NY Gov. Cuomo Signs Same-Sex Marriage Bill Into Law

[General Mung Beans]

For anyone wanting a good chuckle, you can see the full melt down of the right over at Townhall.com In the story posted about gay marriage passing. The comments are mind numbing, sad and hilarious all at once. Reading through them I think the single biggest aspect they show off is just how much the rabid right is bound by religious dogma. It really is being consolidated down into religious nutters. Virtually everyone who is mindless freaked out about gay marriage at this point is doing so because of their own indoctrination into far right religious dogma and the "slippery slope" fallacy.

About polygamy though-provided all the participants do consent how would it not be acceptable if homosexual marriage is?

Because it causes actual social problems like a biased operational sex ratio (and thus violence, if you want the details, I can go into it. Also, gays do not count toward said operational sex ratio) when widely practiced. Also: it is very very rare for all parties to consent, and there is a really high abuse potential.

Would that many people practice polygamy even if it were legal and the US' gender ratio isn't particularly skewed?

That is why I said "provided", and there are high abuse potentials in many other types of marriages such as those where one partner has a history of mental illness or one with a large age difference.

[Slacker]

Also, it's not actually weakening protections for gays in the state- the same religious exceptions were already in the discrimination protection laws New York uses, so anything they can now do to married gays they were already legally allowed to do against unmarried gays in the same way

And again, how many gay couples were looking to get married at the Roman Catholic Church or have their reception at the Knights of Columbus, exactly? Most catering halls here on Long Island go out of their way to point out how they're friendly to commitment ceremonies, they did so when my wife and I were looking at places to get married a couple of years ago and I can't imagine it's done anything but gotten anything but better since then.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Would that many people practice polygamy even if it were legal and the US' gender ratio isn't particularly skewed?

Yes. That many people would practice polygamy. How many people cheat on their wives, and might just... marry the mistress? Also, I am talking about the operational sex ratio, the ratio of males to females who are available ie. not married.

That is why I said "provided", and there are high abuse potentials in many other types of marriages such as those where one partner has a history of mental illness or one with a large age difference.

It is systemic in polygamous systems. Look at every extant area where it is practiced, and what the status of women is.

[Edi]

Polygamy also presents a whole different kettle of problems related to property rights, taxes etc that are present in a marriage.

A non-polygamous marriage is a legal contract between two people. A polygamous marriage is a legal contract between three or more people and thus it is by definition different. The existing laws have absolutely zero trouble adapting to a gay marriage situation, since ultimately that is no different from any heterosexual marriage in the legal sense. When you throw in a third, fourth and fifth wheel (or more), the issues become far different since everyone's rights and obligations need to be balanced and the potential for conflicts is vastly increased.

[Soontir C'boath]

Here's the bill itself.

A8354-2011: Enacts the Marriage Equality Act relating to ability of individuals to marry


Sponsor: O'Donnell (MS)
Co-sponsor(s): Gottfried, Glick, Titone, Kellner, Bronson, Rivera J, Silver, Farrell, Sayward, Lentol, Nolan, Weisenberg, Arroyo, Brennan, Dinowitz, Hoyt, Lifton, Millman, Cahill, Paulin, Reilly, Bing, Jeffries, Jaffee, Rosenthal, Kavanagh, DenDekker, Schimel, Hevesi, Benedetto, Schroeder, Miller J, Lavine, Lancman, Linares, Moya, Roberts, Simotas, Abinanti, Braunstein
Law Section: Domestic Relations Law
A8354-2011 Summary
Enacts the Marriage Equality Act relating to ability of individuals to marry.
A8354-2011 Actions

referred to judiciary
reported referred to rules
reported
rules report cal.320
ordered to third reading rules cal.320
message of necessity - 3 day message
passed assembly
delivered to senate
ORDERED TO THIRD READING CAL.1545
MESSAGE OF NECESSITY
PASSED SENATE
RETURNED TO ASSEMBLY
delivered to governor
signed chap.95

A8354-2011 Votes
Ayes (33): Adams, Addabbo, Alesi, Avella, Breslin, Carlucci, Dilan, Duane, Espaillat, Gianaris, Grisanti, Hassell-Thompson, Huntley, Kennedy, Klein, Krueger, Kruger, McDonald, Montgomery, Oppenheimer, Parker, Peralta, Perkins, Rivera, Saland, Sampson, Savino, Serrano, Smith, Squadron, Stavisky, Stewart-Cousins, Valesky

