NationStates Jolt Archive

Some people have been requesting a separate thread for this topic apart from the one on the California gay marriage ruling, so here it is. The intent of this thread is to focus on polygamy in light of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the US Constitution. This is not meant to be a discussion of the pros and cons of legalizing polygamy itself. Furthermore, this is more specifically tailored at those who would argue in favor of gay marriage being covered by the Equal Protection Clause, but that polygamy is not,


First of all, I recognize that there is a continuing debate over what the intention behind the institution of legal marriage is. Some say it is to promote procreation, some say it is to lend stability to people engaged in relationships, and others have entirely different opinions on the subject. The common thread between these views of the institution, however, is that they apply to people engaged in romantic and sexual relationships. Sure, no one can stop people from marrying for economic or other reasons, but marriage is commonly understood by lawmakers and the general public alike to be an institution intended for people in committed relationships to enjoy.

No State shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Equal Protection Clause states that each citizen of every state is entitled to the full, equal protection of the laws, hence the name. The Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html), which declared laws prohibiting interracial marriages unconstitutional, used the Equal Protection Clause as its basis (along with the Due Process Clause). So, by SCOTUS precedent, laws pertaining to marriage must conform to the Equal Protection Clause.

That being said, at the current time, the government is selectively extending legal benefits to people engaging in a certain type of relationship, but is refusing to extend them to people engaged in another. Those who engage in multiple-partner relationships do not have the same entitlement to legal recognition as those who engage in single-partner relationships. Thus, the aforementioned group of people are not on equal footing with the latter group of people, and the imperative for equal protection of both groups of people is being violated.

Those who would point out that people who engage in multiple-partner relationships still have the right to marry just one other person the same way that everyone else does would see the precedent set forth in Loving v. Virginia undone, and would furthermore advance arguments against gay marriage. After all, at the current time in all states except for a few, everyone has the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex. Similarly, while anti-miscegenation laws were still considered valid, everyone had the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex of the same race, at least among the caucasian population. Such an argument is in the same vain as these other two arguments.

It has been pointed out that upon SCOTUS declaring the right to legal recognition of multiple-partner relationships, the state and federal legislatures would have to pass new laws in regard to marriage, since polygamous marriages do not work within the framework of two-person marriages. As such, some have argued that this imperative automatically disqualifies SCOTUS from making such a ruling, because this would amount to the Court legislating from the bench. However, this argument is rather disingenuous. In the case of such a ruling, SCOTUS would simply be recognizing a constitutional imperative -- the legal recognition of multiple-partner relationships -- and allowing legislatures to act accordingly within this guideline. Such a situation is not without precedent.

Take a look at Roe v. Wade. Prior to the ruling, all fifty states had laws banning abortion, with exceptions varying state to state based on incest, rape, etc. The ruling, however, established a trimester framework for the sole purpose of setting guidelines for legislation passed in response to the ruling. The trimester framework cited a “state’s compelling interest” in the life of the developing embryo/fetus, stating what actions the state could take from trimester to trimester. For example, in third trimester, the Court gave states the authority to ban abortion out-and-out, with exceptions made for the life and health of the mother. Considering that every criminal abortion law existing at the time of the ruling was unconstitutional after the ruling, why else would the Court cite what actions states could and could not take based on the trimester of the pregnancy if they were not in fact setting guidelines for future legislation based on the ruling? The precedent of this case thus dispels any notion that SCOTUS cannot make a decision that would necessitate state governments to pass new legislation. Not only did this occur in Roe v. Wade, but in fact, the ruling was designed with this purpose in mind. Thus, SCOTUS would be violating no legal principle, but in fact following precedent in handing down a decision that would require legislatures to pass new legislation.

Thus, I stand firm that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment requires that each and every adult who enters into a committed relationship is entitled to enjoy the same legal benefits as anyone else also engaged in such a relationship. Equal protection under the law requires that the government not favor individuals who choose to engage in single-partner relationships over those who choose to engage in multiple-partner relationships. Doing so places these two groups of people on unequal footing, which is a blatant violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Thus, for the government to deny the legalization of polygamous marriage is an unconstitutional action.

Um, you missed a bit here. HUGE gaps. Superman couldn't make those leaps. I'll start with just one.

Marriage is an individual right. According to loving, the reason that the equal protection was violated was because a white man and a black man could not both marry the same woman, and vice versa. As such they are explicitly being denied rights.

What is the right that polygamists are being denied that others are being granted? And what is the explicit protected class that they this is crossing?

Anti-misogenation. Black man can marry black woman. White man cannot. Thus the class is race.

Same-sex. Man can marry woman. Woman cannot. Thus the class is sex.

You said you have the SAME exact argument for polygamy, so what class is it that polygamist belong to that is not being treated equally. What is the definition of the individual right?

no, polygamy is not protected. Equal protection means exactly that, that is to say all are protected equally under the law to recieve the same rights as others. It is not a right to marry more than one spouse, polygamist are free to marry another person just as everyone else.

Take a look at Roe v. Wade. Prior to the ruling, all fifty states had laws banning abortion, with exceptions varying state to state based on incest, rape, etc. The ruling, however, established a trimester framework for the sole purpose of setting guidelines for legislation passed in response to the ruling.

So, in this context, the "new legal framework" you were referring to in the other thread regarding abortion was specifically applied to the trimester based language of that particular subject ruling, not to the establishment of an entirely new or disintinct judicial environment, such as might follow a revolution or other primal and originating establishment of a judicial branch?

I think some (and I could be wrong), may have thought it was being said that the ruling somehow radically and fundamentally restructured the interpretation of law and the nature of the institution that does so.

I do find it interesting that instead of the simpler act of striking down a law, that SCOTUS (evidently, I haven't read the case) would so specifically emphasize that the trimester model would or should be used instead.

Its not that I object intrinsically to the SCOTUS providing contrasting description of what law would have been less objectionable on constitutional grounds, as this kind of feedback could both save time for future crafted bills and serve as an additional way to illustrate what made the struck-down statute unacceptable.

My concern is, there is a difference between A) the refusal of a law followed allowing the legislature to try again and B) the refusal of a law followed by detailed terms of a potential replacement law, which could infringe on the legislature's role.

Let's keep the legal framework argument in the other thread.

Marriage is an individual right. According to loving, the reason that the equal protection was violated was because a white man and a black man could not both marry the same woman, and vice versa. As such they are explicitly being denied rights.
I specifically addressed the subject's application to individuals:
Equal protection under the law requires that the government not favor individuals who choose to engage in single-partner relationships over those who choose to engage in multiple-partner relationships.

What is the right that polygamists are being denied that others are being granted? And what is the explicit protected class that they this is crossing?

Anti-misogenation. Black man can marry black woman. White man cannot. Thus the class is race.

Same-sex. Man can marry woman. Woman cannot. Thus the class is sex.

You said you have the SAME exact argument for polygamy, so what class is it that polygamist belong to that is not being treated equally. What is the definition of the individual right?
An individual who is involved in a multiple-partner relationship is being denied the right to legal recognition of his or her relationship, while an individual who is involved in a single-partner relationship is entitled to legal recognition. Thus, the former individual is not entitled to the same legal right to have his or her relationship recognized as the latter individual is. That is not equal protection under the law.

It is not a right to marry more than one spouse, polygamist are free to marry another person just as everyone else.

I addressed that argument in the original post. For shits and giggles, I'll post it again.

Those who would point out that people who engage in multiple-partner relationships still have the right to marry just one other person the same way that everyone else does would see the precedent set forth in Loving v. Virginia undone, and would furthermore advance arguments against gay marriage. After all, at the current time in all states except for a few, everyone has the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex. Similarly, while anti-miscegenation laws were still considered valid, everyone had the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex of the same race, at least among the caucasian population. Such an argument is in the same vain as these other two arguments.

i agree with the upshot of your argument, whether or not i agree with all of its details.

certainly polygamy should be legal---but so should anything else, between consenting adults, that does not directly encumber the choices of other consenting adults.

marriage---ALL marriage---should be A-legal. no form of marriage should be a legal matter, whatsoever, except insofar as the the participating consenting adults mutually elect to codify their relationship in whatever legally enforceable contract that they mutually elect.

of course, not all such contracts would be compatible with all religious affiliations, or any other number of possible voluntary---but (to whatever degree) exclusive---associations. but that is another matter.

marriage should be alegal.

whether straight, gay, monogamous, polygamous, religious, or secular.

consensus on this one simple point would clear up the entire mess.


thanks for reading.

this is my first post; i just joined nationstates yesterday, and haven't been lurking long at all. in fact, i just figured out how to log onto the boards.

but i couldn't resist commenting on this one, so i decided to let'er rip.

best.

I specifically addressed the subject's application to individuals:

So multi-partner relationships are a protected class. Where is this precedent?

An individual who is involved in a multiple-partner relationship is being denied the right to legal recognition of his or her relationship, while an individual who is involved in a single-partner relationship is entitled to legal recognition. Thus, the former individual is not entitled to the same legal right to have his or her relationship recognized as the latter individual is. That is not equal protection under the law.

Multi-partner relationships are not a protected class. As such, you're application would require you debate that first.

They aren't being denied marital rights. See the problem with gay marriage is that I can't marry whomever I like (it is restricted on sex). The problem with anit-misegenation laws is that I can't marry whomever I like (it was restricted on race). That's not the issue with polygamy. It's that I can't marry as many as I like. So I'm restricted by number.

And you've not shown a precedent for the application where the rights are applied unequally.

I specifically addressed the subject's application to individuals:



An individual who is involved in a multiple-partner relationship is being denied the right to legal recognition of his or her relationship, while an individual who is involved in a single-partner relationship is entitled to legal recognition. Thus, the former individual is not entitled to the same legal right to have his or her relationship recognized as the latter individual is. That is not equal protection under the law.

a multi partner relationship can be recognized religiously however It is not recognized legally, in regards to getting tax benefits, insurance benefits etc.. the goverment is well with in its right to legislate benefits that correspond to goverment recognition.

Um, you missed a bit here. HUGE gaps. Superman couldn't make those leaps. I'll start with just one.

Marriage is an individual right. According to loving, the reason that the equal protection was violated was because a white man and a black man could not both marry the same woman, and vice versa. As such they are explicitly being denied rights.

What is the right that polygamists are being denied that others are being granted? And what is the explicit protected class that they this is crossing?

Anti-misogenation. Black man can marry black woman. White man cannot. Thus the class is race.

Same-sex. Man can marry woman. Woman cannot. Thus the class is sex.

You said you have the SAME exact argument for polygamy, so what class is it that polygamist belong to that is not being treated equally. What is the definition of the individual right?

As much as it pains me to do so, I have to admit I find Jocabia's argument here to be compelling.

The fact is, a marriage between a black and white, or two men, is still inherently similar in terms of its associated benefits (survivorship, taxation, percumbent property rights, medical visitation, etc) as to a marriage between George and Laura Bush, so by prohibiting the institution to the mixed race or same gendered couples, those couples are denied something that others have free access to.

At this time, nobody has free access to multiple marriage, so it is unilaterally withheld. Further, I think the addition of a third (or more) party has such a profoundly transformative effect on the practical facts of marriage at the legal level (again, taxation, property rights, etc), so much so that it mathematically changes the institution far more than the addition of an extra penis, black or otherwise.

I hate agreeing with Jocabia. It makes me feel like a whoremonger.

Let's keep the legal framework argument in the other thread.

Sorry, last time I was in that other thread, I thought Vamosa suggested he was addressing it here, but I haven't checked back over there to see where its going. My bad, dude.

No, it should be legal but you'd need new framework, the contract would have to be significantly reworked and in general: no, not equal. We need to address it but not in the same way we have (or for you Americans are) addressing it for gay marriage.

