central issue, upon which all stable relationships and partnerships revolve.

    ReplyDelete
  3. JRNorth, you can make as many comments as you want ;-)

    ReplyDelete

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.