How Nonmonogamous People Can Avoid Trouble

Believe it or not, there are still criminal laws in many places criminalizing consensual sex and relationships between adults.

It doesn't matter to them how loving, happy, and lasting the relationships are. It apparently doesn't matter to the people interfering that every dollar or minute they spend trying to stop consenting adults from loving each other is a dollar or minute that could instead go into protecting people, especially children, against predators.

In addition to the persecution and prosecution of consanguinamorous people, polyamorists, polygamists, and other ethical nonmonogamists can face discrimination and even prosecution.

Some awesome people put together a very helpful lists of state laws for polyamorous people in the US or considering moving to the US. First, note the disclaimer that there is an ever-present at the bottom of this blog. I'll mostly repeat it here:

Philled Up

The Dr. Phil Show is one of those shows for which there is little benefit for someone looking to present the reality of polyamourous or polygamous or consanguinamorous relationships to participate. This show is not unique in these respects, but it is our example for today.

It's Dr. Phil's show (hence the name), and Dr. Phil, unless I've missing something (which is possible, because I rarely watch or read anything by him) professes monogamy as the ideal for all and probably is also biased again consanguinamory. The show runs on commercial television, which means it is advertiser-supported. The target audience has fears and biases against ethical nonmonogamy. Dr. Phil's staff controls the microphones, the editing, and everything else. It is highly unlikely someone in an ethically non-monogamous or consanguinamorous relationship is going to be allowed to portray their relationship as anything other than some sort of terrible mess or abusive. They're going to be expected to be lectured by Dr. Phil.

Whatever one thinks of Thom Miller of Mansfield, Ohio, a self-proclaimed polygamist who has been in the news lately, there was no way any polygamist was going to be portrayed well on this show. Dillon Carr reported at richlandsource.com...

A Couple of Questions About Bigamy and Polygamy

Answered in our Tumblr.

Will Utah Make Legislative Baby Steps?

After a federal judge did what should have been a no-brainer to everyone and slapped down Utah's criminalization of polyfidelity and polyamorous cohabitation, a state legislator is trying to make baby steps in the law, as reported by Antone Clark at standard.net...

Rep. Jerry Anderson, R-Price, said House Bill 56 was inspired by a federal judge's ruling in December striking down part of the state's law banning polygamy, following legal action brought by the stars of a TV reality series "Sister Wives." The court ruling threw out the state's section of law prohibiting cohabitation, saying it violates the constitutional guarantee of due process and religious freedom.

Not to mention freedom of association, right to privacy, etc.

His bill is only 29 lines long, and essentially changes the definition of cohabitation and then points out under existing law, bigamy is a third-degree felony.

Bigamy shouldn't be a crime unless it involves fraud. An adult should be free to marry any & all consenting adults. If someone is married and they are marrying another, that shouldn't be hidden from current spouses. Absent that sort of deception, there's no reason for polyamorists to be denied their fundamental rights.

He said the state's existing bigamy definition forces many people into the shadows. He said thousands of schoolchildren list their fathers as unknown, to avoid dealing with the implications of being in violation of the law.

He said the state's existing definition of bigamy puts police officers in a tough position.

Exactly. Criminalization of consensual adult relationships is destructive, causing many unnecessary problems.

This is a baby step. Really, any US state needs relationship rights, including full marriage equality, for all.

UPDATE: The bill is "dead" as the lawmakers sit around waiting for further court action. Sigh.

Sam Woolfe is Another Ally For the Polygamous Freedom to Marry

Sam Woolfe at thebackbencher.co.uk had a piece that asked, "Should Polygamy Be Legalized?"  He does a rather good job countering some of the typical misinformation about polygamy and polyamory used by those who want to deny people this freedom to marry and relationship rights.

Polygamy, or a marriage involving more than two partners, is illegal in most countries. Polygamous marriages may not be performed in the UK, and if one is performed then the already married person is guilty of the crime of bigamy. Bigamy is the act of entering into a marriage with one person, whilst already being married to someone else.

I can understand having laws against defrauding someone by hiding an existing marriage or "secretly" entering into a new one while still married to someone who would not agree, but there should be no laws barring the polygamous freedom to marry when all involved agree.

 Where polygamy is legal, those who have entered into a polygamous marriage are still discriminated against – their marriage is not recognised for pension, immigration or citizenship purposes.

Ridiculous.