An individual who is involved in a multiple-partner relationship is being denied the right to legal recognition of his or her relationship, while an individual who is involved in a single-partner relationship is entitled to legal recognition. Thus, the former individual is not entitled to the same legal right to have his or her relationship recognized as the latter individual is. That is not equal protection under the law.

I don't think we're talking about the same kind of relationship.

A black and jew, or two men, can relate within the premise of a marriage without really violating the conceptual geometry of what a marriage is. You aren't really changing marriage by allow it for blacks or gays, you're just letting more people in.

But by increasing the number of people that can participate in a marriage, the resulting abstract object becomes very different, and as Jocabia points out, it isn't an object that is granted to some but not others.

I should disclose at this time that I don't even start my Juris Doctorate studies until September, so I am all the way unqualified here.

marriage should be alegal.

whether straight, gay, monogamous, polygamous, religious, or secular.

consensus on this one simple point would clear up the entire mess.


But it makes sense for two people living together to have a contract to settle everything. That's the whole point of marriage, that stuff is all arranged. If they have a problem with the legal aspects they can still call in a marriage, have a ceremony etc. and just not sign a contract. What would be the point of getting rid of the legal aspect? It would just create more problems when things actually needed to be solved concerning a failed marriage.

I'm too tired to really articulate what I'm trying to say, here's hoping someone else comes along and explains in coherently.

So multi-partner relationships are a protected class.
I never said that. Just because a protected class is not involved does not mean that people are not on the same legal footing with no logical justification for this being so.

They aren't being denied marital rights. See the problem with gay marriage is that I can't marry whomever I like (it is restricted on sex). The problem with anit-misegenation laws is that I can't marry whomever I like (it was restricted on race). That's not the issue with polygamy. It's that I can't marry as many as I like. So I'm restricted by number.

You're viewing this in the light of precedent on two-person marriages. But this discussion naturally goes beyond that because there is no legal precedent for polygamous marriage. That's the whole point -- I'm arguing for the creation of such precedent. My argument is that it is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment to legally recognize one type of relationship and not another. There is no rational basis for this discrepancy.

i agree with the upshot of your argument, whether or not i agree with all of its details.

certainly polygamy should be legal---but so should anything else, between consenting adults, that does not directly encumber the choices of other consenting adults.

marriage---ALL marriage---should be A-legal. no form of marriage should be a legal matter, whatsoever, except insofar as the the participating consenting adults mutually elect to codify their relationship in whatever legally enforceable contract that they mutually elect.

I'm not sure I get that. What remains of marriage, if it has no legal consequences ?

It seems that you would essentially abolish marriage, except as a private ritual or religious ceremony.

I don't think we're talking about the same kind of relationship.

A black and jew, or two men, can relate within the premise of a marriage without really violating the conceptual geometry of what a marriage is. You aren't really changing marriage by allow it for blacks or gays, you're just letting more people in.

But by increasing the number of people that can participate in a marriage, the resulting abstract object becomes very different, and as Jocabia points out, it isn't an object that is granted to some but not others.
You are viewing this subject through the lens of tradition without providing a logical basis for your argument. Why shouldn't the "geometry" be changed? Why should two-person couples be afforded legal recognition, but multiple-person couples not? There is no logical reason to recognize one type of relationship but not another.

But it makes sense for two people living together to have a contract to settle everything. That's the whole point of marriage, that stuff is all arranged. If they have a problem with the legal aspects they can still call in a marriage, have a ceremony etc. and just not sign a contract. What would be the point of getting rid of the legal aspect? It would just create more problems when things actually needed to be solved concerning a failed marriage.

I'm too tired to really articulate what I'm trying to say, here's hoping someone else comes along and explains in coherently.

I think marriage, while it includes voluminous legality speaking to property disbursement and other financial cosideration, also provides a number of other rights, relating to medical decisions and other impacts.

The vertebrae of the marriage laws is supported by the idea of a binary structure. Having one element or the other be black and/or queer doesn't injure that structure, but adding extra people deforms it substantially.

I never said that. Just because a protected class is not involved does not mean that people are not on the same legal footing with no logical justification for this being so.

I know you didn't, but in order for you to make the claim you are, they'd have to be. Race is a protected class, and it was what Loving addressed.

You're viewing this in the light of precedent on two-person marriages. But this discussion naturally goes beyond that because there is no legal precedent for polygamous marriage. That's the whole point -- I'm arguing for the creation of such precedent. My argument is that it is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment to legally recognize one type of relationship and not another. There is no rational basis for this discrepancy.

It does? Good, you're learning. Because according to you, the exact same argument that works for same-sex marriage could be applied to polygamy. Which I disputed. Same-sex marriage does have legal precedent. It's called Loving.

If you're saying that it should be legalized, I don't disagree. However, you just admitted there is no legal precedent. Which is exactly what I claimed.

You are viewing this subject through the lens of tradition without providing a logical basis for your argument. Why shouldn't the "geometry" be changed? Why should two-person couples be afforded legal recognition, but multiple-person couples not? There is no logical reason to recognize one type of relationship but not another.

Well, were I so trammeled by tradition, I might be less inclined to favor gay marriage, but I'll try to respond more progressively.

When you change the geometry of something, it is no longer the same thing. For example, if the government prohibits me carrying a six inch stiletto onto a plane, its because its shape, the very nature of the thing, is different from a belt buckle. They prohibit one (to all) and allow the other (to all).

The difference between two person couples (black, white, or pink) is still small enough that recognizing a right to two person couples doesn't very much by the person.

But a three or more person group becomes fundamentally different in its function, in the very idea of what a relationship.

You ask why one should be granted and not the other; the logical reason is that the logistic and conceptual chasm dividing a two person marriage and a polygamous marriage is greater than that between a mixed race couple and a same race couple.

They simply aren't the same kind of relationship, much in the same way a cube is so vastly different from a square. The dimensions in which a thing can be rendered is a characteristic that allows for starkly clearn boundaries of definition.

The adding of people to a marriage changes the nature of the relationship farm more than one partner being black or both being gay. Thus, the 14th Amendment's impetus to provide the same access to the SAME right would protect interracial and gay marriage, but not necessitate the recognition of a kind of "marriage" that is so dimensionally different as to not be the same right.

I'm not sure I get that. What remains of marriage, if it has no legal consequences ?

It seems that you would essentially abolish marriage, except as a private ritual or religious ceremony.

yes, that's right---for the most part; it would be a "cultural" matter, rather than a "legal" matter.

whether or not that was ritualized or otherwise coincident with religious understanding would be up to those being married.

additionally---this could coincide with legally binding contracts of all kinds---and often would, presumably---to the mutual satisfaction of the parties. but it need not---legally.

however, the state would play no part in marriage---it would only enforce any coincident contracts that the participants mutually elect. nor would it require any contracts whatsoever.

"marriage"---as such---would not have legal status. only any mutually elected contracts, and no more or less so than any other mutually elected contracts, before the law.

You are viewing this subject through the lens of tradition without providing a logical basis for your argument. Why shouldn't the "geometry" be changed? Why should two-person couples be afforded legal recognition, but multiple-person couples not? There is no logical reason to recognize one type of relationship but not another.

No one claimed there is a logical reason. There is, however, a legal reason. Sure if you look at it outside of the legal framework, there isn't any valid reason to deny it. Unfortunately, we're talking about the law.

You're viewing this in the light of precedent on two-person marriages. But this discussion naturally goes beyond that because there is no legal precedent for polygamous marriage. That's the whole point -- I'm arguing for the creation of such precedent. My argument is that it is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment to legally recognize one type of relationship and not another. There is no rational basis for this discrepancy.

But look at the differences between "types" of relationship.

Discriminating as to the "type" of participant in a relationship is a different matter than discriminating against the nature of the relationship itself.

Suppose we had some expression X + Y. Giving parameters that X can only be an integer, or Y may not be negative is a different restriction than completely rewriting the expression as X + Y + X +.....N.

The rational basis for the discrepancy is that one restriction is very different than the other, in scope and consequence.

I'm not sure why I"m arguing this, I"ve been trying to get my girl to consider polyamory for a long time...

No one claimed there is a logical reason. There is, however, a legal reason. Sure if you look at it outside of the legal framework, there isn't any valid reason to deny it. Unfortunately, we're talking about the law.

Was is it Holmes who said "The Life of the Law has not been Logic, it has been Experience?"


It was either Holmes or this DM I used to play D&D with.


Honestly, though, the Law should, ostensibly, have or at least seek an internal consistency that could be paralelled with predicate logic.

You whoremonger.

Discriminating as to the "type" of participant in a relationship is a different matter than discriminating against the nature of the relationship itself.

Ding, ding, ding. That's why the arguments around same-sex marriage and interracial marriage are the same, but polygamy requires a different argument. The former is about the "type" of person in the relationship and the second is about the type of relationship.

Was is it Holmes who said "The Life of the Law has not been Logic, it has been Experience?"


It was either Holmes or this DM I used to play D&D with.


Honestly, though, the Law should, ostensibly, have or at least seek an internal consistency that could be paralelled with predicate logic.

You whoremonger.

The law follows logic, of course, but logic needn't follow the law. That's the point.

I know you didn't, but in order for you to make the claim you are, they'd have to be. Race is a protected class, and it was what Loving addressed.
I'm not addressing race or two-partner marriage, however.

It does? Good, you're learning. Because according to you, the exact same argument that works for same-sex marriage could be applied to polygamy. Which I disputed.
Wrong -- this entire thread is about the fact that the Equal Protection Clause extends to polygamy as well as gay marriage. I never said that polygamy can be applied to the same precedent as gay marriage.

snip

All you've succeeded in doing is proving that recognizing polygamous marriages would change the nature of marriage more so than legalizing gay marriage would. So what? Why does that mean that multiple-partner relationships are not entitled to the same legal protections? Your entire post is just one big appeal to tradition: "it's always been two people. Changing the number will change the institution a lot." So. What?

No one claimed there is a logical reason. There is, however, a legal reason. Sure if you look at it outside of the legal framework, there isn't any valid reason to deny it. Unfortunately, we're talking about the law.
There is no legal reason. It would require new legislation. So what? That has no bearing on the consitutionality of the principle. It would change the institution. So what? Appeal to tradition. You've failed in every respect to give one valid legal reason why multiple-partner relationships should not inherently be legally recognized.

Ding, ding, ding. That's why the arguments around same-sex marriage and interracial marriage are the same, but polygamy requires a different argument. The former is about the "type" of person in the relationship and the second is about the type of relationship.

I hate agreeing with you. Its like that time we were in St. Petersburg at that basement jazz club and you said that dark eyed Georgian girl was probably into rich guys and nothing less.

Anyway, I'm (as yet) lacking in formal legal education, and I've been warned that Law School will only douse me with the slightest mist of exposure to the law, and only years of practice will let me be immersed in the law.

Whether this is a baptism or a drowning, I won't know for years. So my concurrence has little worth to you, whoremonger.

The law follows logic, of course, but logic needn't follow the law. That's the point.

Wait, you've lost me a bit...

If the law follows logic, then shouldn't a given law or its interpretation then have the logical reason that Vamosa wants?

(I believe there is a logical reason for the difference between access to marriage vs changing what marriage is.)

So, as the law follows logic (ideally), can logic be demanded of the law?

Help me understand more this departure from logic described in "logic needn't follow the law". Is it that logic is simply a superset of reason, and that Law (even at its best) will only be a subset of that excercise?

Oh, yeah, you're a whoremonger.

I'm not addressing race or two-partner marriage, however.

So you've dropped that argument? Because you claimed originally, when I told you to start a thread about it, that the legal reasons were the same.

