Skip to main content

View Diary: South Dakota, Kansas consider 'freedom to discriminate' anti-equality bills (72 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The way I see it, the state (or the US govt) (0+ / 0-)

    has outlawed a religious practice - marrying multiple spouses at the same time, for no reason other than it conflicts with the predominate practice of marriage being between two people - originally only allowed as one man and one woman, but now allowed to be same sex in a growing number of states.  That duopoly version of marriage has no reason for being acceptable over polygamy for any reason other than traditional religion, that I can see anyway.  Sure there are hundreds of years of accepted precedence, but if you wanted to go all biblical, there were plenty of examples of polygamy in the Bible that were accepted.

    No, I'm not looking to add a third to my marriage.

    •  The state outlaws religious practice (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      that is deems harmful. If someone's religion requires human sacrifices then they're going to have to move somewhere else to practice their particular brand of worship. It's an extreme example but it makes the point. Some people claim that polygamy is harmful to the women involved.

      One of the reasons polygamy has remained illegal is because it causes problems when it comes to taxes, custody, property issues, divorce, inheritance, etc. It would get very complicated setting up a system for the legal components of group marriages. I'm not suggesting that it can't be done but legalizing polygamy would need to come first and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

    •  Marriage contract insufficient for polygamy (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The legal problem, and the reason, IMHO, that the state can create 2-person marriage without being required to create 3-person marriage, is that the marriage contract breaks down when you hit the third person.

      Who is married to whom - all are married to each other, women married to the man? How does that work?

      If one person dies, do the remaining spouses divide their property evenly? Does it only go to those people to whom that individual was married?

      Child custody- what a mess that would be.

      When one gets married, one's spouse becomes the most important relative in your family - superseding all others.  That system cannot work in a polygamous situation.

      You can also argue that polygamy is inherently unstable, because it reduces the available marriage partners for those not rich enough to take on multiple spouses.

      Saying all that, I would prefer some legal framework for polygamy, because as it's currently practiced (and legally, I might add, as long as the subsequent spouses are only "spiritual" ones), the women who are not legal wives have no rights whatsoever, and the legal restrictions on the practice keep it in the dark. Expose it to the light, give women trapped in Warren Jeffs'-like cults a way out, and the practice will die on the vine.

      A government that denies gay men the right to bridal registry is a fascist state - Margaret Cho

      by CPT Doom on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 11:35:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This sounds like (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        a scenario in which only the male could have multiple spouses. What's to prevent all parties from having multiple spouses? Of course, the family tree would have to be expressed in the form of a Venn diagram.

        I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

        by itsjim on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 11:42:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Was using polygamy as a model (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          itsjim, ColoTim

          But the same issues would arise with any form of group marriage.

          A government that denies gay men the right to bridal registry is a fascist state - Margaret Cho

          by CPT Doom on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 01:07:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site