Polyamory and the State

Polyamory and the State (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Polyamorous Lifestyles

Message

Faramir -> Polyamory and the State (11/3/2005 7:22:36 AM)
Interesting case unfolding in Utah right now, with both a 1st amendment and 14th amendment angle to it. A polygamist Judge is Utah is appealing to the State Supreme Court his removal from the bench for polygamy. quote: PROVO, Utah - A small-town judge who has three wives should not be removed from the bench because his private behavior has not tarnished the office he holds, the judge’s attorney told the Utah Supreme Court on Wednesday. Judge Walter Steed was found to be a polygamist by the state’s Judicial Conduct Commission, and the panel issued an order seeking his removal from the bench in February. Steed’s attorney argued during Wednesday’s hearing that while drug abuse, for example, might be grounds for removal, Steed’s private behavior in his home should not be. “The question is whether polygamy rises to a different level of disrepute than something else,” attorney Rodney Parker said. But those seeking to remove Steed argue that he shouldn’t break the laws he took an oath to uphold. “Judges are expected to live to a different standard,” said Colin Winchester, the commission’s executive director. I see here an analogue to gay rights issues. In most of America yes, you can be gay: in private, quietly, without the legal and civil protection of marriage. The love that dares not speak its name can speak, but it can't be recognized legally. In the case of polygamy, yea, the Judge could prolly love more than one perspn, but can't marry more than one person. If you read the article, there is a clear religious issue here: these people belive polyamory and polygamy are part of their faith, and the state is always doing a dance when it comes to religious convicitons. We don't let you say "I'm a servant of Cazic-Thule, and therefore must sacrifice one living human a month," but we will let you say "I'm a Friend, and dare not shed blood." But there is a 14th amendment issue here as well - is it really any skin off the state's nose if someone has three husbands, or the issue that it pisses off the majority? I'm curious what polyamorists here think - do you want the state to recognize your partnerships? Do you not want the state to recognize polyamory? Not give a rat's ass either way?

felineone -> RE: Polyamory and the State (11/3/2005 5:52:27 PM)
It was my understanding that most poly Mormans in Utah have only one legal wife, and the others are not legal. If he did indeed marry more than one at a time, then he has broken the law as it now stands. (using the legal meaning of marriage here) A judge should not be on the bench if he has broken the law, imo. As far as any choices a judge makes in his personal life, within the law, i beleive those should't be anyone else's business, and shouldn't effect his job. ~feline~

ModeratorOne -> RE: Polyamory and the State (11/3/2005 6:15:08 PM)
I am not familiar with this particular case but I do remember speaking with a friend who happens to be an orthodox jew and she said that according to jewish law polygamy is still legal and that recently a very famous rabbi passed away and he had 2 wives. I think polygamy is banned in Israel (I am not positive) and that it depends on the specific traditions. Also, for those that have/had multiple wives where it was illegal in the state they would have one wife that was allowed by state law and be married to both according to Jewish law. So I suppose with the mormon case it is possible that he had one wife according to the state and he married the others in the mormon church so in the eyes of god he had 3 wives but in the eyes of the law still one? http://shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML/faq/08-06.html

LadiesBladewing -> RE: Polyamory and the State (11/3/2005 6:20:24 PM)
While it would certainly be convenient for the state to recognize our relationships, I am of the opinion that it shouldn't be the State's business. Whether or not gay or poly marriages become legal, it is unlikely that we would marry, primarily because we believe that these matters should be between the individuals involved. I, personally, would prefer that marital status not be a consideration at all. For insurance, an individual could add a person to their insurance, regardless of marital status, as long as he or she was willing to pay the premiums for that individual's inclusion. Children would be cared for by the communal family, and in the event that the relationship dissolved, both biological parents (and any other non-biological parent agreed upon by all parties) would be responsible for the care of any child created through their union. All of these things could be worked out by the individuals. (This is, in essence, what we have agreed to for those who are full members of our household, though we have no legal recourse to uphold the agreements we have -- they depend completely on the honor of the people involved.) On the other hand, the ability to use the CIVIL courts to enforce agreements reached would be -very- convenient. Palimony agreements have been held up in civil court, and having this or a reasonable facsimile (such as binding arbitration, etc.) that would be neutral on the issue of family structure, but would be able to evaluate contracts between the individuals involved and assess responsibility in the event that one or more members of a communal family acted in poor faith re: the best interests of minors and the family once they left would be -really- helpful. Just my few cents. Lady Zephyr