Wrong -- this entire thread is about the fact that the Equal Protection Clause extends to polygamy as well as gay marriage. I never said that polygamy can be applied to the same precedent as gay marriage.

Again, how so? I keep asking you what protected class polygamists belong to?


All you've succeeded in doing is proving that recognizing polygamous marriages would change the nature of marriage more so than legalizing gay marriage would. So what? Why does that mean that multiple-partner relationships are not entitled to the same legal protections? Your entire post is just one big appeal to tradition: "it's always been two people. Changing the number will change the institution a lot." So. What?

I didn't say they shouldn't be. You keep saying that. As we've all tried to explain to you, this is, was, and always will be about that the legal argument for polygamy is different than the legal argument for same-sex marriage. You've since agreed, so this is another area where I've shown you to be wrong.


There is no legal reason. It would require new legislation. So what? That has no bearing on the consitutionality of the principle. It would change the institution. So what? Appeal to tradition. You've failed in every respect to give one valid legal reason why multiple-partner relationships should not inherently be legally recognized.

Um, what? I'm not sure you understand what "legal reason" means. That it requires new legislation IS a legal reason.

I've never claimd it shouldn't be legally recognized. NEVER. Not once. And when you've claimed that I've told you just the opposite. I've only said that the precedent for same-sex marriage doesn't apply to polygamy. I told you why. And you've denied it.

If you're now agreeing then that makes three threads I've defeated you in. That was fun.

Wait, you've lost me a bit...

If the law follows logic, then shouldn't a given law or its interpretation then have the logical reason that Vamosa wants?

(I believe there is a logical reason for the difference between access to marriage vs changing what marriage is.)

So, as the law follows logic (ideally), can logic be demanded of the law?

Help me understand more this departure from logic described in "logic needn't follow the law". Is it that logic is simply a superset of reason, and that Law (even at its best) will only be a subset of that excercise?

Oh, yeah, you're a whoremonger.

Let me put it differently. Let's say you were making a legal argument. You'd have to adhere to legal precedent and the current law. Hopefully it would also be logical.

However if you were simply making a logical argument (for in example whether or not in a free society one should be allowed to smoke pot), there would be no obligation for it to be supported by legal precedent or current law.

You ask why one should be granted and not the other; the logical reason is that the logistic and conceptual chasm dividing a two person marriage and a polygamous marriage is greater than that between a mixed race couple and a same race couple.



says you.

your judgement of the "conceptual chasm"(s) between those two distinctions is predicated entirely on a bias in your personal definition of marriage. YOU believe that a "binary" NUMBER property---which is just as present in a homosexual monogamy as in a heterosexual monogamy---is more fundamentally intrinsic to marriage than a "binary" CLASS property (ie SEX)---which is just as present in heterosexual polygamy as it is heterosexual monogamy.

obviously, not everyone agrees.

"original" mormons believed the second was so much more important than the first that it should be expanded at the complete expense of the first. indeed, since they originally barred non-whites from membership in the church, this was specifically about two SEXES---not any other two classes---and certainly not about two in NUMBER.

Allow that marriages have already been entered into. Some people are already married.

The terms of existing marriages specifically exclude further marriages. That isn't just laws against bigamy which we could abolish, it's the terms of the existing contracts of marriage.

So I can't see how the "right to marry" can be extended to multiple marriages without invalidating existing marriages.

This is not the same argument as anti-gay-marriage folk put, that extending the rights of marriage "undermines the institution of marriage." I am talking about a change to the law which invalidates existing contracts. For government to rewrite a contract between two citizens, without their individual consent, seems pretty damn wrong to me. Perhaps someone can give an example of government doing that across the board, not in an individual case before a court.

The only way I can see around it, is to exclude people who are already married from the new right to marry again. And that seems to mean that there would be two types of marriage -- the old one which has been 'grandfathered' and the new one, which allows for further marriages. Hardly a good solution.

All you've succeeded in doing is proving that recognizing polygamous marriages would change the nature of marriage more so than legalizing gay marriage would. So what? Why does that mean that multiple-partner relationships are not entitled to the same legal protections? Your entire post is just one big appeal to tradition: "it's always been two people. Changing the number will change the institution a lot." So. What?


So, it naturally follows that when you change something, it is now different, a priori, so much that it is no longer the same thing, so it is not entitled to the same things.

Your line of reasoning was that the 14th provides equal protection, so those who want polygamy should be given the same right to marry. But a polygamous marriage is so different, its not the same thing or the same right.

Suppose the law protected my right to carry medications. Instead, I carry a bucket full of heroine. One thing is so different from the other, that it is reasonable to grant one (to all) and deny the other (to all).

I made no appeal to tradition. The difference between the two concepts is not time dependent. But it is so different that they can be treated differently because they are different things.

You referenced interracial and gay marriage; may we at least agree that those things do not change the institution itself to the extent that polygamous marriage does?

Because if we can agree to that, it is at least possible that the magnitude of the effect on the institution of polygamy can be seen to be dissimilar enough to provide the logical explanation as to why they are treated differently.

So you've dropped that argument? Because you claimed originally, when I told you to start a thread about it, that the legal reasons were the same.
Yes -- they both can be justified under the Equal Protection Clause. Not once did I say that they both flow from the same precedent. Not once. The fact that you interpreted it that way is quite inconsequential to the debate itself.


Again, how so? I keep asking you what protected class polygamists belong to?
They don't. I'm not arguing for the extension of marital rights based upon established precedent or arguments for same-sex marriage based upon precedent, both which deal with marriage based on protected classes. I'm going soley based on the Equal Protection Clause, and what I believe to be its correct application.

I didn't say they shouldn't be. You keep saying that. As we've all tried to explain to you, this is, was, and always will be about that the legal argument for polygamy is different than the legal argument for same-sex marriage. You've since agreed, so this is another area where I've shown you to be wrong.
The legal argument is different. Mmm-hmm. So the fact that the legal argument is different automatically means that its an invalid argument? That makes absolutely no sense. You can argue into you're blue in the face that the circumstances are different between the two cases, but you've as of yet failed to prove why that fact hampers the Equal Protection argument.

Um, what? I'm not sure you understand what "legal reason" means. That it requires new legislation IS a legal reason.
And why, other than it would requiring changing tradition?

I've never claimd it shouldn't be legally recognized. NEVER. Not once. And when you've claimed that I've told you just the opposite. I've only said that the precedent for same-sex marriage doesn't apply to polygamy. I told you why. And you've denied it.
Actually I validated it. Now you're just lying.
But this discussion naturally goes beyond that because there is no legal precedent for polygamous marriage. That's the whole point -- I'm arguing for the creation of such precedent.

Allow that marriages have already been entered into. Some people are already married.

The terms of existing marriages specifically exclude further marriages. That isn't just laws against bigamy which we could abolish, it's the terms of the existing contracts of marriage.

So I can't see how the "right to marry" can be extended to multiple marriages without invalidating existing marriages.

This is not the same argument as anti-gay-marriage folk put, that extending the rights of marriage "undermines the institution of marriage." I am talking about a change to the law which invalidates existing contracts. For government to rewrite a contract between two citizens, without their individual consent, seems pretty damn wrong to me. Perhaps someone can give an example of government doing that across the board, not in an individual case before a court.

The only way I can see around it, is to exclude people who are already married from the new right to marry again. And that seems to mean that there would be two types of marriage -- the old one which has been 'grandfathered' and the new one, which allows for further marriages. Hardly a good solution.

actually, this one is much easier than you're making it.

it does not invalidate the existing contract, it just gives those already entered into it the right to include others in it.

the key would be to ensure that it could only be extended by mutual consent.

therefore---if one partner in the pre-existing contract does not consent, they are not in danger of their prior contract being substantially altered---except by divorce, which was already presumably a possibility.

Let me put it differently. Let's say you were making a legal argument. You'd have to adhere to legal precedent and the current law. Hopefully it would also be logical.

However if you were simply making a logical argument (for in example whether or not in a free society one should be allowed to smoke pot), there would be no obligation for it to be supported by legal precedent or current law.

Sounds fair. So when Vamosa asked for a logical reason for a legal decision, could we take the question as asking for the "legal logic", or rather, that excercise of logic that accepts legal definitions, axioms, and contextual environment of the law?

I think I see the difference you're drawing, though.

Whore. Monger.

Suppose the law protected my right to carry medications. Instead, I carry a bucket full of heroine. One thing is so different from the other, that it is reasonable to grant one (to all) and deny the other (to all).
What a ridiculous analogy. All polygamous marriage would require is the change in the number of people allowed in a marriage. The legal benefits would be the same, just distributed differently. The asanine scenario you gave mentions two things that are completely unrelated.
You referenced interracial and gay marriage; may we at least agree that those things do not change the institution itself to the extent that polygamous marriage does?
Yes. Unfortunately, that has no bearing on my argument. Let me explain to you why....
I made no appeal to tradition. The difference between the two concepts is not time dependent. But it is so different that they can be treated differently because they are different things.
No, they're not. If polygamy is introduced, marriage would be would it is today -- the government legally recognizing a relationship, and extending legal benefits to the partners in that relationship. A change in number would be a new development, but not enough to fundamentally alter that basic definition.

*snip*

When you keep talking about the EPC and ignoring the protected classes or suspect classes, then I'm going to submit you don't actually have the first clue how the EPC applies.

The legal argument is different. Mmm-hmm. So the fact that the legal argument is different automatically means that its an invalid argument? That makes absolutely no sense. You can argue into you're blue in the face that the circumstances are different between the two cases, but you've as of yet failed to prove why that fact hampers the Equal Protection argument.


Because Equal Protection means that citizens are provided access to the SAME afforded protections.

The difference here is huge. Thus, the law gives access to one kind of thing (to all) and denies (to all) access to a very different thing. Thus, they satisfy Equal Protection.

Because Equal Protection means that citizens are provided access to the SAME afforded protections.
Nothing about legalizing polygamy denies that concept. The members of a polygamous marriage would be afforded the same protections in their union.

The difference here is huge. Thus, the law gives access to one kind of thing (to all) and denies (to all) access to a very different thing. Thus, they satisfy Equal Protection.
They're not very different. Once again, you're just changing number, not the benefits or the legal status given to the parties to the marriage.

No, they're not. If polygamy is introduced, marriage would be would it is today -- the government legally recognizing a relationship, and extending legal benefits to the partners in that relationship. A change in number would be a new development, but not enough to fundamentally alter that basic definition.

I think this is where we disagree, then.

I've been married, divorced, married again, lived singly, etc. Even a simple examination of how those situations would change by adding a third (or more) person reveals many fundamental differences.

Even ignoring the vast ocean of financial and tax implications of adding a third person, the health, medical, and emergency aspects of the law that would be impacted are enormous.

This "new development" is simply much larger than you are allowing for.

You've acknowledged it changes the institution "a lot". That's all it takes for it to be equally denied to all, even as something else that is also "a lot" different is equally allowed, without violating Equal Protection.

That said, if someone proposed a new amendment allowing polygamy, as long as it included the necessary logistic accomodation (which would likely make it the longest amendment in history, but that's conjecture), I'd have no problem with it.

But denying it at this time doesn't violate Equal Protection, because polygamy is so different from binary marriage that allowing the latter is not the same as allowing the former.

Actually I validated it. Now you're just lying.

FINALLY. I was talking about the origin of this argument. The reason this argument came up, before you final capitulated, was because you claimed that the arguments were the same.

Which was my point. I recongnize you missed it, but I was addressing the slippery slope argument. It has to be considered seperately and there is no current law or currently recognized right that would make it automatically legal. Equal protection doesn't prevent them from treating different relationships differently. You've already admitted the relationship is different. That was my point.

