<p>Well, first you have to define your terms. Are you talking about “marriage in the eyes of the Church”, or “Married in our souls”, or “Legally married”? Assuming you’re talking about the latter, a lot of things get clearer and simpler very quickly. First, stop confusing marriage with sex. You don’t have to be married to legally have sex with someone; you don’t have to ever have sex with your spouse to have a perfectly legal marriage (popular misconception of the legal significance of “consummation” notwithstanding.) So sex is not a necessary prerequisite of marriage and marriage is not a necessary prerequisite for sex. In fact, you can quite legally be married to one person and have sex with another (or others.)</p>
<p>So what is marriage about? Well, as much as some of you might want to wiggle around it, marriage is in fact a type of legally recognized partnership between legally qualified people, which carries a bundle of understood and defined rights and responsibilities which have great social significance - outside the bedroom. Marital partners have the right to act for each other, committing the partnership to the repayment of debts, being obligated to support each other, having an automatic authority to make decisions for the other in the event of disability, etc. This bundle of rights and responsibilities is actually very similar to the set of rules applicable to business partnerships, only with a slightly different scope and qualifications. (You can enter into a marriage at an earlier age than you can legally commit to a business partnership, for example.) </p>
<p>So where does that lead you in the “who should be allowed to marry” question? Well you can start by eliminating animals and inanimate objects, the perennial favorites of the TTH (trying too hard) contingent, for the same reason animals and mops, etc. can’t be partners in a business: they are unable to undertake the responsibilities of a spouse. Children? Same problem. Polygamy? That’s more of a practical problem. When the relationship is defined as two people, the question of who has the right to make a decision on behalf of a disabled person; or make a binding commitment to take on a debt, etc., is finite and manageable. Increase the number above two and significant practical problems arise. Given that prevailing culture doesn’t create an apparent need for a legal construct to define what rights and responsibilities should be applicable in multiple marriages, the best answer is to let committed groups marry in the eyes of God, or their souls, or wherever they like - but leave the “legal marriage” to two people. Incest? The real issue here isn’t brother-sister, or genetic (remember, they can always have sex if they really want to), but parent-child, and the inherent power imbalance problems that arise in that relationship. I’d legalize same-generation intra-family marriage (and let the Ick factor take care of the likelihood that it would become rampant) but continue the ban on father-daughter, mother-son marriage. But note: this is a policy issue related to free will and actual consent, not sex. Same sex marriage? That’s a no-brainer. It’s worked well for heterosexual couples; there’s no reason to think it won’t work as well for same sex couples, and there are no public policy issues.</p>
<p>Partnerships are allowed only two people? Really? My highly successful 150 year old firm has over 6,500 partners and manages to deal with all the practical problems. Top 100 place to work actually. </p>
<p>As for the lack of “apparent need”, you realize there are already a significant number of plural marriages in the US and Canada (50,000 to 100,000 in the US alone), some of whom involving immigrants legally married in their home country who lost their rights when they legally immigrated to the US? That since Canada legalized gay marriage, there have been more illegal plural marriages than legal gay ones? Who should judge these people’s need?</p>
<p>Maybe this part of your argument is a bit arbitrary?</p>
<p>Well, Strick, you may have a point. I understand multiple-partner business relationships (having been in several myself) but if you’re brain dead, which partner gets to [has to] decide whether to pull the plug? If you become homeless, which is legally obligated to house and feed you? (Yes, a spouse has that legal obligation.) That’s why multiple-party marriage contracts are harder than multi-party business partnerships.</p>
<p>I never would have guessed that there were 100,000 plural marriages in the U.S. Your source? But if in fact there’s a need for regulation of multi-party marriage, that should be attended to. I’m afraid it will be somewhat more complicated than simply changing the standard from “two” to “more than one”, however. We have an established set of laws for dealing with multi-party business ventures. We don’t have one which directly translates to multi-party marriages. That would take some work. If it’s as big a problem as you suggest, that would be a worthwhile endeavor - but not an easy one.</p>