Nays (29): Ball, Bonacic, DeFrancisco, Diaz, Farley, Flanagan, Fuschillo, Gallivan, Golden, Griffo, Hannon, Johnson, Lanza, Larkin, LaValle, Libous, Little, Marcellino, Martins, Maziarz, Nozzolio, O'Mara, Ranzenhofer, Ritchie, Robach, Seward, Skelos, Young, Zeldin

A8354-2011 Text
S T A T E O F N E W Y O R K
8354
2011-2012 Regular Sessions I N ASSEMBLY June 14, 2011
Introduced by M. of A. O'DONNELL, GOTTFRIED, GLICK, TITONE, KELLNER, BRONSON, J. RIVERA, SILVER, FARRELL, SAYWARD, LENTOL, NOLAN, WEISEN BERG, ARROYO, BRENNAN, DINOWITZ, HOYT, LIFTON, MILLMAN, CAHILL, PAULIN, REILLY, BING, JEFFRIES, JAFFEE, ROSENTHAL, KAVANAGH, DenDEKK ER, SCHIMEL, HEVESI, BENEDETTO, SCHROEDER, J. MILLER, LAVINE, LANCMAN, LINARES, MOYA, ROBERTS, SIMOTAS, ABINANTI, BRAUNSTEIN -- Multi-Spon sored by -- M. of A. AUBRY, BOYLAND, BROOK-KRASNY, CANESTRARI, COOK, DUPREY, ENGLEBRIGHT, LATIMER, V. LOPEZ, LUPARDO, MAGNARELLI, McENENY, MORELLE, ORTIZ, PRETLOW, RAMOS, N. RIVERA, P. RIVERA, RODRIGUEZ, RUSSELL, SWEENEY, THIELE, TITUS, WEPRIN, WRIGHT, ZEBROWSKI -- (at request of the Governor) -- read once and referred to the Committee on Judiciary


AN ACT to amend the domestic relations law, in relation to the ability to marry

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:


Section 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Marriage Equality Act".

S 2. Legislative intent. Marriage is a fundamental human right. Same sex couples should have the same access as others to the protections, responsibilities, rights, obligations, and benefits of civil marriage. Stable family relationships help build a stronger society. For the welfare of the community and in fairness to all New Yorkers, this act formally recognizes otherwise-valid marriages without regard to whether the parties are of the same or different sex. It is the intent of the legislature that the marriages of same-sex and different-sex couples be treated equally in all respects under the law. The omission from this act of changes to other provisions of law shall not be construed as a legislative intent to preserve any legal distinction between same-sex couples and different-sex couples with respect to marriage. The legislature intends that all provisions of law EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets [ ] is old law to be omitted. LBD12066-04-1
A. 8354 2 which utilize gender-specific terms in reference to the parties to a marriage, or which in any other way may be inconsistent with this act, be construed in a gender-neutral manner or in any way necessary to effectuate the intent of this act.

S 3. The domestic relations law is amended by adding two new sections 10-a and 10-b to read as follows:


S 10-A. PARTIES TO A MARRIAGE. 1. A MARRIAGE THAT IS OTHERWISE VALID SHALL BE VALID REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE PARTIES TO THE MARRIAGE ARE OF THE SAME OR DIFFERENT SEX. 2. NO GOVERNMENT TREATMENT OR LEGAL STATUS, EFFECT, RIGHT, BENEFIT, PRIVILEGE, PROTECTION OR RESPONSIBILITY RELATING TO MARRIAGE, WHETHER DERIVING FROM STATUTE, ADMINISTRATIVE OR COURT RULE, PUBLIC POLICY, COMMON LAW OR ANY OTHER SOURCE OF LAW, SHALL DIFFER BASED ON THE PARTIES TO THE MARRIAGE BEING OR HAVING BEEN OF THE SAME SEX RATHER THAN A DIFFERENT SEX. WHEN NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBIL ITIES OF SPOUSES UNDER THE LAW, ALL GENDER-SPECIFIC LANGUAGE OR TERMS SHALL BE CONSTRUED IN A GENDER-NEUTRAL MANNER IN ALL SUCH SOURCES OF LAW.