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Polyamory and the State (11/3/2005 6:29:24 PM)
I WANT my relationship to be able to be recognized...but I understand the legal and medical nightmares it would create. Frankly more than legal I'd prefer just to be able to be out and not have it be a big deal.

domtimothy46176 -> RE: Polyamory and the State (11/4/2005 3:15:47 AM)
My personal opinion is that the State has no business deciding that one relationship dynamic is valid while another is not. My personal values are irrelevant to the debate. For me it's simply a question of logic and consistency. I think it should be an all or nothing scenerio wherein the government either accepts all configurations of private relationships as equally valid or stays completely out of the picture and only recognizes citizens as individuals. While I agree with LuckyAlbatross about the nightmare it would create to substantially alter the status quo, I find the narrow definition of legal marriage excessively intrusive. One can't defend the "one man, one woman" standard for marriage without invoking a line of reasoning based on religious doctrine which, in the current political climate, makes for some interesting hypocrisy. Timothy

Jacques1000 -> RE: Polyamory and the State (11/9/2005 9:27:59 AM)
This will happen in your life time.

wipmebeetme100 -> RE: Polyamory and the State (11/12/2005 2:33:57 PM)
quote: Frankly more than legal I'd prefer just to be able to be out and not have it be a big deal. I agree....not so much to have legal rights, etc....but not to have to hide it.

BenignPlague -> RE: Polyamory and the State (11/12/2005 4:23:29 PM)
It is my opinion that marriage itself should not be an institution recognized by the state in any form. I understand that this is not a mainstream viewpoint in any subculture of US citizenry, but in order for there to be a true separating of Church and State, all church-recognized identifications of people must be removed. Married, single, Catholic, excommunicated...none of this should matter in the eyes of the law.

Jacques1000 -> RE: Polyamory and the State (11/15/2005 6:17:01 PM)
true, although marriage has a civil (legal) and religious dimension so the bifurcation between state and church has never been there....

greenie -> RE: Polyamory and the State (11/16/2005 11:47:41 AM)
i have a brother who is a mormon, not in Utah but in WA state, and from what he has told me of polygamy in mormanism is that originally it was expected in order to increase their numbers. Now it is frowned on by the church, mostly because it is frowned on by most people, but also because there is no longer a need to increase numbers. Apparently a mormon can even be excommunicated for polygamy. i saw an article on tv sometime back where most polygamist mormans actually keep their polygamy from the church. The one thing about the tv article that got me was that with most of these "families" in most cases all the wives lived together with the children while the husband claimed another residence so that the mothers could get welfare. None of them worked and in most cases the husband/father didn't either. i'm all for polygamy and polyamory if it is something that works for all the individuals involved but not in situations like that where it's obvious the husband is just adding on wives and children for more financial aid. Just my personal knowledge and views which could be way off base. If anyone else has other info on Mormon laws in view of polygamy please let me know as i would be very interested in hearing.

Twilightt -> RE: Polyamory and the State (1/30/2006 12:23:59 PM)
Okay, okay. I am Mormon. Polygamy is not allowed. If you are a polygamist, you are excomunicated. Just so you know. Mormons do not allow polygamy any more. mutters to self... stupid polygamy jokes

Lordandmaster -> RE: Polyamory and the State (1/30/2006 12:30:05 PM)
I strongly agree with that, and said as much in the long and acrimonious debate we had about gay marriage a few months ago. But as long as some people believe we are a Christian nation and all of that horseshit, the state is going to be involved in your marriage. quote: ORIGINAL: BenignPlague It is my opinion that marriage itself should not be an institution recognized by the state in any form. I understand that this is not a mainstream viewpoint in any subculture of US citizenry, but in order for there to be a true separating of Church and State, all church-recognized identifications of people must be removed. Married, single, Catholic, excommunicated...none of this should matter in the eyes of the law.

