Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The thing I wonder about with polygamy is stuff like health insurance. I don't think many employers would be happy having to pay for more coverage for additional spouses or children from those spouses.
I agree, and that is the tip of the iceberg. There are hundreds of legal protections and privileges granted to spouses which will each have to be re-thought if people can simultaneously be married to more than one person.
IMO, the end result of legal plural marriage will be the erosion of those legal protections and privileges for all. For that reason, I don't want to see plural marriage becoming legal.
But this case, as jjrose pointed out, is not actually about plural marriage becoming legal. I see no reason at all whatsoever why cohabitation of consenting adults is any of the state's business. I hope that the Browns are successful.
Unfortunately gov't pretty much had to be involved with marriage because of the benefit aspect. Social Security payouts, health insurance coverage. Adding a same sex spouse doesn't impact health insurance premiums any differently than an opposite sex spouse likewise with social security distributions nor does it impact number of dependents one can claim unequally. Multiple spouses impacts could impact all of the above and so if it were to become "legal" then decisions would have to be made regarding this plus much more.
I agree, and that is the tip of the iceberg. There are hundreds of legal protections and privileges granted to spouses which will each have to be re-thought if people can simultaneously be married to more than one person.
IMO, the end result of legal plural marriage will be the erosion of those legal protections and privileges for all. For that reason, I don't want to see plural marriage becoming legal.
But this case, as jjrose pointed out, is not actually about plural marriage becoming legal. I see no reason at all whatsoever why cohabitation of consenting adults is any of the state's business. I hope that the Browns are successful.
First step towards that end goal. Just like decriminalization of sodomy was the first step towards SSM. They have paid attention to the playbook.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Unfortunately gov't pretty much had to be involved with marriage because of the benefit aspect. Social Security payouts, health insurance coverage. Adding a same sex spouse doesn't impact health insurance premiums any differently than an opposite sex spouse likewise with social security distributions nor does it impact number of dependents one can claim unequally. Multiple spouses impacts could impact all of the above and so if it were to become "legal" then decisions would have to be made regarding this plus much more.
Social Security - If you are my spouse, I die and you get $400 per month from being my spouse, it would remain the same, $400 would go to the the spouses. If I had four wives, each would receive $100.
Health Insurance - If I have a wife and six kids, they all get covered, I just pay a bit more. If I have four wives and sixteen kids, they all get covered, I just pay a bit more.
Further reading shows that the Browns are claiming that the cohabitation laws violate their first amendment rights to free exercise of their religion also.
Quote:
Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-101 imposes a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion for the Brown family and other plural families
Quote:
In 1894, Congress passed the Utah Enabling Act. The Act authorized the territory of Utah to ratify a constitution and be admitted to the union provided that “polygamous or plural marriages” shall be “forever prohibited.” By placing the prohibition on polygamy in the same section intended to protect religious liberty, the Enabling Act undoubtedly targeted polygamy for its religious motivation.
Social Security - If you are my spouse, I die and you get $400 per month from being my spouse, it would remain the same, $400 would go to the the spouses. If I had four wives, each would receive $100.
Health Insurance - If I have a wife and six kids, they all get covered, I just pay a bit more. If I have four wives and sixteen kids, they all get covered, I just pay a bit more.
You make it sound so simple. Who's going to force the insurance companies or the SSA to do as you described? Gov't. That's my point.
Group A
These folks were AGAINST same sex couples being able to marry AND they're AGAINST poly groups being able to marry.
Not sure why it's their business, but at least they're consistent. Sometimes they use paranoid slippery-slope arguments about increased crime because the male/female ratio gets thrown out of whack by powerful men hoarding all the women, leading to young men not being serviced and becoming lonely and aimless. Sometimes they revert to argumentum ad antiquitatem. These people were likely to have supported a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage for everyone by their strict, modern, good, Christian definition. Sometimes they're so conservative and authoritarian they squeak.
Group B
These folks were AGAINST same sex couples being able to marry BUT they're OKAY with poly groups being able to marry.
Or maybe that should be *seemingly* okay. Sometimes they're associated with religious groups (ALDS, Muslims) or appeal to those groups. Sometimes they refer to historical precedence where poly has been allowed but same sex has not. Many times they're just frustrated Group A people who want to register their disapproval of same sex marriage by showing how it has opened the door for other whacky types of marriage, such as poly (or marrying your dog or a small child or a blueberry pie). Take that.
Group C
These folks were OKAY with same sex couples being able to marry BUT they're AGAINST poly groups being able to marry.
These people stick hard to the assertion that same sex marriage was ONLY about couples and never had as its aim the allowance of poly marriage. They will stick to their guns, at least for now, because the battles and the victory over same sex marriage is still fresh in their minds and they're loathe to be accused of having a background agenda all along when they insisted during the same sex fight that it was only ever going to be about couples. Sometimes they use very similar terminology to decry poly as their opponents used to decry same sex.
Group D
These folks were OKAY with same sex couples being able to marry AND they're OKAY with poly groups being able to marry.
Everything goes. These people don't seem to revere the institution of marriage much at all. Sometimes they'll want to throw out the word "marriage" altogether in favor of some cold technical term like "contract." Maybe they've lost sight (or never had sight) of the rich tradition of marriage and its social purpose. Maybe they just think who marries whom among consenting adults is none of their business. Maybe they think poly allowance is consistent with same sex allowance. While Group B people push for poly in a passive aggressive way, Group D people see no contradictions. They suspect a subset of Group C people are closeted Group D people.
--------------------------------------------
Of course both the X and Y dimensions are spectrums. Toward the center-line you may just be ho-hum tolerant, a non-judgmental live-and-let-liver, or mildly disapproving, but in your own placid, quiet way. Toward the far end of the Less Tolerant portion you may be virulently opposed -- maybe you're a bile-spewing, hell-damning hater. Toward the far end of the More Tolerant portion you may be militantly in favor -- maybe you're a Sisyphean Social Justice Warrior.
The thing I wonder about with polygamy is stuff like health insurance. I don't think many employers would be happy having to pay for more coverage for additional spouses or children from those spouses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sspistol
Unfortunately gov't pretty much had to be involved with marriage because of the benefit aspect. Social Security payouts, health insurance coverage. Adding a same sex spouse doesn't impact health insurance premiums any differently than an opposite sex spouse likewise with social security distributions nor does it impact number of dependents one can claim unequally. Multiple spouses impacts could impact all of the above and so if it were to become "legal" then decisions would have to be made regarding this plus much more.
You both beat me to the point I was going to make. As it stands now, for health insurance coverage for a family can be a family of 3 or a family of 19 (Dugger style). That's bad enough, but when you add multiple females bearing multiple off-spring, I don't want to be paying for someone's Nth child.
Second issue- what do you do about SS and aid to dependent children? If this guy has 5 wives and 25 children, do you want the government paying for 30 dependents (spouses included) if something happens to him?
Way too much to unravel from a legal perspective if polygamy is recognized by the states as a form of marriage. Having said that, I don't think it should be illegal if they want to live together, but you only get one "official" spouse and family.
I have issues with the sewer of morality we have come to accept as somehow normal.
I have issues with your blatant Authoritarianism. Here are my observations. You are a Statist Paternalist. You seek to use intrusive big government and its coercive powers to push your own arbitrary moral code on everyone else. You revel in CONTROL. You can't stomach 'live and let live.'
Quote:
Originally Posted by notmeofficer
Goats and dogs next.
Feverishly paranoid.
But let's say that came to pass. Same sex marriage, poly marriage, marriage with animals, marriage with blueberry pie. What's it to you? Go live your own life. Stop worrying about what others do, and stop trying to control others.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