S 10-B. APPLICATION. 1. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW, PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION NINE OF SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-TWO OF THE EXECUTIVE LAW, A CORPORATION INCORPORATED UNDER THE BENEVOLENT ORDERS LAW OR DESCRIBED IN THE BENEVOLENT ORDERS LAW BUT FORMED UNDER ANY OTHER LAW OF THIS STATE OR A RELIGIOUS CORPORATION INCORPORATED UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW OR THE RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS LAWS SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE IN ITS NATURE DISTINCTLY PRIVATE AND THEREFORE, SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ACCOMMODATIONS, ADVANTAGES, FACILITIES OR PRIVILEGES RELATED TO THE SOLEMNIZATION OR CELEBRATION OF A MARRIAGE. 2. A REFUSAL BY A BENEVOLENT ORGANIZATION OR A RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, INCORPORATED UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW OR THE RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS LAW, TO PROVIDE ACCOMMODATIONS, ADVANTAGES, FACILITIES OR PRIVILEGES IN CONNECTION WITH SECTION TEN-A OF THIS ARTICLE SHALL NOT CREATE A CIVIL CLAIM OR CAUSE OF ACTION. 3. PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION ELEVEN OF SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-SIX OF THE EXECUTIVE LAW, NOTHING IN THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE DEEMED OR CONSTRUED TO PROHIBIT ANY RELIGIOUS OR DENOMINATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ORGANIZATION, OR ANY ORGANIZATION OPERATED FOR CHARITABLE OR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, WHICH IS OPERATED, SUPERVISED OR CONTROLLED BY OR IN CONNECTION WITH A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION FROM LIMITING EMPLOYMENT OR SALES OR RENTAL OF HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS OR ADMISSION TO OR GIVING PREFERENCE TO PERSONS OF THE SAME RELIGION OR DENOMINATION OR FROM TAKING SUCH ACTION AS IS CALCULATED BY SUCH ORGANIZATION TO PROMOTE THE RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES FOR WHICH IT IS ESTABLISHED OR MAINTAINED.

S 4.

Section 13 of the domestic relations law, as amended by chapter 720 of the laws of 1957, is amended to read as follows:


S 13. Marriage licenses. It shall be necessary for all persons intended to be married in New York state to obtain a marriage license from a town or city clerk in New York state and to deliver said license, within sixty days, to the clergyman or magistrate who is to officiate before the marriage ceremony may be performed. In case of a marriage contracted pursuant to subdivision four of section eleven of this chap ter, such license shall be delivered to the judge of the court of record before whom the acknowledgment is to be taken. If either party to the marriage resides upon an island located not less than twenty-five miles from the office or residence of the town clerk of the town of which such island is a part, and if such office or residence is not on such island such license may be obtained from any justice of the peace residing on A. 8354 3 such island, and such justice, in respect to powers and duties relating to marriage licenses, shall be subject to the provisions of this article governing town clerks and shall file all statements or affidavits received by him while acting under the provisions of this section with the town clerk of such town. NO APPLICATION FOR A MARRIAGE LICENSE SHALL BE DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT THE PARTIES ARE OF THE SAME, OR A DIFFER ENT, SEX.

S 5. Subdivision 1 of section 11 of the domestic relations law, as amended by chapter 319 of the laws of 1959, is amended and a new subdi vision 1-a is added to read as follows:
1. A clergyman or minister of any religion, or by the senior leader, or any of the other leaders, of The Society for Ethical Culture in the city of New York, having its principal office in the borough of Manhat tan, or by the leader of The Brooklyn Society for Ethical Culture, having its principal office in the borough of Brooklyn of the city of New York, or of the Westchester Ethical Society, having its principal office in Westchester county, or of the Ethical Culture Society of Long Island, having its principal office in Nassau county, or of the River dale-Yonkers Ethical Society having its principal office in Bronx coun ty, or by the leader of any other Ethical Culture Society affiliated with the American Ethical Union; PROVIDED THAT NO CLERGYMAN OR MINISTER AS DEFINED IN SECTION TWO OF THE RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS LAW, OR SOCIETY FOR ETHICAL CULTURE LEADER SHALL BE REQUIRED TO SOLEMNIZE ANY MARRIAGE WHEN ACTING IN HIS OR HER CAPACITY UNDER THIS SUBDIVISION. 1-A. A REFUSAL BY A CLERGYMAN OR MINISTER AS DEFINED IN SECTION TWO OF THE RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS LAW, OR SOCIETY FOR ETHICAL CULTURE LEADER TO SOLEMNIZE ANY MARRIAGE UNDER THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL NOT CREATE A CIVIL CLAIM OR CAUSE OF ACTION.