MistressDREAD -> RE: Polyamory and the State (1/30/2006 1:28:02 PM)
Polyamory is practice by many with in the world today. Social Popular Demand of the time is what runs how the laws are applied. I beleive that there is one thing thats evident and factual. If Polyamory was legal there would be hardly no divorce in this World and Families would not be torn apart and Society weakened by the Government having to step in at every leval to assist in each Family thats effected in some kind of way by the laws of the land be it federal or state or county or city laws that interveine in the lifes of familys and lifestyle choices so that they cannot progress to a good end but are split up for the sake of what? Wellfare and Government inception into the very core of every day family life? When We as people live Our lifes, We have to all take a stance on what We each deem right and wrong for Us and how each of those beleifs effect Ourselfs, Our Family, Our Community, Our World. Sometimes in those Integral and Honorable choices that We choose to live for Our self, We find that We are in Our beliefs breaking some kind of law that goes against Our beliefs and its at that point We have to choose to either stand up for what We feel is right or step back from what We beleive and practice and follows Societys passage against what ever that issue is at the time. But are We being true to Our selfs if We are breaking Our laws to follow Societies Laws of the time? Who better to prove a point to right then that who must uphold all laws of the state for the People and who would say that this Man is not honorable, not integral in His job that has a stellar performance aside from His personal life and that based off of a Law that He feels is not fair, not right, not legal when passed, and could again be changed to the whim of the society in the time at large change His views and His belief in the life that He lives and upholds to the best of His beleifs and ways? There are a few of Us who are Leaders. Many more who follow, Ive seen laws be changed that were not fair, not right, went against a select group of people by We the power of the People and most times that change came at the voice, the action, The standing up of just One Person who said, This is My Right, My Voice, My Life and Ill not have any tempt to take it away from Me any more. This Judge is My Hero. This Judge is My Savior. He gives credance and value to My Life, My Families Life, My Values and My Love. I am Polyamorous, I come from a Family thats been Polyamorous since generations befor I can remember. I and My Family for generations have broke the laws in the lands We have lived because at various times in the present and the past laws were passed that made what We have done thruout history illigal when it use to be legally fine untill to the shigrin of the political power that was in place at the time dident like the practice for a religious reason. Times are a changing, and I think with in My lifetime I will witness Our rights finally be given back to Our hands where it should of been all along according to the constitution and bill of rights. What We do in the privacy of Our Own Homes if it hurts no one should not be invaded by AnyOne or Any Thing especially a Religious Right I am not a part of or a Government and its Society left I have not gave that right to be there in the first place. Last I remember, In My World, WE had a right to pursue happiness. JMO [8\|] quote: Polygamy The having of a plurality of wives or husbands at the same time; usually, the marriage of a man to more than one woman, or the practice of having several wives, at the same time; Polygyny The state or practice of having several wives at the same time; marriage to several wives. Polyandry The possession by a woman of more than one husband at the same time. Bigamy The offense of marrying one person when already legally married to another. Polyfidelity and/or Polyamory refers to all forms of multi-partner relating between adults which are ethical and consensual. Polygamy's Legal Status Polygamy is not illegal – bigamy is. Bigamy is the criminal offence of registering a second marriage with the State when a first marriage is still recognized. Polygamy can be practiced without breaking the law simply by registering no more than one of the marriages with the State. If you've decided to be a polygamist and put Plural Marriage into practice, then you're most likely not the sort of person to be concerned about registering your marriages with the State. You can have a perfectly pleasant and happy marriage without government intrusion into your private matters. And you can have a better marriage, because submitting to the Government's view of marriage means accepting their view of divorce. Polygamists don't have a need for divorce. If you want to start a new marriage, that's fine, but you shouldn't have to destroy an existing marriage and family to do it. Brides should understand they are entering into a polygamous relationship. But once they understand that, and if they don't break the law by registering multiple marriages, then they can participate in plural marriage with a clear conscience. It is not widely known that polygamous marriages are allowed in the majority of the worlds cultures. It is our belief that monogamy is a valid choice for some people at some times, but we also need other legitimate options for marriage and family life. Certainly the alarming divorce rate and skyrocketing number of single parent families are indicators of how badly we need old proven Biblical models for relating. Our goal is to support relationships based on love, commitment, growth, honesty, and accepting personal responsibility.

