The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

With the Mormons who practice it over here, only the first wife is recognized by the government and then all others are only recognized by their local sect/cult of Mormonism. However, like you note, having the marriages take place in a foreign country, likely recognized by that government, has to change something in the eyes of our government(s) here.

From Snopes, only one wife is recognized, regardless of the marital status in the other country.

While marriage laws have been modified in some states to include same-sex couples, plural marriages (i.e., more than two spouses) are still not legally sanctioned in any state. It's common knowledge that many families do engage in polygamous or polyamorous household arrangements, but only one partner can be legally recognized as a spouse in such circumstances.

So basically it would be like a gay couple moving to Uganda. Good luck with that.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Fair enough, but I'm not sure how far that argument can get in court.

Back it up 30 years ago and it would have been unthinkable to countenance same sex marriage.

From Snopes, only one wife is recognized, regardless of the marital status in the other country.

For now. Ditto for more than one husband, you sexist pig.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

POA (at least in healthcare) follows a succession if not otherwise delegated. It starts with spouse then children, parents and siblings. If more than one child (or parent or sibling) exists than the decision must be a consensus. I'd imagine that it would be similar with multiple spouses.

[SOAPBOX] FILL OUT A HEALTHCARE POWER OF ATTORNEY FORM. LET THOSE WHOM YOU DESIGNATE KNOW WHAT YOUR WISHES ARE FOR LIFE SUPPORT, FEEDING TUBES, ETC. [/SOAPBOX]
It's a royal pain in arse when families argue over what the patient did or did not want.

It's my understanding that it is state-law specific. I know that there is more than one kind of document involved. One is durable power of attorney for healthcare, another is a different document giving directives on how you want to be treated under a variety of circumstances when you cannot make your own decisions.

When my wife was taken to the emergency room, I grabbed the set of documents on my way out the door. it turns out that having them with me saved a lot of time hassle and complication when I got there.

Support your soapbox speech 100%. Not only get those documents signed, have them in a place where you can find them quickly! I hope none of you ever need them.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

For now. Ditto for more than one husband, you sexist pig.

Multiple husbands make more sense topologically. Usually.

 

[alfablue]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Back it up 30 years ago and it would have been unthinkable to countenance same sex marriage.

True.

But I'm not sure how one can claim that the number of wives you want is akin to race, gender, or sexual orientation. Or that that it should get protection as a religion subset. I'm sure there are religions out there that have some kind of human sacrifice as part of it, too- should we allow that?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

I'm sure there are religions out there that have some kind of human sacrifice as part of it, too- should we allow that?

Consent would be tough. Though supposedly the Aztec sacrifices competed for it as an honor. And religions are good at fusing the wires.

 

[burd]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Back it up 30 years ago and it would have been unthinkable to countenance same sex marriage.

True, but you see for about 295,000 years gay pairings were preferred. The population bomb that will be our undoing did not detonate until people started to fancy the opposite sex. That's how you know hetero sex was not meant to be.

Really.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

My argument would be that a polygamist is a type of person just as a homosexual is a type of person just as a Jew is a type of person just as a Caucasian is a type of person etc.

Even if I grant you that someone who wants to be married to multiple people is a different "type" of person, polygamy does not have to be legal for the law to treat all types of people equally: polygamist types can marry exactly one person of any type (same as non-polygamist types) and neither type can marry more than one person. There's no equal protection issue when it comes to polygamy.

Just because we consider polygamist to be a "type" doesn't mean that we have to indulge those desires, any more than we have to indulge the desires of the "type" of person who wants to shoot random strangers.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Even if I grant you that someone who wants to be married to multiple people is a different "type" of person, polygamy does not have to be legal for the law to treat all types of people equally: polygamist types can marry exactly one person of any type (same as non-polygamist types) and neither type can marry more than one person. There's no equal protection issue when it comes to polygamy.

Just because we consider polygamist to be a "type" doesn't mean that we have to indulge those desires, any more than we have to indulge the desires of the "type" of person who wants to shoot random strangers.

If you go down that line of argument, though, you run into this old canard: why do we then have to "indulge those desires" for gay people? Gays can marry exactly one person of the opposite sex (same as non-gay people) and neither gays nor straight people can marry someone of the same sex.

You can distinguish polygamy from gay marriage, but not using that line of logic.

 

[busterman62]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

If you go down that line of argument, though, you run into this old canard: why do we then have to "indulge those desires" for gay people? Gays can marry exactly one person of the opposite sex (same as non-gay people) and neither gays nor straight people can marry someone of the same sex.

You can distinguish polygamy from gay marriage, but not using that line of logic.

Agreed.

Brown v Buhman allows for cohabitation of multiple partners. IMO, polygamous marriage is next. Most all of the arguments for and against it have been used with gay marriage.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Agreed.

Brown v Buhman allows for cohabitation of multiple partners. IMO, polygamous marriage is next. Most all of the arguments for and against it have been used with gay marriage.