It's not about it being harmful. It's not about it being a bad idea. I didn't say I was against it. I didn't say anyone should be against it. I only addressed the slope argument. And according to the bold, I addressed it perfectly.

You fail to understand my argument. I am stating that your argument against the "slippery slope" point of view is invalid.

This was where you claimed I did a crappy job. In that thread, I explained that because of loving and the definition of the individual right of marriage, that a slippery slope doesn't exist. You claimed I "did a crappy job" of making that argument. The fact is that you've admitted now that such a slope does not exist and that it requires new precedent. My claim was based on equality of the sexes, a suspect class. You admit your claim is not based on the suspect classes. As such, you've FINALLY agreed with my argument. The slope is not at all slippery. It requires a completely seperate argument.

They're not very different. Once again, you're just changing number, not the benefits or the legal status given to the parties to the marriage.

You keep saying this but you've admitted it's a different type of relationship. You are misapplying the EPC. You're talking about a type of relationship that NO ONE has access to. And how do I know there is a difference? Because the law would actually have to address the application of the various protections of marriage and how it would apply to a relationship of that nature. It actually requires that the application of law change. You've admitted to this. It's just flooring that you would pretend that this LEGAL difference is not LEGALly relevant.

Nothing about legalizing polygamy denies that concept. The members of a polygamous marriage would be afforded the same protections in their union.


They're not very different. Once again, you're just changing number, not the benefits or the legal status given to the parties to the marriage.

Changing the number of sentient entities in a situation changes the situation enormously.

When I said, in effect, "it changes the institution a lot", you said "So. What?"

So, it means you can't then turn around and say "They're not very different." The practical differences alone are enormous.

Would I be willing to enact those changes in a separate amendment? Sure. But right now, Equal Protection is not violated by allowing binary marriage and not allowing polygamy.

The degree of complication when adding a third or more person is easily expressable by examining the ramifications of adding additional terms in any model of a dynamic, whether social, cultural, mathematical, etc.

It's really very simple.

The fact remains that inequality still exists if some sexual and romantic relationships are recognized under the law, while others aren't. That polygamous relationships would involve divying up of rights and responsbilities does nothing to change the fact that they are a type of relationship that are NOT recognized under the law, while two-partner relationships are. That is inequality, plain and simple.

You've repeatedly pointed out that they are a different "type of relationship". This isn't about the unequal application of rights. Because there is no inequality between "types" of relationships, only "types" of persons. You're talking about applying EPC in a way NO ONE has applied it before. It's not supported by the precedents you cited. As you've pointed out, it has no precedent.

Your argument certainly has a social basis. And it certainly speaks to the social definition of equality. But you utterly fail to address how it relates to the legal definition of equality. At all. In any way.

actually, this one is much easier than you're making it.

Oh, really? We'll see.

it does not invalidate the existing contract, it just gives those already entered into it the right to include others in it.

the key would be to ensure that it could only be extended by mutual consent.

I would approve that. HOWEVER, would everyone?

Before extending this right to "include others in the marriage" perhaps we should consider whether that is actually what polygamists want. It is quite possible that what they actually want is an unfettered right to marry again, regardless of what their partner wants.

You and I would forbid that. Right? Let's just see how others react to it.

therefore---if one partner in the pre-existing contract does not consent, they are not in danger of their prior contract being substantially altered---except by divorce, which was already presumably a possibility.

Yes, it's a good solution -- their contract is altered, but the new clause cannot be invoked without the individual's consent.

Your argument certainly has a social basis. And it certainly speaks to the social definition of equality. But you utterly fail to address how it relates to the legal definition of equality. At all. In any way.

Which is why I think that if you really want polygamy, it needs its own amendment, not try to bankshot itself off binary marriage. It will stand better with that kind of more explicit establishment.

Then I would have to convince my girl, which would likely involve a shooting war on the ground....

EDIT: Shyte is slow tonight, going to go shoot some pool.

Vamosa, Jocabia, thanks for the conversation, have an awesome night (or day, wherever you are).

Which is why I think that if you really want polygamy, it needs its own amendment, not try to bankshot itself off binary marriage. It will stand better with that kind of more explicit establishment.

Then I would have to convince my girl, which would likely involve a shooting war on the ground....

EDIT: Shyte is slow tonight, going to go shoot some pool.

Vamosa, Jocabia, thanks for the conversation, have an awesome night (or day, wherever you are).

Yeah, I'm going to sleep as well. I'm not sure it will require an amendment. But I do think it should be legal.

Oh, really? We'll see.



I would approve that. HOWEVER, would everyone?

Before extending this right to "include others in the marriage" perhaps we should consider whether that is actually what polygamists want. It is quite possible that what they actually want is an unfettered right to marry again, regardless of what their partner wants.

You and I would forbid that. Right? Let's just see how others react to it.



Yes, it's a good solution -- their contract is altered, but the new clause cannot be invoked without the individual's consent.


thanks. even so, i was simply working to expose that particular argument of yours as not so great. i thought the grounds against which you were arguing against the legalization of polygamy were poor.

but i'm not really in favor of "legalization" of polygamy, any more than i am in favor of the "illegalization" of monogamy. i'm for the "a-legalization" of ALL forms of marriage.

remember: i think marriage should be alegal in the first place, so questions about what any of us would allow or forbid are moot to me.

i think that it should be the business only of those who enter into any contract, as to what should be its terms---including its terms of expansion, etc.

thanks. even so, i was simply working to expose that particular argument of yours as not so great. i thought the grounds against which you were arguing against the legalization of polygamy were poor.

No no no. I would legalize polygamy, I am merely arguing that in the process, we must define a new legal bond (let us call it poly-marriage) so that when people enter into either form of marriage, they have a clear choice between a BINDING monogamous marriage, or an UNBINDING one, poly-marriage.

Surely you can see that people wanting monogamous marriage are going to be unhappy with an "extension clause" even if they are personally determined never to agree to its use. Leaving that decision for the future (in the event of their partner wanting a third member of the marriage) actually detracts from the value of the vow.

but i'm not really in favor of "legalization" of polygamy, any more than i am in favor of the "illegalization" of monogamy. i'm for the "a-legalization" of ALL forms of marriage.

remember: i think marriage should be alegal in the first place, so questions about what any of us would allow or forbid are moot to me.

i think that it should be the business only of those who enter into any contract, as to what should be its terms---including its terms of expansion, etc.

Legally speaking, you want to abolish marriage. *shrug*

Look, I think you missed something in my last post. Not everyone has the same definition of polygamy -- the most common form by far is quite unlike what you and I agree would be fair. It is polygyny, where the women are monogamously married to the man, the man polygamously married to two or more women. The women are considered "married" to each other, but their legal rights under that marriage are far less than the legal rights in the male/female marriages. The man can divorce either or both of them, either of the women can leave (unless we're talking Saudi Arabia where in practice that would put them in great danger) but the women cannot divorce the man and remain married to each other.

So let's be clear about this. I only endorse polygamy where all participants are equal. It must be symmetrical, with the rights and obligations equally distributed. (All partners are "in" the same marriage, to use your term). It is simply unacceptable to me for one partner to to have more power or options by the terms of the contract -- for instance to be married to two people, neither of whom is obliged to be married to the other.

People are still free to write their own contract of course. But any generic contract offered by the government must be fair as I describe it in the paragraph above.

I think marriage, while it includes voluminous legality speaking to property disbursement and other financial cosideration, also provides a number of other rights, relating to medical decisions and other impacts.

The vertebrae of the marriage laws is supported by the idea of a binary structure. Having one element or the other be black and/or queer doesn't injure that structure, but adding extra people deforms it substantially.

...I never disagreed with that, in fact my earlier post said (or was supposed to say) that in shorter words. The post you quoted was in reference to another posters support for the abolishment of the legal aspect of marriage, and I was just trying to say how silly that was. I wasn't talking about polygamy there.

That being said, at the current time, the government is selectively extending legal benefits to people engaging in a certain type of relationship, but is refusing to extend them to people engaged in another. Those who engage in multiple-partner relationships do not have the same entitlement to legal recognition as those who engage in single-partner relationships. Thus, the aforementioned group of people are not on equal footing with the latter group of people, and the imperative for equal protection of both groups of people is being violated.

That simply doesn't follow. A person is in an abusive, non-consensual relationship with another. The law, as it currently stands, does not allow them marriage rights--indeed, it outright forbids the relationship. Is this a violation of equal protection? Of course it isn't.

The issue is not whether all relationships are on equal footing. Equality under law doesn't mean that murderers and non-murderers are treated the same. It just means that there is one law for all: that we do not make arbitrary distinctions between people in making laws.

Is the restriction on polygamy arbitrary? Not obviously so. There are at least two reasons that come to mind. First, we might have concerns of equality: polygynous relationships (and I know not all polygamy need be polygynous) have a history of being characterized by sexism and the subordination of women. Their very structure might be said to support this, by having one person being married to several others.

Second, we might have concerns of stability: human beings being human, polygamy may simply be too vulnerable to stress and dissolution through jealousy. (Or maybe not. This is an empirical question. I haven't seen the evidence--if you have convincing counterevidence I'd like to see it.)

Are either of these reasons "good enough"? I'm not sure. I tend to think not. But they are reasons nonetheless, and rather more substantive than the nonsense homophobes throw at us when discussing same-sex marriage.

Those who would point out that people who engage in multiple-partner relationships still have the right to marry just one other person the same way that everyone else does would see the precedent set forth in Loving v. Virginia undone, and would furthermore advance arguments against gay marriage.

As it happens, I think the case for same-sex marriage in this respect is much stronger than for polygamy or interracial marriage... simply because the alternatives are a whole lot worse for those exclusively attracted to the same sex.

But that's a digression, because I think Loving v. Virginia made sense.

However, this argument is rather disingenuous.

Actually, it's just a straw man.

Again, the issue is not that the Supreme Court can't create new legal frameworks. The issue is that a relationship that requires a new legal framework cannot justify (or at least has a much harder case justifying) a claim that it is being arbitrarily discriminated against.

Take the case of polygamy. How do we do it? Do we let any partner choose individually to marry a new one? I can think of several good reasons that's a bad idea--so much for "arbitrary." Do we require the consent of both/all partners before introducing new ones into the relationship? How, then, do we handle divorce?

Any particular legal framework has its own series of issues and considerations, and because they might involve any number of non-arbitrary judgments, the public, working through the legislative branch, has the authority to decide. Not the courts.

Because there is no inequality between "types" of relationships, only "types" of persons.

But one implies the other. A law arbitrarily discriminating against a certain type of relationship also arbitrarily discriminates against people who are in such a relationship.

The question is, of course, whether or not it is arbitrary. And there Vamosa's argument is decidedly less convincing.

That being said, at the current time, the government is selectively extending legal benefits to people engaging in a certain type of relationship, but is refusing to extend them to people engaged in another. Those who engage in multiple-partner relationships do not have the same entitlement to legal recognition as those who engage in single-partner relationships. Thus, the aforementioned group of people are not on equal footing with the latter group of people, and the imperative for equal protection of both groups of people is being violated.

It doesn't really work that way. There is a legal institution - marriage - that provides protections to couples who choose to live as a single legal entity. That institution is specifically designed for two people. If the government denies the protections to two consenting adults without a compelling interest, it is violating equal protection.

However, equal protection does not require the government to provide a separate legal institution for a different sort of situation. Some of us believe that it should, for all the same reasons that it recognizes 2-person marriages, but equal protection doesn't really come into it.

Your argument is the logical equivalent of saying that, because the government provides public buses, it must also provide public cabs. If the government were telling me that I couldn't get on a public bus because I'm female, that would be a violation of the equal protection clause. But, if I want a taxi instead, the government is not required to give it to me.