S 6. This act shall take effect on the thirtieth day after it shall have become a law.

Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license are available at http://www.nysenate.gov/copyright-policy.
The software and services provided under this site are offered under the BSD License and the GPL v3 License.

[Omega18]

Yes. That many people would practice polygamy. How many people cheat on their wives, and might just... marry the mistress? Also, I am talking about the operational sex ratio, the ratio of males to females who are available ie. not married.

You appear to be making false assumptions about how the law would potentially be applied in the US.

Clearly a key detail in my view, and probably most people who would be willing to allow legal polygamy in the US is that all parties involved have to consent for the marriage to be allowed. This would include any existing wives. (There are obvious legal reasons for this requirement given the potential complications in any future divorce.) The husband could seek to divorce his first wife, but he can't marry a second one until he actually gets the divorce or the explicit free consent of the first one. (Incidentally for the record a wife married to two husbands which is called polyandry would also be allowed in this situation and you obviously reverse the sexes of the involved parties in my previous example in that case.)

In other words, a glaring obvious check on polygamy would be that the existing wife would be unwilling to put up with it in most cases. The social environment in the US is far different than the countries where polygamy is actually widely practiced. (The religions that most in the US still follow to some degree would also to some degree act as a deterrent against individuals practicing polygamy, the countries where it is practiced have much larger percentages of people following religions which allow it.)

The one other particular specific limitation I would personally feel needs to be included with any allowance of legal polygamy would be that everyone involved needs to be 18 or older, (no exceptions for parental permission) which would help a bit in avoiding the situations which currently occur with power imbalances in the relationship. You can also make the argument that even if all parties involved are under 18 so there is no age imbalance, they really need to make sure they have their first marriage working properly for a bit before they complicate things by adding a third party to the picture.

[Molyneux]

It's about damned time.

On a side note: I think it's likely that the Republicans delayed at least partially because they wanted this to happen on a Friday evening, to minimize the news impact. Also, I'll be giving Dean Skelos an angry phone call tomorrow morning - I've voted for him for several years now, since he seemed an all right sort for a politician. No more.

[Faqa]

It is systemic in polygamous systems. Look at every extant area where it is practiced, and what the status of women is.

Alyrium, that quote and it's underlying logic are unworthy of a scientist, as you will know.

The places where polygamy is practiced are third world shitholes by and large. THAT is what causes the lowered status of women and therefore leads to the polygamous systems in place there. Do you really think a modern, educated Western female would subject herself to such a system? Any such system which arose in a First World country would NOT resemble the systems we see today.

That said, Edi enumerated very real problems that society would have to adjust to as a result of polygamy. Too, even in the West, I imagine this would lead to 'number of mates'='economic status', thus bringing a whole new, fun, dimension to class warfare. And the fact is that almost certainly you would see more men marrying multiple wives than the other way around. Fun.

[Simon_Jester]

Faqa, is poor treatment of women (and the problem of large numbers of unmarried males) not also a problem in minority subcultures that practice polygamy in the developed world, such as the Mormon breakaway groups?

The biggest problems I see with polygamy are economic and consent-based. Disproportionately, rich men will want multiple trophy wives if they can get them, more so than rich women will want trophy husbands and probably far more often than either sex would marry for genuine, trilaterally symmetric, mutual love. Consent forms would help, but there's a strong power dynamic in the kind of marriage I'm talking about that would make signing the form a lot more appealing than demanding a divorce on the grounds that "he wants to marry a second wife!"

[Faqa]

Faqa, is poor treatment of women (and the problem of large numbers of unmarried males) not also a problem in minority subcultures that practice polygamy in the developed world, such as the Mormon breakaway groups?

Aside from the Mormons. who else does in the West? And said breakaway sects are usually living in the middle of nowhere if they do practice polygamy, which largely does leave them at the level of 'third world shithole'.

Regardless, the problem with Mormon-style polygamy is not polygamy it's Mormon, with inherent inequality between the sexes and all the jazz inherent in Abrahamic-derived religions.