It's On - The Browns Going After Anti-Equality Law

Back in the news is the good work of the Browns of "Sister Wives" as they seek to get Utah's ridiculous law overturned. Full marriage equality is getting closer and closer. Here's the article from Brian Skoloff of the Associated Press.

Kody Brown and his four wives want what any family wants, to live in the privacy of their own home free from government intrusion, and out from under the threat of criminal prosecution for — as they see it — just loving each other.

 

"As they see it?" It is the way any rational person sees it.

Brown and his wives — Meri, Janelle, Christine and Robyn — remain victims and continue to live under the stigma of being considered felons, Turley said, noting they fled to Nevada last year.

While all states outlaw bigamy, some like Utah have laws that not only prohibit citizens from having more than one marriage licence, but also make it illegal to even purport to be married to multiple partners. Utah’s bigamy statute even bans unmarried adults from living together and having a sexual relationship.

Ridiculous.

Arguments are being heard today. Let's advance equality!

No Plural Marriage Gonna Happen Here

Under full marriage equality, marrying more than one person should not be a criminal matter. However, an existing marriage partner should be informed if their partner is marrying someone else, and should be free to divorce if she or he disapproves.

From dailyjournal.net comes this report of a man facing criminal bigamy charges.

A woman contacted police to tell them that her husband had gone to Las Vegas and married another woman while he was still married to her, Edinburgh deputy police chief David Lutz said. She filed for divorce in February, but it has not been finalized.

Police obtained a marriage certificate from Nevada that showed that Penrod married a woman from Nineveh on March 2, Lutz said.

She had already filed for divorce. The only possible problem I see here is how the law splits up assets.

His new wife told police that the three of them had been living together and that they originally planned to live as polygamists after getting married in Las Vegas, Lutz said. His first wife told police that they separated in December after she learned of his relationship with the other woman, and that’s why she filed for divorce.

I wonder who is telling the truth? Was the first wife initially supportive of the relationship and later turned against it, using the law as revenge? Or did she have an agreement of monogamy with him that he violated? Was this cheating, or a polycule that disbanded? It is "she said vs. she said" as there is no quote from him in the article.

A Brown Day in Court

The Browns, stars of the TLC show “Sister Wives,” and their lawsuit for the polyamorous freedom of association are back in the news. The case was in court on Friday. Jennifer Dobner of the Associated Press had an update.

A polygamous family made famous on a reality television show is asking a Utah federal judge not to block their challenge of the state's bigamy law.

Kody Brown and wives Meri, Janelle, Christine and Robyn filed a lawsuit in Salt Lake City's U.S. District Court in July. Oral arguments in the case are set for Friday before U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups.

Judge Waddoups should side with relationship rights for consenting adults.

Texas Anti-marriage Law Challenged

The Browns are challenging the Utah law against the polygamous freedom of association, but there’s also a challenge to Texas’ bigamy law.

Unlike other Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints men charged in Texas, 70-year-old Wendell Nielsen is not accused of marrying underage girls. Instead, the three felony bigamy charges against him are focused on women ages 66, 56 and 43.

In newly filed court documents in Schleicher County, Nielsen’s attorneys argue that the law unfairly targets groups with a religious belief in plural marriage. They quote a landmark decision that struck down the state’s sodomy law, Lawrence v. Texas.

"The bigamy statute appears to be nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to ‘use the power of the state to enforce [majority views regarding morality] on the whole society through the operation of criminal law’ and as such cannot survive even minimal scrutiny," according to a motion to quash Nielsen’s indictment filed this week.

The more people think it through, the more they realize how ridiculous it is to try to stop consenting adults from having relationships. And when they think it through more, they also realize it is unfair to deny the freedom to marry.

In a separate argument, Nielsen’s attorneys claimed the bigamy law is unfairly enforced and unconstitutional because it applies only to certain groups.

The law, for example, would not apply to three women living together who consider themselves married, or three men in the same situation, attorneys wrote, because marriage in Texas can only be between a man and a woman, and the bigamy statute requires that the accused is legally married to one person.

Let’s make it simple by recognizing that an adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults. State lawmakers could save everyone so much trouble and free up the courts by supporting these basic human rights instead of trying to punish people on an arbitrary basis over the person or persons they love. Yes, some bigots will cry. They'll get over it, just like they got over desegregation.

Antiequality Discrimination Hurts

The Browns, the polygynous family documented in the TLC show “Sister Wives," told a federal judge about the harms they have suffered as a result of discrimination.