njyngdom -> RE: Polyamory and the State (2/5/2006 9:59:31 AM)
Disclaimer - I am not a lawyer. Second Disclaimer - I agree that poly relationships should be legal. I'm playing devil's advocate here. I can see a number of questions that would be raised by the acceptance of poly relationships (defined as a group of more than 2 people with any combination of genders) in the current legal environment. For the purposes below, I'm going to stay away from the line of thinking that one of the reasons for marriage is to encourage inter-gender relationships for the purposes of producing a new generation of children. I'll also try to stay away from any religious-based arguments (not to say that I agree or disagree with any of them - simply that I'm trying to create a discussion with secular, legal merit) 1. Property disbursal after death. There is a fixed pecking order with regard to inheritance, barring the presence of a legally recognized will. That pecking order specifically revolves around 3 family units: one man and one woman (with or w/o children), one man (with or w/o children) or one woman (with or w/o children). To add in a fourth unit - that being a poly relationship - could further dilute the assets of a person away from their biological family, which is exactly what this system was designed NOT to do. 2. Health Insurance. This problem was, indeed, mentioned above. However, while the solutions seems simple, it often isn't. Health insurance, in the United States, has largely been a benefit of employment. That is - s/he who works gets the insurance. Now, back in the days when it was typical for one person to work and the other partner to stay home, that benefit was extended to the worker's immediate family (spouse + children) at no or very little additional cost to the worker because it was cost-effective to do so. It's easy to simply say - "Just extend that benefit to all of a poly family's members." However, with the ridiculously rising cost of health care, to insure everyone equally will cost quite a bit of money. Therefore, I don't think "Just make it work," is a particularly tenable position to take. More people will lose than will win. Perhaps if/when health care is socialized, this will become less of an issue. However, as it stands, I don't think it's pragmatic to say, "one worker can support >2 spouses," with regard to health care, unless s/he is prepared to do so out of his/her own pocket. 3. Parental rights, responsibilities: In a 'traditional' relationship with two people, the assumption of rights and responsibilities dealing with one's offspring is pretty easily determined. One mom, one dad - socially (married or not) and biologically. How does the state - which, for better or for worse, does have an interest in these sort of affairs - remap those rights and responsibilities into a family unit that has one biological mom, one biological dad and more social parents (Members of the poly unit that are not biological parents of the child) <i>that are legally viewed as equals to the biological parents?</i> The analogy of these social parents to extended relatives (aunts, uncles, etc.) is tenuous, at best. Do you relegate them to having no legal authority to the upbringing of the children? Do you promote them to having full and equal legal authority to the upbringing of the children? Anyway - just some food for thought...

HouseofBacchus -> RE: Polyamory and the State (2/10/2006 12:10:45 PM)
What is the point of "recognized" or officially sanctioned marriage... Being in Canada the only difference between common-law and married is a piece of paper and $50 the gov't takes. The only reason the government is still in the marriage business is because most polititians are lawyers and the lawyers are the only ones who gain from "legalized" marriage. Why not let the gov't back out of it and leave it to each church to recognize what ever marriage they want. How many extra doctors would there be if in a few years if there was no money in being a divorce lawyer.... Bacchus

amayos -> RE: Polyamory and the State (2/13/2006 6:08:09 PM)
I think I might be in the 'don't care, either way' catagory. So little of what I enjoy is technically legal, if you really want to get down to it. Simply because my fellow humans can't comprehend or accept certain portions of our inherent nature isn't my problem; I don't feel I am here to convince them, though I do lend my support to those fighting the good fight for sexual expression when it counts.

