It's time to legalize polygamy...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have to say, if you want the government out of marriage, the government should get out of marriage. Huge problems though when it comes to workplace benefits

It's actually quite simple -- no workplace benefits for any spouses! The idea that a spouse should get benefits even though he or she doesn't work there, is a relic of the 1950's era when the man worked and the woman stayed home. Today the spouse almost certainly has his or her own job, and spousal benefits are a relic of history

[Anonymous]

In 7 years most people's health insurance will not be tied to their employer and that is a huge change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to say, if you want the government out of marriage, the government should get out of marriage. Huge problems though when it comes to workplace benefits

It's actually quite simple -- no workplace benefits for any spouses! The idea that a spouse should get benefits even though he or she doesn't work there, is a relic of the 1950's era when the man worked and the woman stayed home. Today the spouse almost certainly has his or her own job, and spousal benefits are a relic of history

Actually, she's not 'granted benefits'. He pays extra for those benefits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Committed triads (or throuples) and other arrangements between consenting adults are private matters in which the government has no business.

You could say the same about gay marriage.

Exactly. Which is exactly why gay marriage is now legally recognized. When the government decided to recognize (grant specific legal status and benefits to) one type of committed relationship between consenting adults (heterosexual marriage) that then obligated it to grant the same status to any consenting adult arrangement, in my opinion, because it is not the government's business and thus the government should not be favoring one loving relationship over another.

[Anonymous]

Pull yourselves together. Y'all are unravelling like an old sweater over this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a divorced parent of 3 kids, I would like to marry my kids so when I sell my house instead of the 250k tax exemption, I could get 500k or if i married them all at once a million!

I believe you can already legally do that in New Jersey -- at least with one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If there's one man and multiple women then it's not exactly an equal dynamic and is not at all the same as a normal marriage between two people.[/quote

just who are we?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:according to an op-ed in Politico.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-decision-polygamy-119469.html?ml=po#.VY33M43bLIU

That didn't take long, did it?

I said over 5 years ago that when you change the definition of marriage you will open the door to polygamy. How can the SCOTUS grant the right to marry to one group then deny the rights of those who want plural marriage?

[Anonymous]

I am a big fan of legalizing it. I would suggest that it would require a different set of rules. Mandatory family trusts? Mandatory declaration of intent of polygamy at first marriage? Mandatory notification of present spouse about new spouse? Waiting period for existing spouse to opt out? Mandatory minimum incomes? Agree it can get complicated. Might have to borrow laws and rules from countries that already do this. But it can be done.
My feeling is that the man should have to state that he intends to be polygamist BEFORE marrying the first wife. Nor surprises. Or, the couple may be able to check a box MONOGAMOUS. If he changes his mind, big fine.
Also, minimum income to get a second spouse. Not an income that comes from the first wife, but a from the husband.
Maybe each of these cases might need to be handled on a case by case basis like an adoption. Each family puts in for approval, based mostly on income.
I guess only 5% of men max would want more than one wife. So it is not a big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a big fan of legalizing it. I would suggest that it would require a different set of rules. Mandatory family trusts? Mandatory declaration of intent of polygamy at first marriage? Mandatory notification of present spouse about new spouse? Waiting period for existing spouse to opt out? Mandatory minimum incomes? Agree it can get complicated. Might have to borrow laws and rules from countries that already do this. But it can be done.
My feeling is that the man should have to state that he intends to be polygamist BEFORE marrying the first wife. Nor surprises. Or, the couple may be able to check a box MONOGAMOUS. If he changes his mind, big fine.
Also, minimum income to get a second spouse. Not an income that comes from the first wife, but a from the husband.
Maybe each of these cases might need to be handled on a case by case basis like an adoption. Each family puts in for approval, based mostly on income.
I guess only 5% of men max would want more than one wife. So it is not a big deal.

People cheat already in normal marriages. People that are married change their sexual orientation and/or gender. Checking a box is crazy. Consider Caitlyn Jenner who later changed gender

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If there's one man and multiple women then it's not exactly an equal dynamic and is not at all the same as a normal marriage between two people.

Did you really write...''normal marriage''? "between two people"? Seriously? Do you not realize that your statement 20 years ago would have been...marriage between a man and woman...it's changed...and you expect it to remain to two? two?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a big fan of legalizing it. I would suggest that it would require a different set of rules. Mandatory family trusts? Mandatory declaration of intent of polygamy at first marriage? Mandatory notification of present spouse about new spouse? Waiting period for existing spouse to opt out? Mandatory minimum incomes? Agree it can get complicated. Might have to borrow laws and rules from countries that already do this. But it can be done.
My feeling is that the man should have to state that he intends to be polygamist BEFORE marrying the first wife. Nor surprises. Or, the couple may be able to check a box MONOGAMOUS. If he changes his mind, big fine.
Also, minimum income to get a second spouse. Not an income that comes from the first wife, but a from the husband.
Maybe each of these cases might need to be handled on a case by case basis like an adoption. Each family puts in for approval, based mostly on income.
I guess only 5% of men max would want more than one wife. So it is not a big deal.

People cheat already in normal marriages. People that are married change their sexual orientation and/or gender. Checking a box is crazy. Consider Caitlyn Jenner who later changed gender

A friend of mine told me that her father had two wives in Kenya. He just all of a sudden came home and told wife #1 that he wanted to get another wife. She had no idea that he'd ever consider such a thing. She had like 8 of his kids. She was powerless to do anything. Divorce would have left her penniless.
I support the legalization, but people need to know what they are getting into. What Bruce Jenner did was unconscionable. Gay people who marry straight then switch get no respect from me. This stuff is just unnecessarily messy.

[Anonymous]

I think OP is right. In late 1800s there was constitutional decision by Supreme Court that found Mormon polygamous marriages were illegal and not protected by freedom of religion clause. In light of today's decision on gay marriage, that ruling would not stand.

A person who claimed religious reason for marrying more than 1 person would survive a legal challenge. That is why Utah and western states aren't prosecuting polygamists now

[Anonymous]

Get the popcorn

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to say, if you want the government out of marriage, the government should get out of marriage. Huge problems though when it comes to workplace benefits

It's actually quite simple -- no workplace benefits for any spouses! The idea that a spouse should get benefits even though he or she doesn't work there, is a relic of the 1950's era when the man worked and the woman stayed home. Today the spouse almost certainly has his or her own job, and spousal benefits are a relic of history

I live in a DC suburb and practically every mom in my neighborhood with a child under 8 stays at home, so no I wouldn't say it's a relic at all