Kody Brown and his wives wrote in new court papers that they've lost jobs, were forced to move to Nevada and suffered harm to their reputations after police launched an investigation last year after the fall 2010 launch of their TLC show.

In July, Brown and wives Meri, Janelle, Christine and Robin, filed a lawsuit challenging Utah's bigamy law in Salt Lake City's U.S. District Court. They contended that the law is unconstitutional and unfairly applied to polygamists.

"Because the Browns are open about their polygamist lifestyle, the criminal bigamy statute has the effect of publicly labeling them as presumptive felons," the Brown's Washington, D.C.-based attorney, Jonathan Turley, wrote in court papers filed Monday. "The statute further brands them as immoral and societal outsiders."

Not only is their right to marry denied, but their freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association have been attacked. They’ve suffered financially. Their children have been bullied. Laws denying marriage equality create such an environment.

Under Utah law, it is illegal for unmarried persons to cohabitate, or "purport" to be married. A person is also guilty of bigamy if they hold multiple legal marriage licenses.

The third-degree felony is punishable by up to five years in state prison. Both men and women can be prosecuted under the law, which also applies to unmarried, monogamous couples that live together.

Ridiculous. An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults. We need full marriage equality sooner rather than later.

Whose Idea Was This, Anyway?

The Daily Mail had a positive article on polygyny, based on OWN’s Our America. It is about a husband and two sister-wives in Centennial Park, Arizona.

But a new documentary has revealed that it is actually the women instigating polygamous marriage in Mormon communities.

I want to be clear that the largest Mormon church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, hasn’t taught polygyny (at least for this life) for a long time now. In fact, that’s one of the reason there are so many other Mormon churches (a Mormon church being a church that cites Joseph Smith as a prophet and the Book of Mormon as scripture). When the LDS church gave up polygyny for this life, some members... kept practicing polygyny, and were either forced out or left (or the LDS church left them, depending on how you look at it).

Brown's Lawyer Makes His Case in the NYT

Jonathan Turley, lead counsel for the Browns, wrote an opinion for today’s New York Times arguing effectively for freedom. He begins by writing about the importance of Lawrence v. Texas (2003). Of the lawsuit by the polygnist television-starring Brown family…

They are not asking for the state to recognize their marriages. They are simply asking for the state to leave them alone.

While they should be allowed cohabitation without discrimination or oppression, they should also be able to get legally married as they want to: in a polyginist structure.

Utah and eight other states make polygamy a crime, while 49 states have bigamy statutes that can be used to prosecute plural families. And they’re not a small population: the number of fundamentalist Mormon or Christian polygamists alone has been estimated to be as high as 50,000. When Muslim as well as nonreligious plural families are considered, the real number is likely many times greater.

People hear “polygamy” in terms of in America or Canada and they think of an isolated, religion-based patriarchal community. However, there are polyamorous families everywhere, whether one man with two women, one woman with two men, three women, three men, two women and two men, or whatever. They are your coworkers and neighbors. They may be in your family and you don’t even know it becaue they haven’t come out. They may be presented as a “family friends” or roommates or “renters.”

While widely disliked, if not despised, polygamy is just one form among the many types of plural relationships in our society. It is widely accepted that a person can have multiple partners and have children with such partners. But the minute that person expresses a spiritual commitment and “cohabits” with those partners, it is considered a crime.

It is outrageous and, if we’re trying to foster stability and what’s best for children in our marriage laws, then it is backward to make criminals of poly people.

One might expect the civil liberties community to defend those cases as a natural extension of its campaign for greater privacy and personal choice. But too many have either been silent or outright hostile to demands from polygamists for the same protections provided to other groups under Lawrence.

In other words, he’s calling on people to show some solidarity. Good for him.

The reason might be strategic: some view the effort to decriminalize polygamy as a threat to the recognition of same-sex marriages or gay rights generally. After all, many who opposed the decriminalization of homosexual relations used polygamy as the culmination of a parade of horribles. In his dissent in Lawrence, Justice Antonin Scalia said the case would mean the legalization of “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity.”

We can only hope that Scalia’s right that consenting adults will be able to enjoy each other and their own bodies without criminalization, discrimination, or bullying.

Others have opposed polygamy on the grounds that, while the Browns believe in the right of women to divorce or leave such unions, some polygamous families involve the abuse or domination of women. Of course, the government should prosecute abuse wherever it is found. But there is nothing uniquely abusive about consenting polygamous relationships. It is no more fair to prosecute the Browns because of abuse in other polygamous families than it would be to hold a conventional family liable for the hundreds of thousands of domestic violence cases each year in monogamous families.