Agreed. This is obvious.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Agreed.

Brown v Buhman allows for cohabitation of multiple partners. IMO, polygamous marriage is next. Most all of the arguments for and against it have been used with gay marriage.

From my exhaustive 3 minute review of that decision, it seems to lead to exactly the opposite of what you are saying. B&B just says Utah can't decalre "living together" to be the same as "married" for purposes of applying anti-bigamy laws. Which is a Good Thing -- it means if your wife's sister is living with you while her house is being redone (um, for ten years... it's a big job), Governor Gladys Do-Gooder can't declare you married to both and throw you in the clink.

B&B specifically stops the "slippery slope" argument you guys have put forward by underlining the singularity of marriage. B&B as a precedent is at best irrelevant to a poly case attempting to pluralize marriage, and may be an obstacle.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Agreed. This is obvious.

As obvious as Biblical interpretations.

 

[busterman62]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

From my exhaustive 3 minute review of that decision, it seems to lead to exactly the opposite of what you are saying. B&B just says Utah can't decalre "living together" to be the same as "married" for purposes of applying anti-bigamy laws. Which is a Good Thing -- it means if your wife's sister is living with you while her house is being redone (um, for ten years... it's a big job), Governor Gladys Do-Gooder can't declare you married to both and throw you in the clink.

B&B specifically stops the "slippery slope" argument you guys have put forward by underlining the singularity of marriage. B&B as a precedent is at best irrelevant to a poly case attempting to pluralize marriage, and may be an obstacle.

My 4 minute review of BvB does not differ much from yours, just the conclusion about the "slippery slope".

BvB says prosecuting religious based polygamy while ignoring other cohabitation is discriminatory. Brown didn't seek to address the legal status of "marriage" in the case so little more than the decriminalization of cohabitation was achieved. However, historically anal sex was a criminal offense in many states but was almost exclusively used to prosecute/persecute gays. The 14th said this was discriminatory also and decriminalized the practice. My opinion is that the two causes are similar enough that BvB will be viewed as the polygamist's Lawrence v Texas. Time will tell which of us are correct.

FWIW, my primary interest here is academic since I really don't care how it turns out. I have a tough enough time keeping one wife happy and don't see a whole lot of reasons why anyone would take on additional ones. While I fully understand Bob's & Joe's position on the matter (religious based), what I'm having a tough time with is those who are for gay marriage rights don't seem to want to extend them to polygamists. Neither practice harms them, their marriages or society any more so than gay marriage will.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

My 4 minute review of BvB does not differ much from yours, just the conclusion about the "slippery slope".

Well, I'm not going to argue with someone who was willing to put in the work.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

what I'm having a tough time with is those who are for gay marriage rights don't seem to want to extend them to polygamists. Neither practice harms them, their marriages or society any more so than gay marriage will.

I can't speak for others, but personally I don't have a problem in principle with the polys. I've even known a longtime polyamorous couple who appear to have made it work (explanation: Oregon). My concerns about polygamy in practice are about consent and equality. At least initially, most American poly marriages would be gross old guys with stables of brainwashed, barely legal rape victims like FLDS on the CO-AZ border. There are economic issues about divvying up property but as somebody (you?) alluded to, they're no more complicated than multiple members chartering a corporation.

But I'd still be very surprised to see a social evolution in the acceptance of polygamy with anything like the speed of gay rights (zero to sixty in less than half a century), and rights are "discovered" out of social agreement. It's possible some alliance of Christian and Muslim fundamentalists would agitate for it, but absent some weird event, like a plague that kills 90% of men before puberty, I can't see it happening.

But of course, I wouldn't be able to see it happening, since by the time it did I'd be dead or on the obsolete shelf with the guy who wants to stone people for adultery.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

At least initially, most American poly marriages would be gross old guys with stables of brainwashed, barely legal rape victims

Don't see any point in dragging Woody Allen into this debate.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Don't see any point in dragging Woody Allen into this debate.

Or Roman Polanski.

 

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

POA (at least in healthcare) follows a succession if not otherwise delegated. It starts with spouse then children, parents and siblings. If more than one child (or parent or sibling) exists than the decision must be a consensus. I'd imagine that it would be similar with multiple spouses.

[SOAPBOX] FILL OUT A HEALTHCARE POWER OF ATTORNEY FORM. LET THOSE WHOM YOU DESIGNATE KNOW WHAT YOUR WISHES ARE FOR LIFE SUPPORT, FEEDING TUBES, ETC. [/SOAPBOX]
It's a royal pain in arse when families argue over what the patient did or did not want.

Support the soapbox! The succession is true in nearly all states (I believe 48 out of 50 last I heard). The reason I know this is because the succession is not law in Wisconsin which leads to many cluster ****s. The Wisconsin Medical Society has advocated for Wisconsin to go with the national standard but I think has had to spend influence in other areas within the legislature over the past few years.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

2 boxes this morning. Means either 2 really long ones or 3-4 opinions out of the 7 remaining.