The biggest problems I see with polygamy are economic and consent-based. Disproportionately, rich men will want multiple trophy wives if they can get them, more so than rich women will want trophy husbands and probably far more often than either sex would marry for genuine, trilaterally symmetric, mutual love. Consent forms would help, but there's a strong power dynamic in the kind of marriage I'm talking about that would make signing the form a lot more appealing than demanding a divorce on the grounds that "he wants to marry a second wife!"

Oh, true. I didn't say polygamy wouldn't result in a lot of problems. I was just appalled by Alyrium's statement.

The biggest single problem, I think, is the first thing you said. The rest is really on the level of individual choice, but I could see a lot of poor women who would be perfectly prepared to live in a 'harem' in order to escape life in the ghetto. And when rich men can legally form said same.... yeah, poor males with no prospect of marriage is just not good.

[Elfdart]

Victory!



I can't wait for Pat Robertson to blame the next natural disaster on this, if he hasn't already.

Nate Silver has a pretty good article comparing/contrasting Andrew Cuomo's handling of this bill with the craven way Obama has used his office.

[Broomstick]

Faqa, is poor treatment of women (and the problem of large numbers of unmarried males) not also a problem in minority subcultures that practice polygamy in the developed world, such as the Mormon breakaway groups?

Aside from the Mormons. who else does in the West?

NeoPagans.... but it's usually with different results as the ethic there is adult consent and there aren't the fucked up gender roles like in radical Christianity (and I do include Mormons as Christians, even if a lot of Christians don't). But are they usually educated urban types, don't live in exclusive enclaves and try to fly under the radar as much as possible. Very tiny minority.

Oh, true. I didn't say polygamy wouldn't result in a lot of problems. I was just appalled by Alyrium's statement.

I really don't see what is that out of line with what Alyrium stated: in most places polygamy is practiced today his is an accurate observation. The question is whether or not legalized multiple marriages in our society would like to exploitation and abuse or not.

The biggest single problem, I think, is the first thing you said. The rest is really on the level of individual choice, but I could see a lot of poor women who would be perfectly prepared to live in a 'harem' in order to escape life in the ghetto. And when rich men can legally form said same.... yeah, poor males with no prospect of marriage is just not good.

And that's the thing - men are far more likely to keep a harem than women are. There have been a few societies that practiced polyandry, but status of women there was usually no picnic, either, and often the woman had no say in who she would marry or how many. Women have been just as much chattel under polyandry as under polygamy - but is that due to multiple marriage or the larger societies in which they live?

[Serafina]

Aside from the Mormons. who else does in the West? And said breakaway sects are usually living in the middle of nowhere if they do practice polygamy, which largely does leave them at the level of 'third world shithole'.

Regardless, the problem with Mormon-style polygamy is not polygamy it's Mormon, with inherent inequality between the sexes and all the jazz inherent in Abrahamic-derived religions.

The fact is that it is indeed quite hard, if not outright impossible, to find a society that practices polygamy and treats women as equals at the same time. The treatment might not necessarily be that bad, but it's certainly not equal, because polygamy forms in an environment where women have to depend on men.
Whether this is cause or effect is however debatable.


It would indeed be nice to have some legal provisions for three-person relationships. There are indeed people who live in three-person, long-term and stable relationships. The relationship between each individual is equal to a relationship in a two-person marriage, so i fail to see a principal reason why it should be treated dissimilar.
Remember that marriage is mostly about taking responsibility for each other. Most legal objects of marriage revolve around this - a married person has plenty of responsibilities related to looking after the partner in that marriage. Some of those are financial in nature, other relate to looking after the health of the partner or taking care of legal obligations. We derive certain rights from this - a person has a greater right to see a spouse in hospital, for example.

I see no reason why those rights should not be extended to another adult person living in a committed relationship. The major obstacle is resolving precedence of opinion in certain cases - for example the decision about funerals, or whether or not organs might be donated from a deceased spouse. This could be resolved be establishing the right to decide or the decision via testament, which would be mandatory in multi-person marriages.

As for financial benefits, there is no reason why the financial benefit should be greater than that of a two-person marriage. Instead of taking two incomes, combining&splitting them and taxing them at a different rate, we would take three incomes and do the same. This would indeed be greater benefit if the income disparity is equal in both cases (one earner, the rest not earning significantly) - however it would also involved a greater amount of people to be taken care off, thereby necessitating such favorable conditions. In the end the potential for abuse is not different from the potential that already exists for two-person marriages.