The nail has been hit squarely on the head. Punish abusers for abuse. Don’t criminalize love and marriage.

Thank you, sir. May you win your case!

For Marriage Equality, The Sister Wives Must Win

The Browns must ultimately prevail in their lawsuit against Utah, or marriage equality will remain elusive in the US.

Americans have been gaining the same-sex freedom to marry, but DOMA still stinks up things at the national level, and no single state has anything close to full marriage equality.

Equality just for some is not equality. The Browns don’t even have the right to privacy. They need to get that right secured. Whether that will happen through their lawsuit or through legislation at the state or national level, or a Supreme Court decision that pre-empts the Brown’s case, it has to happen somehow. We need to reach full equality, so that an adult can pursue love, sex, cohabitation, and marriage (or not) with any consenting adults.

Brown Power!

The polygynous Brown family, featured on “Sister Wives,” is going to challenge an anti-equality law in Utah. Unfortunately, it appears that they are only going after the ban on cohabitation, not the ban on the freedom to marry.

In an email to The Associated Press, attorney Jonathan Turley said he will file the lawsuit challenging Utah's bigamy law in Salt Lake City's U.S. District Court on Wednesday.

Turley represents Kody Brown and his four wives, Meri, Janelle, Christine and Robyn. Brown is only legally married to Meri Brown.

He should be able to legally marry all of them, if that is what they want.

Bigamy is a third-degree felony in Utah. A person can be found guilty of bigamy through cohabitation, not just legal marriage contracts.

Adults should be able to live together, adults should be free to marry.

In a statement posted on his blog, Turley said the lawsuit will challenge Utah's right to prosecute people for their private relationships.

"We are not demanding the recognition of polygamous marriage.”

They should, though.

The Browns have long said they believed making their life public on cable television was a risk worth taking if it helped advance the broader understanding of plural families. The lawsuit appears to be an extension of that belief.

Good for them. They have my support.

Woman Arrested For Leaving Husband

In Egypt...

Abeer Talaat Fakhry, 26, was living with her Christian husband in the southern city of Assiut when she ran away from home, converted to Islam and "married" Muslim Yassin Thabet, the source said.

I’m not so familiar with Egyptian law. Is it possible for a woman, I mean actually possible in reality and not just theory, to divorce her husband? To me, the freedom to divorce or not marry at all, along with gender equality, are ingredients to full marriage equality.

Hundreds of ultra-conservative Muslims known as Salafists attacked a church in the poor Cairo district of Imbaba on Saturday, spurred on by rumours that Fakhry had converted to Islam and was being held there against her will.

Violence is hardly the answer to a situation like this, other than to rescue someone who is being held against her will.

But the source said Fakhry was actually with her new "husband" in a house next door to the church and that she had fled when the clashes began.

The largest Christian community in Egypt is that of the Copts, in whose church divorce is extremely difficult to obtain.

Ah. Well, if the church wouldn’t recognize her divorce, that shouldn’t stop the government from recognizing it.

There have been a number of cases in which unhappy women have left their husbands, converted to Islam and "married" Muslims, but those marriages are not recognised in law.

That’s too bad. I’m not a Muslim nor am I partial to Islam, but if that is what the women freely choose they should be allowed their new marriages.

Hence, the charge that Fakhry had committed polyandry, or having more than one husband.

It’s very simple. Allow her to divorce, and she won’t be committing polyandry against her first husband’s will. Consensual polyandry, however, is another story and shouldn’t be a crime. Either way, she shouldn’t be arrested in this case. Perhaps escorted for her own protection, but not arrested.

More Positive Response to “Sister Wives” Part Deux

The previous post was getting too long, so I split it into two. The first part looked at Annette Kniola’s impression of “Sister Wives.” Below, I look at the responses she got.

virgomoon was highly eloquent…

It really is disheartening the way the polygamy has been portrayed in the news of late. That picture of modern polygamy is one filled with all sorts of back-rooms dealings, child and minor abuse, human trafficking, etc. The problem is that that picture is one of a small, but heinous minority.

And here’s why we don’t see more positive depictions…

Practicing polygamy is a felony. While it is not a crime to have rampant relations with flocks of women and sire children by them for the state or a single mother to care for, taking responsibility for them will land you in jail. That is the fight that modern secular polygamists face. To fight the good fight means coming out into the light of day and finding yourself staring down the barrel of jail time.

