Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote: If the legal standard for a legitimate relationship is consenting adults, there's no reason polygamy should be illegal. Tax-wise, however, it would be a nightmare . Our tax system is predicated on monogamy for child credits, spousal benefits, income adjustments etc, so I don't see it happening any time soon. In the Muslim community, I know of some polygamous marriages & was just announced one a few days ago, the issue with those marriages in the US is that the 2nd/3rd/xnth wife doesn't have any legal rights which gives her little to zero protection in case of divorce, abuse ect. and this creates other socio-economic issues as well.

You already can't double dip on child credits can you? Like if your married and filing separately both spouses can't take full child credit can they? If not, it would be the same if you had 5 spouse, only one can claim credit for a given child.

Muslima wrote: If the legal standard for a legitimate relationship is consenting adults, there's no reason polygamy should be illegal. Tax-wise, however, it would be a nightmare . Our tax system is predicated on monogamy for child credits, spousal benefits, income adjustments etc, so I don't see it happening any time soon. In the Muslim community, I know of some polygamous marriages & was just announced one a few days ago, the issue with those marriages in the US is that the 2nd/3rd/xnth wife doesn't have any legal rights which gives her little to zero protection in case of divorce, abuse ect. and this creates other socio-economic issues as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote: If the legal standard for a legitimate relationship is consenting adults, there's no reason polygamy should be illegal. Tax-wise, however, it would be a nightmare . Our tax system is predicated on monogamy for child credits, spousal benefits, income adjustments etc, so I don't see it happening any time soon. In the Muslim community, I know of some polygamous marriages & was just announced one a few days ago, the issue with those marriages in the US is that the 2nd/3rd/xnth wife doesn't have any legal rights which gives her little to zero protection in case of divorce, abuse ect. and this creates other socio-economic issues as well.

Interesting. How many legal rights regarding the above does she have in countries where polygamy is legal, compared to her husband?

What kind of logic is that?

I agree the legal situation here is complicated , and many laws would need to be written so all the wives are on equal footing with each other and their husband. Wouldn't it be simplest just to copy the code from.countries where polygamy is institutionalized?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote: If the legal standard for a legitimate relationship is consenting adults, there's no reason polygamy should be illegal. Tax-wise, however, it would be a nightmare . Our tax system is predicated on monogamy for child credits, spousal benefits, income adjustments etc, so I don't see it happening any time soon. In the Muslim community, I know of some polygamous marriages & was just announced one a few days ago, the issue with those marriages in the US is that the 2nd/3rd/xnth wife doesn't have any legal rights which gives her little to zero protection in case of divorce, abuse ect. and this creates other socio-economic issues as well.

Interesting. How many legal rights regarding the above does she have in countries where polygamy is legal, compared to her husband?

What kind of logic is that?

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote: If the legal standard for a legitimate relationship is consenting adults, there's no reason polygamy should be illegal. Tax-wise, however, it would be a nightmare . Our tax system is predicated on monogamy for child credits, spousal benefits, income adjustments etc, so I don't see it happening any time soon. In the Muslim community, I know of some polygamous marriages & was just announced one a few days ago, the issue with those marriages in the US is that the 2nd/3rd/xnth wife doesn't have any legal rights which gives her little to zero protection in case of divorce, abuse ect. and this creates other socio-economic issues as well.

Interesting. How many legal rights regarding the above does she have in countries where polygamy is legal, compared to her husband?

Muslima wrote: If the legal standard for a legitimate relationship is consenting adults, there's no reason polygamy should be illegal. Tax-wise, however, it would be a nightmare . Our tax system is predicated on monogamy for child credits, spousal benefits, income adjustments etc, so I don't see it happening any time soon. In the Muslim community, I know of some polygamous marriages & was just announced one a few days ago, the issue with those marriages in the US is that the 2nd/3rd/xnth wife doesn't have any legal rights which gives her little to zero protection in case of divorce, abuse ect. and this creates other socio-economic issues as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...

I find it funny that this case was about superseding states rights on marriage yet she invokes states rights "a host of complicated questions that states, which have jurisdiction over marriage"...

I don't think the decision removed the regulation of marriage from the states. It merely subjected them to the restriction that, in their regulations, they treat every individual the same regardless of gender. States regulate the licensing of drivers, but they cannot, for example, say that licenses for trucks shall be limited to men, and pink cars may only be driven by women, because everyone knows that truck-drivers are traditionally male and pink is a traditionally feminine color.

What the SCOTUS did through this precedent was to call into question whether states have that right anymore and a reasonable conclusion is no, they do not.

I also found Justice Kennedy's statement less than amusing as the premise is obsolete...

"“Without the recognition, stability and predictability marriage offers,” he wrote, “their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.”

Approve same sex marriage...but do you have any idea how many couples in this nation aren't married and have children in the home? It's a growing demographic btw and last I saw 22% of births had two in the home but not married. What he wrote was right out of the 50's.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because there is no legitimately negative impact on the state in gay marriage. With polygamy, there is.

Explain.

I can't help laughing at people who celebrate gay marriage but condemn polygamists. Really?

Not condemning. If they all want to live together as consenting adults, have at it.
But when you want legal recognition as a spouse, that means something in terms of inheritance, next of kin, probate, etc. etc. Polygamy creates an impossible morass, legally, that taxpayers shouldn't have to fund.

Maybe if they file a prenup, sort of like articles of incorporation, prior to the marriage, that spells out all the typical legal problems and how they will be addressed. That could solve the challenge for the state.

Agree, and you can easily impose special taxes or fees on these unions to cover the anticipated court costs...

From what I understand, SCOTUS didn't take societal costs into account when they decided on the gay marriage. Why should it be different for polygamists?

I simply don't buy the "morass" argument. Plenty of morass is created by serial monogamy, and no one bats an eye. Equality is a bitch, so you can't tax polygamists into oblivion either

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because there is no legitimately negative impact on the state in gay marriage. With polygamy, there is.

Explain.

I can't help laughing at people who celebrate gay marriage but condemn polygamists. Really?

Not condemning. If they all want to live together as consenting adults, have at it.
But when you want legal recognition as a spouse, that means something in terms of inheritance, next of kin, probate, etc. etc. Polygamy creates an impossible morass, legally, that taxpayers shouldn't have to fund.

Maybe if they file a prenup, sort of like articles of incorporation, prior to the marriage, that spells out all the typical legal problems and how they will be addressed. That could solve the challenge for the state.

Agree, and you can easily impose special taxes or fees on these unions to cover the anticipated court costs...