What a ridiculous analogy. All polygamous marriage would require is the change in the number of people allowed in a marriage. The legal benefits would be the same, just distributed differently. The asanine scenario you gave mentions two things that are completely unrelated.

....except it doesn't work that way. I don't know if you are aware of the particular legal protections provided by marriage, but it isn't just a matter of "let's add more people" and it will work. Many of the protections really only work well with two people. Adding more people in that structure would add to legal problems and confusion, rather than helping with them.

And then there is the fact that polygamous relationships are much more varied in structure than a 2-person relationship. Those variations aren't going to be covered well by a pre-set legal institution. There will need to be a great deal of customization possible.

Legal recognition of polygamy isn't going to be a simple expansion of marriage law. It will be a new institution altogether. I imagine it being based largely in incorporation.

No no no. I would legalize polygamy, I am merely arguing that in the process, we must define a new legal bond (let us call it poly-marriage) so that when people enter into either form of marriage, they have a clear choice between a BINDING monogamous marriage, or an UNBINDING one, poly-marriage.

Surely you can see that people wanting monogamous marriage are going to be unhappy with an "extension clause" even if they are personally determined never to agree to its use. Leaving that decision for the future (in the event of their partner wanting a third member of the marriage) actually detracts from the value of the vow.



Legally speaking, you want to abolish marriage. *shrug*

Look, I think you missed something in my last post. Not everyone has the same definition of polygamy -- the most common form by far is quite unlike what you and I agree would be fair. It is polygyny, where the women are monogamously married to the man, the man polygamously married to two or more women. The women are considered "married" to each other, but their legal rights under that marriage are far less than the legal rights in the male/female marriages. The man can divorce either or both of them, either of the women can leave (unless we're talking Saudi Arabia where in practice that would put them in great danger) but the women cannot divorce the man and remain married to each other.

So let's be clear about this. I only endorse polygamy where all participants are equal. It must be symmetrical, with the rights and obligations equally distributed. (All partners are "in" the same marriage, to use your term). It is simply unacceptable to me for one partner to to have more power or options by the terms of the contract -- for instance to be married to two people, neither of whom is obliged to be married to the other.

People are still free to write their own contract of course. But any generic contract offered by the government must be fair as I describe it in the paragraph above.

ok. first of all, i have to tell you: i'm new at posting here, and i don't know how to sparse your text yet, so that i can respond piece by piece. so please bear with me (and feel free to give any advice on posting, if you like).

i disagree that a poly-marriage is less binding than a monogamous one. in a mono-, a divorce can happen at any time; in a poly-, the same---although, in that case, there is a higher probability that it is over whether or not to include another person in the marriage.

since the "extension clause" can only be invoked if all parties agree, this does not detract from the value of any marriage. people already fight over whether or not to include other people in their family---sometimes marriages end over whether or not to birth or adopt children, or to have parents join the household. the only difference here is the question of sexual involvement. and, again, either both people fundamentally agree or not---and, if not, divorce is possible.

of course, a monogamous couple can mutually agree that their marriage is inherently and perpetually monogamous in character, and they may further have all of that contextualized and supported by particular cultural/religious associations that they maintain. certainly any partner A can tell any partner B---from the beginning---that polygamy is never going to happen, and that---if it is ever, ever raised with any seriousness, it will be considered the cause of duress sufficient to warrant divorce. if agreement on this was not maintained, the issue would simply become another form of "irreconciliable difference".

no-one's monogamous marriage is threatened by the inherent human possibility of polygamy---among free and consenting adults.

i do not want to abolish marriage, "legally speaking"---except that i want to abolish marriage as a legal status! i think those are different. during prohibition, drinking and the sale of liquor were abolished. i'm not talking about prohibiting anyone's marriage(s)! i want legal status to be given only to whatever legal contracts the partners mutually elect---if/when they elect any at all!

so: there's your opening, if you want it; contracts cold be constructed in such a way as to only allow the two partners, such that a totally new contract would have to be initiated to include a third (& etc.) party. and---in the case that people did do this, but then elected to "start over" with more than two, they may still choose to consider it the "same marriage", in social/cultural/religious terms. but it would be a totally new contract, before the law.

which would be totally fine with me, since i want it to be only the contract that is before the law, anyways, and not the marriage. the only difference is that it is a contract between married people, which would be no more difference before the law than a contract between two (or more! gasp!) brothers.

however, i think that most people would be comfortable with a more "open" contract, as long as all parties had to agree to include any one else, at any point. this would still protect even the most die-hard monogamist, from everything except his/her own paranoia.

as far as "equality" goes---i say leave even that to the parties involved. i am concerned only that their rights be equal before the law vis-a-vis creating, entering, and dissolving contracts. the contracts, themselves, can codify whatever shape of equality/inequality the participants want. if a muslim woman (or anyone else)---because of her religious conviciton---wants to enter into a form of marriage in which the man has the right to marry others while she does not---or even has any number of other "rights" to function in "senior"/"dominant"/etc. position, i have no problem with that---as long as it is contractually codified before the law, and all parties are participants by their own volition! of course, for some people, leaving the situation would be very difficult. but they would be legally able, in a "free" society---which is what i've presumed we're taliking about, here. in the above example---if the muslim association/denomination to which the woman belongs does not recognize her "right" to divorce, she will probably get kicked out of that "church"---but the "church" cannot legally impede her from dissolving her contract, before the law---anymore than the catholic church can stop its members from divorcing, before the law.

there is room for every different kind of marriage---whether varied by number, class, or power differential, or all of the above---just as there is every kind of business entity: c and s corps, llc's, general and limited partnerships, sole proprietorships, etc. the basis is simply contract. it is very simple.

contracts could be created such that "third parties" could only come "into" the "group" marriage, or that partners could marry others, without them "coming in"---i.e. Ruth is married to both Bob and Jeanne, but Bob and Jeanne are not married (or just not contractually related). or both!

just leave it up to the participants!!! as long as everyone always has a way out.

i think that there should be NO "generic contract, offered by the government". it is completely unnecessary, and automatically creates an effective endorsement (/advantage) for a certain form of marriage. this is inherently unfair.

and it is totally, totally unnecessary.

I addressed that argument in the original post. For shits and giggles, I'll post it again.

yes, of course that hurts the case of same-sex marriage. And as with polygamists, gays have the same right to marry one person of the opposite sex just as every other person. Therefore gays too have equal protection under the law. That is why it is so important to pass same-sex marriage laws as Massachusetts has done. Only there can gays correctly claim(legally speaking) that they are denied equal protection under the law if they can not marry someone of the same sex.

The fact is that you've admitted now that such a slope does not exist and that it requires new precedent.
I admitted that it requires new precedent, but I never said that the slope doesn't exist. My argment hinges on the Equal Protection Clause, as I've stated many times. If one is going to use the Equal Protection Clause as a justification for gay marriage, then one must legalize polygamy simultaneously. Never did I base my arguments on precedent dealing with binary marriage.
That still wouldn't be polygamy.

Meanwhile, no one has the right to marry multiple partners. And it's not a small distinction. As has been pointed out, the legal effect is quite different. It's not simply opening up marriage to multiple partners. It would require new laws, an altered form of the marriage contract. Just that fact alone makes the difference non-arbitrary.
This is the post that I originally responded to in the other thread. In it, you didn't say one word about precedent, so you can't claim that I responded to any claims you made about polygamy and precedent.

i am concerned only that their rights be equal before the law vis-a-vis creating, entering, and dissolving contracts.
Exactly. It is a violation of providing equal protection under the law to offer marital contracts to people engaged in some relationships, but not to others. Plain and simple, equal protection requires equal recognition of all relationships, lest the government discriminate among them.
your judgement of the "conceptual chasm"(s) between those two distinctions is predicated entirely on a bias in your personal definition of marriage. YOU believe that a "binary" NUMBER property---which is just as present in a homosexual monogamy as in a heterosexual monogamy---is more fundamentally intrinsic to marriage than a "binary" CLASS property (ie SEX)---which is just as present in heterosexual polygamy as it is heterosexual monogamy.

The judgement being made by some is that the number of participants in a marriage, and the complexity that allowing more than two people in martial contracts would bring, means that the process of legalizing polygamy requires too much work on the part of the legislature to be worth doing. Never before have I read an argument against equality that is based upon the fact that in order to gain equality, work would have to be done.

Meanwhile, let's address the concept of "protected classes." I'm very familiar with this legal classification. However, my argument does not deal with inequality based upon suspect classes. Rather, it deals with inequality that goes beyond such classifications. Any person of any race or any gender may be involved in a multiple-partner relationship, and be denied legal benefits. Meanwhile, their peers who are engaged in two-person relationships are entitled to legal benefits. How is that equality?

*snip*

Two things:

1) Marriage law is a little more complicated than simple contract law. Why? Because it is not simply a contract between two (or more) people. It represents a situation under which two people, for most purposes, become a single legal entity. This means that, in a sense, the government itself is party to the contract.

2) Getting rid of the generic marriage offered by the government would make things incredibly difficult. Every couple wishing to marry would have to hire a lawyer and go through hundreds of dollars for said lawyer and paperwork (since some of the legal protections involved cannot be achieved through contract) to essentially reinvent the wheel.

If one is going to use the Equal Protection Clause as a justification for gay marriage, then one must legalize polygamy simultaneously.

And others have shown you how that is not true.

Exactly. It is a violation of providing equal protection under the law to offer marital contracts to people engaged in some relationships, but not to others. Plain and simple, equal protection requires equal recognition of all relationships, lest the government discriminate among them.

....except it doesn't.

Equal protection doesn't protect relationships. It protects individuals.

The government doesn't recognize, for instance, my relationship with my closest friends. That is not a violation of equal protection.

The judgement being made by some is that the number of participants in a marriage, and the complexity that allowing more than two people in martial contracts would bring, means that the process of legalizing polygamy requires too much work on the part of the legislature to be worth doing.

Perhaps you can demonstrate where anyone has made this argument?

Note that recognizing the fact that the equal protection clause does not apply here does not mean that one is opposed to recognition of polygamous relationships.

I'm not opposed to the government providing a universal healthcare system. It's going to be a lot of work, but I would support it. I'm not going to pretend, however, that the equal protection clause requires the government to do so.

Meanwhile, let's address the concept of "protected classes." I'm very familiar with this legal classification. However, my argument does not deal with inequality based upon suspect classes. Rather, it deals with inequality that goes beyond such classifications. Any person of any race or any gender may be involved in a multiple-partner relationship, and be denied legal benefits. Meanwhile, their peers who are engaged in two-person relationships are entitled to legal benefits. How is that equality?

...because equality doesn't mean the government has a construct for everything one wants it to do. It means that any laws that do exist are applied equally to all citizens.

2) Getting rid of the generic marriage offered by the government would make things incredibly difficult. Every couple wishing to marry would have to hire a lawyer and go through hundreds of dollars for said lawyer and paperwork (since some of the legal protections involved cannot be achieved through contract) to essentially reinvent the wheel.
Very true. It would be a complicated process. Once again, never before have I heard someone make an argument against extending legal rights because it would require some complicated work.


Equal protection doesn't protect relationships. It protects individuals.

And my argument is based upon individuals. Individual A is a party to a multiple-partner relationship. Individual B is a party to a single-partner relationship. Individual B receives legal benefits. Individual A does not. End of story.

Perhaps you can demonstrate where anyone has made this argument?
The entirety of your argument, aside from the "individual" part (which I just debunked), is that legalizing polygamy would be a more complicated process than legalizing other forms of marriage, so individuals in multiple-partner relationships are automatically not entitled to the same legal benefits as other people.
...because equality doesn't mean the government has a construct for everything one wants it to do. It means that any laws that do exist are applied equally to all citizens.
No, but equality requires that all individuals are treated the same. If one individual is rewarded with legal benefits due to being in a relationship with another person, then why should another individual engaged in a relationship with two other people not being entitled to the same legal benefits?