It is ridiculous. People have the freedom to have sex and children with multiple partners, and I don’t want that freedom to be taken away. But marrying each of those partners and thus raising all of the children within marriage is illegal. Why???

There is a massive contingent in the US and Canada that want nothing more than to be able to care for their families of intelligent and well cared for children and powerful, intelligent, and opinionated wives that entered into this lifestyle of their own accord without coercion. We want to do so without subsidy from the state and without any greater rights than those afforded our neighbors.

Why are they denied?

cgbexec is supportive.

NedLand wasn’t…

I think you are all out of your minds.

That’s it. No explanation as to what is wrong with the freedom to marry.

keekee, admitting to have never watched “Sister Wives” or the fictional “Big Love,” wrote anyway…

However, the concept of polygamy must be fraught with problems throughout.

Such as…?

Leaving all that aside, and only referring to consenting adults that have entered into this life with open eyes and understanding, I have to wonder if the lifestyle is how it is portrayed in the TV show you describe or if perhaps the TV show is more showbiz than real.

That can also apply to any show with a monogamous couple. So what?

As humans, we are all prone to many emotions, jealousy being one of the worst. In traditional families there are always the little squabbles and hurts. Strong families can overcome these things, but families experience them, none the less. And in the work place, you have jealousy there also.

So… we should all work in business partnerships and never a larger company?

I don’t see human nature being left at the door when living a polygamist life. Does the first wife think she is the boss? And what if the third wife is prettier than the second wife? And what if the fourth wife is well educated and considers herself to be more sophisticated than wife one, two and three? ETC, etc.

None of those are anyone else’s business and are not good reasons to prevent people from having the freedom to marry.

And the children? Are they being done a disservice by being born into a polygamist family? They were given no choice and I have to wonder, wouldn’t they be ostracized by their peers?

This is Discredited Argument #6. Children are never given a choice about their parents. This ostracism thing is a curious one. It goes something like this:

Bigot: “Polygamy is wrong! Shame! Shame on you freaks!”
Me: “What’s wrong with polygamy?”
Bigot: “Their kids will be called freaks!”

Well, yes, bigots, bullies, and ignorant brats will tease kids. If we allowed that to stop freedom and civil liberties, we would still have racial segregation. How about this. How about when you deal with the kids, you don’t disparage the love of their parents? Problem solved, right?

And you do know that not everyone who marries raises children, right?

virgomoon responded to keekee…

Yes, I am in a polygamous home of two wives. Both very different and both very much average American women in their own ways. They go to Wal-Mart, go to the dentist, take pets to the vet, play with kids, have babies, talk to friends, family, etc .. just like everyone else. Were it not for the fact that there were two women, we would be perfectly indistinguishable from your average American household.

Regarding the children…

As for the children .. they don't seem to care less. They have no peer problems that I have been made aware of. All they seem to care about is that they have more laps to sit on and more arms to hold them and more hands to fill their cups. And they really love having more grandparents. Come on, what kid wouldn't like more attention?

keekee…

If polygamy works for you, your wives and children, who am I to make judgment? I would never presume.

The life you describe sounds like the life of millions of Americans living the traditional marriage.

Wow, was a mind changed? Well, maybe not…

Being honest, I must admit I’m not “enlightened” enough to agree with polygamy, and it probably goes against every idea I was raised to believe. However, I was also raised to understand it takes all manner of people to make up our wonderful world and it would be a sin to presume my life was of any greater value than any life on earth.

God bless you and your family, I wish you well.

I should check back to see if there has been more.

It is easy to be against the polygamous freedom to marry when you allow yourself to believe the only people practicing it are crazy, abusive middle-aged men each with with ten timid 13-year-old girls. Being exposed to polygamous marriages involving normal, consenting adults means someone is more likely to support the freedom to marry.

Polygyny in Kenya

Here’s an article on “Happy Co-wives” from Kenya.

The practice of polygamy is today recognised under customary law. Lawyer Julius Ondika says the new Constitution allows for registration of polygamous marriages, but the man has to first seek the consent of the first wife before entering into the second marriage.

Full marriage equality is only possible if consent is a requirement. This is not about cheating or having a mistress, or duping an existing spouse.

Lasting Polyamory

Scarlet asked for opinions on polyamory. She got a good answer from Chances6...