OUMasterssub -> RE: Polyamory and the State (2/17/2006 7:01:31 AM)
What I want to know is why everyone started discussing polygamy? There is a significant difference between polygamy and polyamory isn't there? I am not a licensed therapist or counselor and by no means do I have any experience other than the real time stuff, but most polyamory couples or families just stay that way--polyamory: meaning, the original married couple continue to stay married, and they add either a girlfriend, boyfriend or both depending on what the husband and wife are looking for. Being in a polyamory relationship right now and living it, I would and probably will marry my boyfriend later on down the road, but only after I have divorced my "husband." The same feelings are there whether in a polygamist family or a polyamory one. Do I love my husband? Yes. But I also am in love with my boyfriend too who is good friends with my husband, knows I am married and wants to marry me as well. Does he want our marriage to be legal and recognized by the state? Hell yeah he does, therefore his reason for our waiting. But would he be up to the idea of getting married in our own way? i.e. not having a minister or priest there to "officiate" and just saying our own vows to each other and giving rings Hell yeah he would. In fact, we have already discussed that scenario, but either way that is still a couple of years away. I don't see anything wrong with having multiple boyfriends, girlfriends, or both as long as everyone knows about the other one(s) and they are all okay with it and happy and it doesn't interfere in the original relationship. Would I look down on my daughter if she were involved in one? No way as long as she knew everything in the beginning, and she was being treated the way she deserves. There are those that still think the open marriage is the way to go--no emotional attachment, just sex, etc etc etc. Me? I didn't "plan" on falling in love with someone who I met in October nor did he plan on falling in love with me. But now that it has happened, we would trade it for nothing and my husband knows exactly how I feel about him, and he knows how he feels about me. Don't let the "church goers" dictate to you how you should feel or think about this. You would be surprised at the number of hypocrits there are in churches today. This is just my opinion on this though-so please don't take it personal or get offended. If it upsets you, remember this: everyone is entitled to their own opinions and views. Just because we don't agree doesn't mean yours are right and mine are wrong or vice versa.

ScooterTrash -> RE: Polyamory and the State (3/2/2006 4:25:00 PM)
Hmmm, as for the judge, well, he knew the law so I am certain he also knew the ramifications should he be found out. Now as to whether the law was right or wrong, that would be the debatable part. Should it be legal, well absolutely, it's not going to hurt anyone. What it seems that the so called lawmakers have forgotten is that laws are supposed to protect the citizens, not hinder them or take away what they feel are their rights. The sideline on this is of course is "as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else", thus..no victim, no crime, so unless it can be proved that there would be someone victimized by allowing polygamy, there should be no laws to restrict it. An interesting point brought up was the health insurance. I have to take a stance that allowing polygamy or same sex marriage for that matter since this also comes up in those arguments, would not increase heath costs or insurance liabilities in any way. If you consider that a vast majority of people have health insurance through one means or another, what does it matter if they are covered by a poly spouse or by a conventionally married nilla spouse, in either case they are beneficiaries to the insurance company. Actually, all the limiting factor of disallowing multiple parties to be included on a caring poly "head of household's" insurance, is that now the state has more risk as they may have to pick up the tab, rather than the insurance companies, because there isn't a viable solution short of taking out a private policy in the extended family parties name. As for the also common argument that allowing polygamy would cause more legal problems with regard to divorce and property settlements, that also sounds like a strange assumption by person or persons who don't have a good grasp on their math skills. Hypothetically, if 100 people were all engaged in multiple marriages and they all wanted to divorce..wouldn't this mean less court hearings than if they all came in 2 by 2...just a thought. Myself...I don't want to force my preferences on the rest of the world, but I also would like to be able to provide the same stability for all permanent members of my family, that I legally can for ONE legal spouse. If my female slave was not mine and was with a nilla husband who was very monogamous, she could be allowed that stability, but as it is now, if she gets sick, I cannot technically have any say so about her care in a hospital..what's up with that? I provide & care for her, but have no means to be able to legally be an honorable protector....something just isn't right with that picture. As usual...just another opinion, don't take it for anything but just that.

Nikolette -> RE: Polyamory and the State (3/6/2006 2:25:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross I WANT my relationship to be able to be recognized...but I understand the legal and medical nightmares it would create. Frankly more than legal I'd prefer just to be able to be out and not have it be a big deal. I know what you mean. More than anything I just wish it seemed more normal. I wish I didn't have to think about what the family and friends of my two loves thought about that. My own family accepts me and is understanding and I'm open with them, even if its weird to them. Same with my friends. I suppose its just important to be as open and honest as is appropriate with ones loved ones. That really helped me to feel normal, at least in private.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Collarchat.com is a member of the Free Speech Coalition

Terms of Service

3.515625E-02