And my argument is based upon individuals.

No, it isn't.

Individual A is a party to a multiple-partner relationship. Individual B is a party to a single-partner relationship. Individual B receives legal benefits. Individual A does not. End of story.

This is like saying, "Individual A likes riding the bus and the government provides public buses. Individual B likes riding in cabs and the government doesn't. Equal protection is not met." It's a ridiculous argument.

Equal protection applies when two people are in the same situation, not when they are in different ones.

The entirety of your argument, aside from the "individual" part (which I just debunked), is that legalizing polygamy would be a more complicated process than legalizing other forms of marriage, so individuals in multiple-partner relationships are automatically not entitled to the same legal benefits as other people.

No, it isn't. My argument is that equal protection does not apply, because they are two different things.

I've stated more than once that I think the government should recognize polygamous relationships.

And you didn't "debunk" anything. You proved it by immediately demonstrating out that your argument is based in relationships, not individuals.

No, but equality requires that all individuals are treated the same. If one individual is rewarded with legal benefits due to being in a relationship with another person, then why should another individual engaged in a relationship with two other people not being entitled to the same legal benefits?

It isn't one person getting "legal benefits". They are legal protections - and they are provided to the couple (and others that the couple interact with).

A three person relationship cannot get the same legal protections as a two-person one does currently because some of the protections simply don't extend that way - and they would actually make the legalities of the situation more complicated, rather than less so.

As such, in order to recognize a three person relationship, a new construct is needed. If that construct does not exist, equal protection has nothing to do with it. If that construct does exist, then the government would be required to make it available to all citizens equally.

Again, your argument is like suggesting that, because the government offers one form of public transportation, it must offer all sorts.

ok. first of all, i have to tell you: i'm new at posting here, and i don't know how to sparse your text yet, so that i can respond piece by piece. so please bear with me (and feel free to give any advice on posting, if you like).

After hitting quote, I find a spot inside what's quoted where I want to reply, and type in /QUOTE with square brackets around it. A keyboard macro would do that really nicely, but I haven't got around to that. There might be better ways.

For subsequent paragraphs to quote separately, select the paragraph (highlight, eg with mouse) and hit the fourth button from the right (above) to wrap QUOTE tabs around it.

Use the "preview post" button to check you've got it right (not so important, but it's better not to edit the post after it's been put up. Some folks feel it detracts from credibility.)

i disagree that a poly-marriage is less binding than a monogamous one.

Neither marriage is strictly binding at all. No-one gets a criminal record or goes to jail for divorcing anyone.

What I mean is this: a polygamous marriage (lets say, the first two people who enter it) obviously doesn't include a fidelity clause, that the partners "keep themselves unto" each other. As such, it is LESS BINDING. The vow puts less restriction on the partners (or ONE of them but not the other, which offends me).

And I argue that two people getting married to each other generally want to vow sexual fidelity to each other. Weakening that aspect of the vow for ALL marriages, to accommodate polygamists is questionable.

in a mono-, a divorce can happen at any time; in a poly-, the same---although, in that case, there is a higher probability that it is over whether or not to include another person in the marriage.

No. Divorce is actually quite different.

How does a court rule on this case, where a person seeks a divorce:
A, B and C are symmetrically married. A wants to stay married. B wants to stay married. C wants to stay married to A, but seeks to divorce B.

(Yes, one outcome is more just than the other, but this case cannot be decided by simple extension of two-person divorce.)


since the "extension clause" can only be invoked if all parties agree, this does not detract from the value of any marriage.

The initial vow is less binding. Even if it weren't, it would need to be DIFFERENT. Which is to say, what actually happens when the first two people marry is significantly different than what we call "marriage" now. Hence, to change the terms of marriage is to rewrite existing contracts.

That the "extension by mutual agreement" clause actually allows more, and forbids less (makes the contract less restricting) is EXACTLY the point. One sacrifices personal autonomy in entering marriage, and with less sacrifice the state of marriage has less meaning.

people already fight over whether or not to include other people in their family---sometimes marriages end over whether or not to birth or adopt children, or to have parents join the household. the only difference here is the question of sexual involvement. and, again, either both people fundamentally agree or not---and, if not, divorce is possible.

Look, I don't give a damn about the family problems of polygamists. Nor should the state. My argument is entirely about whether an existing contract (marriage) can be "extended" to multiple partners without changing its nature. Changing the nature of marriage would not be a problem except that people already have marriage contracts, the terms of which would change.

of course, a monogamous couple can mutually agree that their marriage is inherently and perpetually monogamous in character, and they may further have all of that contextualized and supported by particular cultural/religious associations that they maintain. certainly any partner A can tell any partner B---from the beginning---that polygamy is never going to happen, and that---if it is ever, ever raised with any seriousness, it will be considered the cause of duress sufficient to warrant divorce. if agreement on this was not maintained, the issue would simply become another form of "irreconciliable difference".

Essentially, you are taking a part out of the vow, and replacing it with a verbal agreement.

no-one's monogamous marriage is threatened by the inherent human possibility of polygamy---among free and consenting adults.

It is changed. Existing contracts are changed in an important respect. And again, I don't give a damn about their family problems, I just don't think we can change the terms of existing marriage contracts, even to grant a new right.

And it IS. If the right to marry two or more people is a right, it is a different right from the right to marry one. There are essentially three states: 0, 1 and many. 0 and 1 are treated differently (single, and married) so 1 and many should be treated differently.

i do not want to abolish marriage, "legally speaking"---except that i want to abolish marriage as a legal status! i think those are different. [...] i want legal status to be given only to whatever legal contracts the partners mutually elect---if/when they elect any at all!

I'm still not getting it. I'm somewhat of the view that government should treat all individuals equally, ignoring whether they are "married" or not.

It's possible we agree on this, so just run that by me a third time.

contracts could be constructed in such a way as to only allow the two partners, such that a totally new contract would have to be initiated to include a third (& etc.) party

Excellent. It's there already. It's called "marriage."

and---in the case that people did do this, but then elected to "start over" with more than two, they may still choose to consider it the "same marriage", in social/cultural/religious terms. but it would be a totally new contract, before the law.


Existing marriages would have to be annulled, before entering into a more permissive contract. It sounds oddly like we agree.

as far as "equality" goes---i say leave even that to the parties involved. i am concerned only that their rights be equal before the law vis-a-vis creating, entering, and dissolving contracts. the contracts, themselves, can codify whatever shape of equality/inequality the participants want.

NOT if it is a generic contract offered by government, under the guise of a tradition.

I think a lot fewer people would marry at all, except that there are legal and tax benefits from doing so. In effect, government promotes marriage (for no particular reason, perhaps they just grew up together) ... and as long as it does that, it should not recognize as marriage a contract which is unfair in its terms.

Of course, IF government treated individuals the same regardless of their marriage status, it would no longer matter what kind of contract the government puts in the marriage register. Government would just have the escrow role of a solicitor, registering the existence of the contract at a particular time in case of later dispute.

I really think we're wandering off into fairyland there, though. This shit ain't gonna happen.

if a muslim woman (or anyone else)---because of her religious conviciton---wants to enter into a form of marriage in which the man has the right to marry others while she does not---or even has any number of other "rights" to function in "senior"/"dominant"/etc. position, i have no problem with that---as long as it is contractually codified before the law,

Oh no. You are taking this "contract" thing too seriously. If the government offers one contract, and it's called "marriage" -- it's quite unreasonable to expect people to draw up some alternative contract (costing them money to write, or later enforce, and still without any certainty of how the contract will be treated by government) ... so they can have what the vast bulk of people expect from marriage, a vow of fidelity.

I actually like the idea of a range of contracts for different obligations in a marriage. What is most conspicuously missing is a "contract to raise children."

But I would keep one of them with the name "marriage" and it would be the one for sexual fidelity. Keeping oneself only unto the partner.

Then we have the simple question: should the government reward, punish or in any way treat a person differently, because of how many sexual partners they like to have. The answer could only be no.

Then we examine the other contracts by the same standard.

Is cohabitation with another something the government should encourage? Very likely, but it would have to be considered separately from the fidelity question.

Is 'parents staying together to raise children' something the government should encourage? Discourage? Treat people differently at all for doing? Perhaps, if it's agreed that the child benefits from that. (Children are always the special case of citizens. Every rule seems to require special consideration of children, it's very perplexing.)

there is room for every different kind of marriage---whether varied by number, class, or power differential, or all of the above---just as there is every kind of business entity: c and s corps, llc's, general and limited partnerships, sole proprietorships, etc. the basis is simply contract. it is very simple.

Oh no. I'm getting a whiff of libertarianism here. You're going to be trouble :p


just leave it up to the participants!!! as long as everyone always has a way out.

Look. You DO draw the line somewhere -- you would not permit a contract of slavery.

i think that there should be NO "generic contract, offered by the government". it is completely unnecessary, and automatically creates an effective endorsement (/advantage) for a certain form of marriage. this is inherently unfair.

I somewhat agree, but I don't think we're going to get our way.

Where I would not agree, is changing the nature of existing marriage contracts. I don't think the "extension clause" should just be waved through because it grants new options, I think it can only be included at the time the contract is entered into.

I admitted that it requires new precedent, but I never said that the slope doesn't exist. My argment hinges on the Equal Protection Clause, as I've stated many times. If one is going to use the Equal Protection Clause as a justification for gay marriage, then one must legalize polygamy simultaneously. Never did I base my arguments on precedent dealing with binary marriage.

But you have based your argument on the comparison between gay marriage (a binary marriage) and polygamy. Your whole premise is that if Equal Protection supports one, it must support the other.

But many here have illustrated cogently that the difference between binary marriage and polygamy is substantial enough that they are not the same thing, not the same right between given to some but not others.

Dempubliscents analogy about public transportation was particularly apt.

Equal Protection says the law must provide equal treatment. Whereas a marriage between two men is still similar enough to be thus addressed, polygamous marriage is just functionally too different to be pursued under Equal Protection. I don't object to developing a law that would pave the way to polygamy, but it will take more than the Equal Protection Clause.

Jhahannam, is this thing I said equivalent to what you said in the other thread, about "any change which requires an added dimension to express it is a change in the nature of a thing" ... ?

If the right to marry two or more people is a right, it is a different right from the right to marry one. There are essentially three states: 0, 1 and many. 0 and 1 are treated differently (single, and married) so 1 and many should be treated differently.

And, does it work OK in this simpler form ?

I think an image of marriage as "two people" is actually misleading, if we really are taking a "right to marry" to be an individual right.

As it stands now, one has a right to marry ZERO people (remain single) or ONE (matrimony.) This makes far clearer the dimensional difference of marrying two people.

This is like saying, "Individual A likes riding the bus and the government provides public buses. Individual B likes riding in cabs and the government doesn't. Equal protection is not met." It's a ridiculous argument.
No, your analogy is ridiculous. What this issue comes down to is discriminatory legal recognition. It has nothing to do with personal preference, as in your transportation method; it comes down to the government choosing to extend legal benefits to certain people due to relationship status, but denying it to other people, though they fit the crieria of being in a relationship as well. The only reason that someone in a relationship is not receiving legal benefits is because the government is discriminating against that person for choosing to enter in a relationship it has deemed unworthy of recognition. That is not equal protection.

I've stated more than once that I think the government should recognize polygamous relationships.
I don't care. That's not the issue -- the issue is, "should they be recognized under the Equal Protection Clause?"

And you didn't "debunk" anything. You proved it by immediately demonstrating out that your argument is based in relationships, not individuals.
It's sad to see you use the same rhetoric over and over when I've already framed my argument in light of individuals, not relationships.