<p>Kludge, there are problems with any change to marriage. The courts are currently working through issues related to custody and property rights in same sex marriages. Surely the fact that details have to be worked out should not prevent the end to discrimination. </p>
<p>That was supposed to be between 50,000 and 100,000 polygamists, not marriages, sorry it came through any other way. Bad editing. Probably 1/10 the number of same sex couples, but it’s not a numbers game, is it?</p>
<p>Strick, I’m unaware of any “issues relating to custody and property rights” which would arise in same sex marriage which are in any way different from mixed-sex marriage. Under California law, there is no distinction between the rights and obligations of men and women in marriage; given that, I’m having a hard time figuring out where an issue would arise in a marriage between two women that would be distinct from a marriage between a man and a woman.</p>
<p>Multiple-party marriages, however, immediately create a distinct set of issues such as those I’ve alluded to above.</p>
<p>How about this? Lesbian mom is artificially impregnated by gay friend of lesbian mom and her spouse. Gay dads and moms live together, because they are all invested in making a loving home for the child. Lesbian moms get divorced. Incredibly ugly separation. Who gets custody of the child (six years old)?</p>
<p>(I saw this on tv.)</p>
<p>Less or more complex if it’s a civil union?</p>
<p>Still, the courts see issues. For example, from one decision:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m also aware issues related to custody where one partner is not a biological parent of one or more children born during the marriage. There was that interesting case in Kentucky where they had to determine which parent was the “defacto custodian” and it didn’t turn out the way you might expect, not if you applied the usual stereotypes to the case.</p>
<p>I’m not saying the problems are insurmountable, but they’re real. The law in most states is simply not explicit about dealing with same sex marriages and the courts are left to interpret them.</p>
<p>And, honestly, I doubt the fact there will be some trouble justifies continuing to discriminate. If you’re going to push equal rights, do it and let the chips fall where they may. Ask Lincoln or MLK Jr. or Ghandi.</p>
<p>Child custody is an issue which arises independently of marriage. Remember: you don’t need to be married to have kids. The obligations of parents to their children is independent of the rights and obligations between spouses. And no, the sex (or mix of sexes) or the marital status of the parents doesn’t change that.</p>
<p>Strick: Citation? Is that from a case with same-sex marriage? It sounds like it isn’t.</p>
<p>Kludge, I don’t have it anymore, though it was real and as you’ll note, it specifically speaks to same sex families.</p>
<p>Perhaps not all states are as progressive as California, because gender is often implied or even specific in the laws. Heck, Canadian courts found that sex between members of the same sex wasn’t adultery, though I don’t really know why it was any of their business.</p>
<p>Regardless, “it’s too much trouble” is not a very good excuse for denying someone equal rights, is it? Can’t imagine many judges buying that excuse in any other rights case.</p>
<p>Teenage boys being run out of families because the teenage girls like them.
Being told you’ll go to Hell if you don’t marry someone 40 years older.
Warren Jeffs.</p>
<p>bmanbs-
those things are not intrinsically part of polgamist relationships any more than heterosexual marriages are abusive like Ike & Tina Turners or Oj Simpson and Nicole Browns</p>
<p>Strick - the quote you cited seems to me to be a statement of the problem that arises from not allowing same sex couples to marry - hence, “The reality for the litigants at bar and other same sex families is that there is no uniform framework for equitably dissolving their relationships” If they could legally marry, there would be such a “uniform framework” - that’s what divorce laws are. But you can’t get divorced if you can’t marry - that’s the problem.</p>
<p>Hereshoping, the answer to your question depends on the individuals involved, not their sexual orientation or the nature of their claim to “parenthood.” It is quite common for children of heterosexual parents to have multiple mothers and fathers - I know many kids whose primary caregiver is a step-mother. Determining custody and visitation issues in failed relationships (marital or not) is a recurring and thorny problem with no simple answers.</p>