The INDEFENSIBLE Defense of Marriage Act

[GwynnInTheHall]

That's the problem no one thinks they are. Sometimes you have to confront them.

+1...

[B-Fly]

One issue with polygamy is that it has historically been deeply intertwined with forced marriages, child brides and general subjugation of women. Despite those who insist that marriage has always been defined the same way throughout history, it's not at all true. Marriage has evolved dramatically, both socially and legally, particularly in the developed world, to mitigate those aspects of the marriage institution that have been used historically to strip rights and protections away from women. Ending polygamous marriage was actually one of the earliest evolutions in that direction. Now, we socially and legally support age-of-consent laws, opposed forced marriages, have eliminated laws that make married women chattel, and have divorce laws designed to permit women to escape abusive marriages, and matrimony and child support laws to financially protect women who wish to end their marriage. (Yes, those laws can be used by men, too, but they've largely been structured in the US and elsewhere to protect the rights of women.) Plural marriage, even if you could purge the aspects of compelled marriage and underage marriage from its practice, create significant problems with respect to matters of divorce and attendant questions of property distribution, matrimony and child support. Gay marriage of two people, on the other hand, fits in just perfectly with existing laws around divorce, community property, spousal and child support, etc.

[Moonlight J]

[Erik]

"Because marriage is about TWO people - any two people."
"Ok, but I thought it was two opposite-sex people until a minute ago, and that was narrow-minded. But limiting this to two people is NOT narrow-minded?"

This is actually very similar to Santorum's argument in the infamous "man on dog" interview.

[Judge Jude]

I don't think so. Current and likely future marriage law is about people. Adding anything other than people seems like much more of a stretch to me, though it at least does broach the fact that there ARE limits.

[DMT]

I don't think so. Current and likely future marriage law is about people. Adding anything other than people seems like much more of a stretch to me, though it at least does broach the fact that there ARE limits.

And those limits will be ultimately decided by society, which has, over time, shifted to include homosexual couples, who far outnumber polygamists. Besides the legal quagmires that would preclude welcoming polygamists into the marriage circle, there likely will never be a sizable enough minority to advocate on their behalf.

[The Dane]

While I could never see it working for myself, am I the only one here that has no problem with polygamy? I wouldn't want to "share" my wife with another man, (read: Fresno Bob) nor would I want to be with a woman that didn't feel possessive enough about me to want to "share" me, but I can imagine that there are people for whom this might me a desirable situation. I also don't want to marry a man, but I can see how someone else may want to. Does it really matter all that much to whom some people want to marry?

In all fairness, many Mormon women were early leaders in the suffrage movement. Their main contention was that a normal marriage puts an unfair burden on the woman who is shackled to the home with the responsibilities of the house and children, whereas a woman in a polygamous marriage has the opportunity to improve herself through education or whatever personal hobbies she may have. They believed that a polygamous marriage allowed the woman to actually exist outside of the marriage, because there were always plenty of people around to pick up the slack when she was off doing something for herself. I'm not saying I buy this argument 100%, but there is at the very least some food for thought.

[SeaDogStat]

Yeah, I don't really have a problem with polygamy among consenting adults.

Have you run this by the wife yet?

[johnnya24]

Two wives ... two women to nag at you ... no thanks?

[Don Quixote]

I read that the Chinese ideogram for "trouble" consists of two women under one roof. Whether this is true or not I'll leave to our resident scholars in Chinese. If it's false, it's still a good story.

[Fresno Bob]

Two wives ... two women to nag at you ... no thanks?

That's always been my thought as well, ****e, if there's two, then they outnumber you, imagine those arguements! I know that if anything ever happened to my current wife, I'd never get married again.

[johnnya24]

That's always been my thought as well, ****e, if there's two, then they outnumber you, imagine those arguements! I know that if anything ever happened to my current wife, I'd never get married again.

Imagine the cattiness if one thinks you are paying more attention to the other ... and the lies you'd have to tell to keep them both happy ... just too many balls to keep in the air. Sounds like a miserable life to me ... the sh!tty parts of married life x2.

[JudeBaldo]

There is such a thing as the law of demising returns.

[DMT]

That's always been my thought as well, ****e, if there's two, then they outnumber you, imagine those arguements! I know that if anything ever happened to my current wife, I'd never get married again.

My thoughts exactly.

[johnnya24]

What happens when a convicted polygamist is released from jail ... he just goes back home and continues as before? Do social services get involved if there are children?