It isn't one person getting "legal benefits". They are legal protections - and they are provided to the couple (and others that the couple interact with).
Benefits...protections...whatever. Picking at semantics won't get you anywhere.

Wait...before you were complaining about me only be specific to relationships (which I demonstrably was not), arguing (correctly) that the Equal Protection Clause protects individuals. Now you're attacking my argument on the grounds that only the unit of the couple is protected in a marriage, and not individuals? Not only are you contradicting yourself, but you're effectively attempting to undo the precedent set forth in Loving v. Virginia.

The fact remains that there are two individual people receiving those legal protections in a marriage. When you deny a group of people the right to enter into a polygamous marriage, you are discriminating against each individual person in that relationship.

A three person relationship cannot get the same legal protections as a two-person one does currently because some of the protections simply don't extend that way - and they would actually make the legalities of the situation more complicated, rather than less so.
Appeal to tradition. So what if they don't currently extend that way? The issue is "why they should or should not be changed?"

As for the "complexity," the people in the relationship would choose to apply the protections as they would desire, worked out in a contract. You're not making a valid argument when you just keep repeating, "but that's not how it works now!"

As such, in order to recognize a three person relationship, a new construct is needed. If that construct does not exist, equal protection has nothing to do with it.
Just because no model exists for polygamous marriage says nothing about why people in multiple-person relationships are not entitled to legal ben...protections, :rolleyes: while people engaged in two-person relationships are. If a new model needs to be created to create a system where equal protection is served, so be it. No legal precedent says that this cannot occur.

I think vamosa needs to learn the difference between equal protection and a substantive due process right. They are not the same thing at all, despite Vamosa's efforts to conflate the two.

I think vamosa needs to learn the difference between equal protection and a substantive due process right. They are not the same thing at all, despite Vamosa's efforts to conflate the two.

I am not conflating the two. The right to polygamy falls under substantive due process as well. However, this argument is about equal protection, because that's how this whole argument started.

All you've succeeded in doing is proving that recognizing polygamous marriages would change the nature of marriage more so than legalizing gay marriage would. So what? Why does that mean that multiple-partner relationships are not entitled to the same legal protections? Your entire post is just one big appeal to tradition: "it's always been two people. Changing the number will change the institution a lot." So. What?


It's important because as a legal structure, marriage is designed to accomplish a specific set of legal goals regarding the relationship of one person to another. Multi-party marriages alter, and, on some counts, obliterate these purposes.

Further, multi-party marriages afflict a significant degree of societal harm, and tend to favor men as central figures in a marriage over women, just based on typical western cultural behaviors.

Finally, the concept of multi-party marriages can be described as marriage in name only. To do so, you must significantly alter the legal structure of the concept, to the point that it is no longer recognizable as marriage. It's not simply a matter of saying "Oh, now you can marry more than one person". There's a significant number of changers that must be undertaken, and as an example I'll use children.

In a multi-party marriage, there are two husbands and two wives involved. Both of the women have kids, but one of them decides to get a divorce from the others. How is child custody handled?
Who is responsible for the child? Is it the biological father and mother, or are the other individuals involved as well?

However, this argument is about equal protection

There is no equal protection argument. For an argument to be based on equal protection, parties must be similarly situated, and the differences here are too large to give rise to a valid equal protection argument.

It's important because as a legal structure, marriage is designed to accomplish a specific set of legal goals regarding the relationship of one person to another. Multi-party marriages alter, and, on some counts, obliterate these purposes.
You can't make vague pronounements about "purposes," because the law says nothing about what these purposes might be. The only common thread that can be established, as I've already noted, is that marriage is a recognition of a relationship.

Further, multi-party marriages afflict a significant degree of societal harm, and tend to favor men as central figures in a marriage over women, just based on typical western cultural behaviors.
That's an assumption with no basis in fact. Modern polygamy could very well favor one woman and many men. Besides, in modern society, a woman has the right to choose if she wants to enter such a marriage.

Finally, the concept of multi-party marriages can be described as marriage in name only. To do so, you must significantly alter the legal structure of the concept, to the point that it is no longer recognizable as marriage. It's not simply a matter of saying "Oh, now you can marry more than one person". There's a significant number of changers that must be undertaken, and as an example I'll use children.

In a multi-party marriage, there are two husbands and two wives involved. Both of the women have kids, but one of them decides to get a divorce from the others. How is child custody handled?
Who is responsible for the child? Is it the biological father and mother, or are the other individuals involved as well?
That would have to be worked out in the marital contract. It would be a different set of circumstances, yes. But that really says nothing about the justice in denying legal protections to some while extending them to others.

There is no equal protection argument. For an argument to be based on equal protection, parties must be similarly situated, and the differences here are too large to give rise to a valid equal protection argument.

Parties are similarly situated. As I've already said, one person is in a relationship. Another is as well. The former is in a two-person one, so he can get married. The other is in a multiple-person relationship, so he can't. It's quite simple.

I don't care. That's not the issue -- the issue is, "should they be recognized under the Equal Protection Clause?"

I would say no.

In fact, I would say that government cannot discriminate against someone based on whether or not they are married, by that Clause. Yet it does.

If you really think that marriage is such a rational thing that it should be formed to obey Equal Protection, you should argue not for its extension, but it's complete removal from the books.

It's sad to see you use the same rhetoric over and over when I've already framed my argument in light of individuals, not relationships.

A wise choice I'd say. It gives you Loving v. Virginia as a precedent few will dispute.

The fact remains that there are two individual people receiving those legal protections in a marriage. When you deny a group of people the right to enter into a polygamous marriage, you are discriminating against each individual person in that relationship.

No. Merely saying that that "marriage" is NOT a marriage in the sense of your beloved Loving v. Virginia. Each of those individuals is granted the same right as any other person, the right to marry ONE other person.

On a lighter note, isn't Loving v. Virginia the fucking coolest name for a case? All those v's ... it's getting me HOT! :D

You can't make vague pronounements about "purposes," because the law says nothing about what these purposes might be. The only common thread that can be established, as I've already noted, is that marriage is a recognition of a relationship.

There are lots of things that are recognitions of relationships. The corporation is a recognition of a relationship. Why don't we just add cohabitation and call what you propose a type of corporation?

The purpose of marriage is clearly reflected in the law. All you have to do is take a look at the law itself, and the changes and alterations that marriage makes to ones legal status, and the benefits provided by marriage. These benefits and changes are ones that are closely linked to, and best administered by, a two-partner marriage.


That's an assumption with no basis in fact. Modern polygamy could very well favor one woman and many men. Besides, in modern society, a woman has the right to choose if she wants to enter such a marriage.

Then look at the sociological studies on that matter. One of the classics pertains to sexual activity in high school and college, and it illustrates that this point remains in effect. There were fewer males having sex with a much larger group of women.

That would have to be worked out in the marital contract. It would be a different set of circumstances, yes. But that really says nothing about the justice in denying legal protections to some while extending them to others.

It does say something about how radically you propose to change the basic concept of marriage, though. To the point, in fact, that it no longer will resemble marriage in the slightest.

Finally, there is no basis, whatsoever, for your equal protection argument. The relations at hand are not even remotely similar. The differences required, and the mental leaps that you must make are far too great. It is unjust to deny me the right to marry whoever I want, not however many people I want. I am enjoying the same right as everybody else: The right to marry one other person. There's a significant difference.

Parties are similarly situated. As I've already said, one person is in a relationship. Another is as well. The former is in a two-person one, so he can get married. The other is in a multiple-person relationship, so he can't. It's quite simple.

The bolded parts is where your argument mianders off the path of sense and into the realm of nonsense.

There are lots of things that are recognitions of relationships. The corporation is a recognition of a relationship. Why don't we just add cohabitation and call what you propose a type of corporation?
We'll let stupidity go unaddressed, and left to stand alone in its idiocy.

The purpose of marriage is clearly reflected in the law. All you have to do is take a look at the law itself, and the changes and alterations that marriage makes to ones legal status, and the benefits provided by marriage. These benefits and changes are ones that are closely linked to, and best administered by, a two-partner marriage.
On the contrary, there is a lot of debate about what the purpose of marriage is, and how attempts to alter it should figure in to its purpose. The gay marriage debate clearly reflects that. However, you can't argue that two-person marriages are better for the "purpose" of marriage when you haven't even addressed what that purpose it.

Then look at the sociological studies on that matter. One of the classics pertains to sexual activity in high school and college, and it illustrates that this point remains in effect. There were fewer males having sex with a much larger group of women.
As I've already said, even if the legalization of polygamy would entail more one man, multiple women relationships, it would still be the personal choice of women to enter into them. As long as personal choice is still involved, I don't see what your problem is.

It does say something about how radically you propose to change the basic concept of marriage, though. To the point, in fact, that it no longer will resemble marriage in the slightest.
In your view. In fact, polygamous marriages have occurred many times in history.

1) Marriage law is a little more complicated than simple contract law. Why? Because it is not simply a contract between two (or more) people. It represents a situation under which two people, for most purposes, become a single legal entity. This means that, in a sense, the government itself is party to the contract.

i grant that it is generally taken to be more complicated; i disagree that this is necessary or useful to society. i do not think that the extra level of complication that we are giving to it is inherent in marriage itself. if fact, i think that the extra level of complication is symptomatic of a fundamental mistake that we make in how we relate government to marriage in the first place.

i understand that in the present mode of marriage, people become a single legal entity. what i want to change is that this is automatic. i want people to have to elect to do this, and to have a very full range of nuanced choices in how they do this.

such is already the case in corporate law; and there, also, the government becomes a party to the contract. i have no problem with that. essentially, those who marry would often form some kind of household corporation or even LLC to accommodate the changing shape of their lives. this could be a very straightforward matter.

however, this need not make it unnecessarily complicated. i think that this would all be much more clean and easy---in most cases---than what people are presently going through around the legal status of marriage.


2) Getting rid of the generic marriage offered by the government would make things incredibly difficult. Every couple wishing to marry would have to hire a lawyer and go through hundreds of dollars for said lawyer and paperwork (since some of the legal protections involved cannot be achieved through contract) to essentially reinvent the wheel.


nah. it wouldn't really make things so difficult, after all; i think that's just a flat-out bogus claim! how many thousands---if not millions---of corporations are created on the internet everyday?---and for as little as a marriage liscense, or cheaper, i bet! no one would have to re-invent the wheel, anymore than i do when i create a simple corporation; it has some certain default features, that are very basic---and there's a lot of generic corporations out there! but this form is also one that can adapted into all kinds of forms, to suit all kinds of needs; it is remarkably flexible.

if government got out of this business, the market would very quickly provide some basic, user-friendly, default options for marriage contract consumers.

however---and this is important---the lowest common denominator-option would not be the only one, and---it would be chosen by the market, rather than legislated.

thereby, you achieve two goals:

1) what prevails as the most common form of marriage, in any given moment, is a response to the conditions of the day, rather than a left-over default construct that is the by-product of generations of marriage law that are only more archaic than they are hyper-stratified. :rolleyes:

2) more choice, for everybody, all the time. :) and no more discrimination/favoritism by the government on the issue of marriage. :D


:D

It breaks down very simply. For an equal protection argument to work, you have to argue that you are similarly situated enough to argue that to prevent you from doing what someone else can do violated equal protection principles. You feel that those who want to engage in polygamous marriages are similarly situated to those who wish to engage in monogamous marriages to sufficiently give rise to an equal protection argument.