I've been in a committed, triad polyamorous relationship for 17 years now. It's not at all that I have two "wives." It's more correct to say my wife has a husband and a wife.

It's certainly not for everyone (but then, neither is a monogamous relationship!), but we've all found it to be really wonderful and fulfilling and healthy and comforting.

17 years. That's longer than so many monogamous marriages these days. Shouldn't these people have the freedom to marry?

Still Waiting For A Good Reason to Deny Marriage Equality

This guy tries to explain why only some adults should have the freedom to marry the person they love.

Essentially, I believe that whatever involves just consenting adults, and does not do violence to others or society as a whole, should be tolerated. And, when it involves the notion of legal equality, it should be accepted.

Sounds great.

Gay marriage: Sure. Fine. Whatever. "I think it's gross" is NOT sufficient legal justification for banning it.

Thanks for supporting this freedom to marry.

Incest: No, no, a thousand times no.

Why not? He struggles to justify his opposition to this freedom to marry.

In some cases, it involves minors -- so there goes the "consenting adults."

By starting out with this, he’s trying to equate fun, romance, and love between consenting adults with child abuse. It’s like making a case against adults working for a living because of child-slave labor. I, like most people who want marriage equality, condemn child abuse.

In others, it raises the likelihood of inbreeding -- so there goes the "harm to others."

We’ve dealt with this one so many times before. There is no law against people having children despite and increased risk that the child will inherit a disease or birth defect, so unless you want to deny reproductive rights and force everyone to take genetic tests and bar carriers and the congenitally disabled and women over 35 from having children, then equal protection prevents this from being a justification to bar this freedom of association and freedom to marry. Still, most children born to consanguineous parents are fine. Furthermore, there are people marry who have no intention of reproducing, and most sex does not result in a live birth, nor is it intended to. So give this one a rest.

In some, involving parents, squicky issues of power and authority and inequality are raised.

This objection also fails. Next?

But even in those cases where those pitfalls are avoided, the introduction of the sexual dynamic entirely within the family structure causes violence to society as a whole.

What does this mean, and where is the proof? One might as well say that it kills ancient redwood trees. Spell out the harm. The sexual dynamic often brings people closes together. If you’ve found otherwise, maybe you’re doing it wrong.

Bigamy: Too many legal nightmares.

That’s what the bigots said about same-sex marriage and the Americans With Disabilities Act and just about any civil rights laws. Of course it is easier for those who already have what they want to keep things as they are. But what about all of the people who are denied their rights?

Let's take the case of Adam, Eve, and Eden. Adam marries Eve, and then the two marry Eden. Then Adam wants out. What does that mean to the legal relationship between Eve and Eden? Are they still married, even if they don't want to be? Are they divorced from each other, even if they don't want to be?

Use some thinking. It is very simple. If Adam leaves, Eve and Eden have the option of either continuing in a reformed marriage or entirely dissolving the marriage. It’s called freedom of association. When one person leaves a polygamous marriage, the others can too. Or, they can stay. It is their choice, not anyone else's concern.

And what about children?

What about children from one night stands, donated sperm, surrogate mothers, affairs, brief flings, or supposedly monogamous marriage that's ending? What about children born to a woman whose husband wasn’t the man who impregnated her? All of these situations are entirely legal. A court decides custody disputes that aren’t resolved amicably.

Marriage is a straight line (pardon the expression), defined by two points.

In his limited imagination. Others are living in marriages that are different.

It can be made and broken relatively simply (geometrically speaking). Introducing more points, making it into triangles, squares (with corners also connected), and whatnot just gets messy. No just say no to bigamy.

Got that? You can’t have your freedom to marry because someone else finds it “messy.” I mean really, why does one person care if someone else’s relationship is more complicated than he would like for himself? Don't want a poly marriage? Don't have one.

It’s past time to stop this. Just let people marry the person(s) they want to marry. Stop persecuting and prosecuting people for the sex they have with other consenting adults.

He Has Two Wives

Two Wives explains how he got involved in polyamory.

Polyamory is about loving more than one person at the same time. I love my wife. I also love my second wife.

It appears to work for them. If you read what he wrote, they all had needs that this combination meets.

Legally, my second wife has no rights and no way to claim legal protection. My first wife could kick her and/or me out at anytime.

He should be allowed to marry both, as long as all three consent.

We don’t talk about this with anyone.

It is sad that someone has to hide their love.