Defense for Canadian Polygamists Cites Gay Marriage

[Alyrium Denryle]

Granted, it might be misused...

That said, I'd like to hear Aly's input on the other point, that this form of poly marriage would only be legitimate if all the partners mutually consented to it. Wouldn't that be liable to keep the rates of polygamy low because few women would share their ideal mates with other women?

It might. Maybe even probably. Then again people are not exactly rational actors and can be cajoled into a lot of things. There is a difference between giving consent and enthusiastically embracing a third partner.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It's possible, but it would require said partner to sacrifice a lot, since benefits would have to be evenly divided between all of the partners instead of just one. For example, if you're the sole spouse of someone who dies and doesn't have a will, now everything is divided equally. If they have a widow's pension thingy, that gets cut in half, etc, etc. That's the only way to make it legally work, the partners involved have to understand that for three people they're going to get half as much, for four people one-third as much, and so on. This is however ethically acceptable because in such a relationship it is much easier for multiple partners to work while another cares for the kids, und so weiter. So I think the practical/legal elements will simultaneously be eminently handleable, and at the same time will be just complex and restrictive enough to provide a further deterrent toward widespread polygyny, if that makes sense.

For end-of-life decisions, it could simply be a requirement than in polygamous marriages, it is an absolute requirement that each partner have a living will specifying what should be done in such situations, or else the marriage will not be registered.

[Darth Wong]

How do you split up medical benefits? If wife #1 of 3 goes to the orthodontist and has $3500 of work done, does the insurance company pay only one third of it?

[Broomstick]

I guess that depends on how your insurance is set up, doesn't it? If there's universal coverage of something then the question is moot. Here in the US, you sometimes have a choice of policy for 1 person, for 1 person + 1 (dependent or spouse), and 1 person + family (for more money, but covers everyone under definition of "family"). Clearly, in the the circumstance described coverage under a family policy should include spouses as well as children or other legal dependents. Right now, if two adults in the family work each might have their own, separate policy through work so in a plural marriage each spouse might be covered by his/her own policy. Or be covered under a spouse's policy as family/dependent.

Not insurmountable, but may require some adjustments in policy language and premiums.

[Darth Wong]

Even with universal coverage, you're still going to have insurance companies, because universal coverage doesn't cover everything; just whatever society feels is necessary. For example, no sane universal health care plan would cover teeth whitening treatments. But some private plans might.

[Broomstick]

Quite true. But rewording policy terms keeps health insurance lawyers employed. They could simply charge premiums based on the number of people covered, for example.

[Darth Wong]

That doesn't work for group insurance contracts, which are negotiated under an assumption of no more than one spouse per employee. They would have to be renegotiated en masse, with increased premiums for everyone (even if they don't have multiple spouses) and the fact that it keeps lawyers employed is not exactly what I would call a good thing.

[Broomstick]

Well, it keeps the lawyers off the streets....

I mentioned the person+1 health contract - that could be a single parent and child, an employee with an elderly and dependent parent, employee and spouse.... which is distinct from the person+family contract, which is intended for those with more than one dependent. Clearly, at the very least, a plural marriage comes under "person+family". Perhaps we'd see policies that are "person+adults in household" vs "person+children", or "plural marriage, premium based on adults in marriage". There are some creative ways around this, and while insurance companies may initially complain I think they'd quickly get on board when they find new ways to make money off plural marriages. That is what insurance companies do, after all.

Or perhaps all insurance policies would have premiums based on number of lives covered - for group policies rates are already set by lives covered, that's why larger groups get lower rates, it spreads the risk out.

[Darth Wong]

I know that's what insurance companies do. I'm thinking of the employers who have to pay for these contracts while employees continue to expect full coverage.

[Broomstick]

Hm... I see, I was looking at your concern from the wrong side. Well, the American workforce has been heavily conditioned and is used to getting shit on in regards to insurance. The rest of the world might have issues.

One "solution" used by an increasing number of employers here is to simply drop insurance coverage of employees. Personally, I'm not a fan of that approach but I do see the appeal from the viewpoint of saving money for the employer.

The problem would only crop up for plural marriages themselves. A simple rewording of the policies to exclude adult members of the family unless an additional premium is paid might work to the extent that most would not be affected and not protest, while those few affected would either accept it or would be too few to make a change.

Food for thought.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Hm... I see, I was looking at your concern from the wrong side. Well, the American workforce has been heavily conditioned and is used to getting shit on in regards to insurance. The rest of the world might have issues.

One "solution" used by an increasing number of employers here is to simply drop insurance coverage of employees. Personally, I'm not a fan of that approach but I do see the appeal from the viewpoint of saving money for the employer.

The problem would only crop up for plural marriages themselves. A simple rewording of the policies to exclude adult members of the family unless an additional premium is paid might work to the extent that most would not be affected and not protest, while those few affected would either accept it or would be too few to make a change.

Food for thought.

Instituting universal healthcare would also be good, as pretty much all insurance premiums would then be eliminated for companies because why would they cover non-basic procedures, except for the big wigs at the top who by extension can happily vote enough money for premiums for themselves for howevermany women they want to sleep with; I don't think in Canada or France it would actually be a major issue, for instance, because of that. The USA needs national health care, so.