I, on the other hand, disagree. While I agree with the supreme court in Loving and the courts in NJ, CA, and MA that qualifications of "same race" or "different gender" were not sufficiently distinct to seperate them sufficiently to defeat equal protection arguments. That a black man wanting to marry a white woman, or a man wanting to marry a man, is sufficiently similar to a black man wanting to marry a black woman, or a woman wanting to marry a man, so that an equal protection argument is valid. However a man wanting to marry several women is sufficiently dissimilar to defeat such an equal protection argument, because while allowing different race marriages, or same sex marriages, does not require a fundamental shift in the legal regime and principles underlying marriage, the situational differences between monogamous marriage and polygamist marriage are so fundamentally dissimilar as to defeat any equal protection argument.

A mere tangental similarity isn't sufficient to work an equal protection argument, when the circumstances are so fundamentally different. It would be like arguing that just because someone who wants to be a lawn mower can do so, without any certification, higher education, or requirement for licensing, so to should a doctor, or lawyer, or accountant be able to enter their chosen career without it. THe same loose association is present there. "if he can enter his job without needing to take a test, I should be able to enter my job without needing to take a test", but the careers of lawnmower and doctor are so fundamentally different in principle that you can't make a truly functional equal protection argument out of it.

We'll let stupidity go unaddressed, and left to stand alone in its idiocy.

In other words, a flippant response is an attempt to ignore the fact that what you propose is equally as ludicrous.


On the contrary, there is a lot of debate about what the purpose of marriage is, and how attempts to alter it should figure in to its purpose. The gay marriage debate clearly reflects that. However, you can't argue that two-person marriages are better for the "purpose" of marriage when you haven't even addressed what that purpose it.

Specifically the legal relationships and responsibilities that one person takes on for the other in a two-person marriage. Power of attorney, tax unification, legal parenthood/guardianship and medical benefits are not even remotely altered by permitting interracial or homosexual marriages. They are, however, altered by multi-partner relationships. There are other legal repercussions of getting married.

I'm not beating around in the bush with the intent of marriage. It's not to produce children, it's not for sex, it's not for any of that. It's to provide these things between two people, and to provide that recognition to the government.


As I've already said, even if the legalization of polygamy would entail more one man, multiple women relationships, it would still be the personal choice of women to enter into them. As long as personal choice is still involved, I don't see what your problem is.

The centralization of familial authority, given that the central point in the marriage would be the man, on the man. As is traditionally demonstrated in polygamous relationships, the man serves as an intermediary, arbitrator and finally adjudicator in familial disputes between the wives is just one such negative effect. A situation that is derived from his uniqueness in the relationship.

Further, societal costs, particularly those pertaining to education and the role of women in the household are severely affected by multi-partner marriages.

Finally, given that women are more likely to enter into a multi-partner relationship, we must also consider the costs provided by having young, unattached men, who feel their chances for finding a mate are slim, for whatever reason. Look at the demographic concerns that were discussed in regards to the implementation of China's one-child policy in the late nineties for an example, and the potential for an overabundance of males.


In your view. In fact, polygamous marriages have occurred many times in history.

In the common law tradition that the United States, and the rest of the English speaking world, follows, though marriage is defined as a relationship between two individuals, and to include more than two would structurally change this basic legal concept. The legal tradition of the United States is what is important here.

Finally, you have not proven that the fourteenth amendment's equal protection clause has been violated, by denying the right to multi-party marriages. The earlier comparison to buses and taxis is apt on this count, or, even better, Neo Art's comparison of lawn mowers and doctors. When we are talking about multi-party marriages, we are talking about a radically different type of relationship from what marriage is currently defined as.

I believe one glaring flaw. There is two kinds of marriage. A legal marriage. And a religious marriage. The legal marriage has a contract that two individuals can enter into under the premise of sharing their assets. This allows them to do cool things like file their taxes jointly, have medical decision making power over the care of their spouse when said spouse cannot make decisions, and other nifty legal things like that. It also affords certain protections should one party wish to dissolve the contract such as 50/50.

Now for those of you wishing to legalize polygamy, I'm more then willing to join the band wagon. If you can help me with a few scenarios. Ready?

If Individual A is married to Individual B and Individual B marries Individual C then is it Couple 1 or Couple 1 and Couple 2? Is Individual A married to C because B is? If C and B are couple 1 and A and B are couple 2 then how does one legally define which couple receives which assets?

If A, B, and C are in a marriage and A is married to B and B is married to C and C is not married to A. Then if C should choose to dissolve the relationship, will C in turn get a third of the Assets of said partnerships? And if so then should A bear the burden of losing a third of their assets even though they were not married to C?

If B and C have one child and A chooses to dissolve the partnership of the marriage, would A have any legal right to file for custody of said child?

If B is on their death bed and A wishes to pull the plug and C does not and both have the power of attorney as awarded in their contracts as the spouse of B then whose power do you recognize?

And the answer that it has to be decided in the contract is not an acceptable answer.

Should Polygamy be recognized as a religious and personal practice? Yes. Should polygamy be recognized as a legal practice? No. The Equal Protection argument doesnt fall into it. They are not being told they can't marry Individual B because Individual B isn't the right gender or the right color. They are being told they can't marry Individual B because they already have a clear and binding contract with Individual A. The situation and precedent aren't remotely similar. The argument is not even closely representative of each other.

To use an analogy, which seems popular these days. In scenario 1. Against gay marriage. The argument is that everyone is allowed to get pizza, as long as it's pepperoni and that Individual A can't have any pizza because they want cheese and not pepperoni which isn't fair. In scenario 2. Against polygamy. The argument is that Individual A can't have any pizza because they already HAVE pizza.

Bad analogy, I know because one shouldn't be limited to one pizza. But pretend there's a coupon. The Coupon is for one free pizza. In one scenario the group is trying to say you can have one free pizza.... but because you didn't order pepperoni they won't honor it... while in the other.. you get your free pizza but you can only use one coupon..

Parties are similarly situated. As I've already said, one person is in a relationship. Another is as well. The former is in a two-person one, so he can get married. The other is in a multiple-person relationship, so he can't. It's quite simple.

You continue to either miss or ignore the difference in relationship. You've admitted that this is "another type of relationship". As such there is no EPC argument. Again, you've admitted there is a non-arbitrary difference in the legal needs for a polygamous relationshp. EPC went out the window right there.

I find it amusing you've been corrected repeatedly but experts on Constitution and you just wave your hands at their argument like they never happened. Similarly situated is pretty clearly defined.

There's a very easy example. Do both people have to agree in order for a third person to join their relationship?

If yes, then you're no longer talking about an INDIVIDUAL right. You're talking about a right given to a couple who is already married.

If no, then you're talking about creating a fundamental change to the relationship, since now married people have an implied risk that their partner will further dilute their assets, something you cannot do in any other contractual relationship.

No, your analogy is ridiculous.

How so? The main difference between one form of transportation and the other is the number of people.

What this issue comes down to is discriminatory legal recognition. It has nothing to do with personal preference, as in your transportation method; it comes down to the government choosing to extend legal benefits to certain people due to relationship status, but denying it to other people, though they fit the crieria of being in a relationship as well.

Of course it has to do with personal preference. Those people prefer a larger marriage situation over a 2-person one.

The only reason that someone in a relationship is not receiving legal benefits is because the government is discriminating against that person for choosing to enter in a relationship it has deemed unworthy of recognition. That is not equal protection.

It has nothing to do with "unworthy of recognition". Why, exactly, do you think the government recognizes marriage? It isn't about a relationship being "worthy". It's about streamlining and dealing with legal issues that arise from two people entering into that relationship. If there were no such legal issues, there'd be no need for a civil form of marriage.

But the situation in which there are 3 or more people in a marriage creates rather different legal issues. As such, a different legal construct would be necessary if the government were to deal with those. It's apples and oranges.

Currently, heterosexual people can get apples, but homosexuals cannot. Nobody can get oranges. As such, the government is not providing equal protection as it pertains to apples (2-person marriage), but is providing equal protection as it pertains to oranges (polygamous marriage).

You can argue that the government should provide a legal structure for polygamous marriage, and I would agree with you. But arguing that your reason for it is equal protection is ridiculous.

I don't care. That's not the issue -- the issue is, "should they be recognized under the Equal Protection Clause?"

And the answer is that the equal protection clause has nothing to do with it. The government doesn't provide a legal structure for polygamous marriage to anyone. As such, the requirements of the equal protection clause are met. If the government did provide such a structure, but arbitrarily kept some people from obtaining it, that would violate equal protection.

It's sad to see you use the same rhetoric over and over when I've already framed my argument in light of individuals, not relationships.

....except you haven't. You may think you have, but your argument relies on the distinction between relationships.

The fact remains that there are two individual people receiving those legal protections in a marriage. When you deny a group of people the right to enter into a polygamous marriage, you are discriminating against each individual person in that relationship.

No, you aren't - because nobody gets protections for such a relationship. As such, there is no discrimination of individuals - only discrimination in the type of relationship recognized.

Appeal to tradition. So what if they don't currently extend that way? The issue is "why they should or should not be changed?"

It has nothing to do with tradition. They cannot be extended that way. It wouldn't make sense. Hence the reason that a different legal structure is needed.

As for the "complexity," the people in the relationship would choose to apply the protections as they would desire, worked out in a contract.

That isn't civil marriage. What you are describing is more of an incorporation structure.

Just because no model exists for polygamous marriage says nothing about why people in multiple-person relationships are not entitled to legal ben...protections, :rolleyes: while people engaged in two-person relationships are. If a new model needs to be created to create a system where equal protection is served, so be it. No legal precedent says that this cannot occur.

Of course it says nothing about whether or not they should get protections.

But the fact that there is currently no legal structure under which polygamous marriage is recognized does mean that your equal protection argument falls flat. Everyone is equally protected (or, as it were, not protected).

You can't make vague pronounements about "purposes," because the law says nothing about what these purposes might be. The only common thread that can be established, as I've already noted, is that marriage is a recognition of a relationship.

Actually, if you look at the particular protections applied, it becomes pretty damn clear what the purposes of legal marriage recognition are. It isn't just "we felt like recognizing a relationship." If that were the case, we'd have to be arguing about why the government doesn't recognize my relationships with my close friends.

Living as married creates a whole host of legal issues that need to be addressed. The government created legal marriage as the structure in which those issues are addressed.

Polygamy would have some of the same legal issues, but many of them would be quite different. As such, a different structure is needed.



i grant that it is generally taken to be more complicated; i disagree that this is necessary or useful to society.

Then we are fundamentally at odds on this issue.

nah. it wouldn't really make things so difficult, after all; i think that's just a flat-out bogus claim! how many thousands---if not millions---of corporations are created on the internet everyday?---and for as little as a marriage liscense, or cheaper, i bet! no one would have to re-invent the wheel, anymore than i do when i create a simple corporation; it has some certain default features, that are very basic---and there's a lot of generic corporations out there! but this form is also one that can adapted into all kinds of forms, to suit all kinds of needs; it is remarkably flexible.

Registering a corporation that isn't doing anything yet is cheap and easy. Actually getting a contract for how it will work, on the other hand, gets rather expensive.

And marriage covers a whole host of things that corporate contract law does not. For instance, next-of-kin issues. Name changes, if wanted. Changes in estate defaults. True joint ownership. You may think that these things are unnecessary in marriage, but I disagree. I think they have been developed specifically because they are necessary in most marriage situations.

Or, as a clearer analogy: Drug laws.

Currently, if I want alcohol, I can go and buy it. But if I wanted marijuana instead, I could not go get it.

Person A can get their drug of choice. Person B cannot. This is not, however, a violation of equal protection because the distinction is not between individuals - it is between drugs. It may be bad law, but equal protection is not the argument to be made for that.

Likewise, person A can enter into a 2-person marriage. Person B cannot enter into a 3-person marriage. This is not a violation of equal protection because the distinction is not between individuals - it is between relationship types. It may be bad law, but equal protection is not the argument to be made for that.