In the end, one of the main arguments for polyamorous, polygamist* marriage is similar to that of homosexual marriage: Such relationships exist anyway, and there is no reason to prevent the people involved in them of taking on a legal frame to provide security.


By the way, i am heavily in opposition to traditional polygyny. It is hardly related to polyamory, since the wife(s) generally have little say in taking on another wife, thus not fulfilling the consent-part of polyamorous relationships.


* The word polygamy refers to having multiple spouses and is by itself gender neutral. Polygyny refers to having multiple wives, polyandry to having multiple husbands. Both describe the relationship status of a single person and do not say anything about the relationship between that persons spouses. It is typically that A loves B, C and D, but B, C and D are not necessarily in love with each other.
In contrast to that, the definition of polyamory i am using here means that all people involved are in a relationship with each other - A loves B and C and B loves A and C and C loves A and B (a triangle). This ensures much greater consent about ones partner having multiple partners, and after all consent is essential in such cases.



Bottom line: In principle i would like to see a marriage-like frame for polyamorous (triangle-like) relationships, because they can have equal value to monogamous relationships. It is however of utmost importance to ensure that this does not enable traditional, sexist polygamic marriages.
The key is that every partner in such a relationship should give full consent. This is not the case in traditional polygamy.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I can't wait for Pat Robertson to blame the next natural disaster on this, if he hasn't already.

Be careful what you wish for.

[Dalton]

It's about damned time.

On a side note: I think it's likely that the Republicans delayed at least partially because they wanted this to happen on a Friday evening, to minimize the news impact.

Then it backfired, because a whole parade of enthusiastic LGBTers celebrated yesterday.

[eion]

The major obstacle is resolving precedence of opinion in certain cases - for example the decision about funerals, or whether or not organs might be donated from a deceased spouse. This could be resolved be establishing the right to decide or the decision via testament, which would be mandatory in multi-person marriages.

The issues would be no different than a set of brothers arguing about what to do after their father's death re: organ donation, funeral arrangements, etc. when no written declaration from the deceased exists. As far as I know there are no laws about older brothers being able to overrule younger ones (provided both brothers are adults). A will with clear directives simplifies things greatly, but it is by no means required.

A group marriage, ideally, should be managed a bit like a law firm. Every partner has a vote in group issues and the larger the firm the more important written agreements and procedures are. This is really no different than a couple marriage, except that there every vote is tied or unanimous.

In theory, the dynamics of group marriage are only more complex than a couple marriage, and not inherently different.

As to the OP: GREAT NEWS! New York has been crawling towards marriage equality for years. The number of residents with access to same-sex marriage will more than double with the implementation of this law.

[Faqa]

NeoPagans.... but it's usually with different results as the ethic there is adult consent and there aren't the fucked up gender roles like in radical Christianity (and I do include Mormons as Christians, even if a lot of Christians don't). But are they usually educated urban types, don't live in exclusive enclaves and try to fly under the radar as much as possible. Very tiny minority.

Do any of these relationships include children? If so, how does the group marriage handle them? I suppose I'm simply wondering if these arrangements can work as a family unit as opposed to simply a relationship between consenting adults.

I really don't see what is that out of line with what Alyrium stated: in most places polygamy is practiced today his is an accurate observation. The question is whether or not legalized multiple marriages in our society would like to exploitation and abuse or not.

The original context of his statement was that the abuse in polygamy was inherent to the very concept and he backed this up by pointing to all the places that all the places that allow polygamy abuse women. That is, simply put, very bad logic unless an explanation is forthcoming as to why polygamy created this attitude rather than being a symptom of it.

In the end, one of the main arguments for polyamorous, polygamist* marriage is similar to that of homosexual marriage: Such relationships exist anyway, and there is no reason to prevent the people involved in them of taking on a legal frame to provide security.

Difference being that gay marriage doesn't change existing frameworks - hell, the only attempted change came from governments attempting to redefine marriage to fuck over homosexuals.

Group marriage really is a radical change to how society views marriages. As you say, laws regarding taxation would need to be changed. Legal heirs, children.... and that's even presuming fully liberated consenting adults.

How common is it really for such an arrangement to happen in the context of wanting to put together a family? I'm talking about 3 people, say, who each want to form a family with the other two. It seems to me most polyamoury is more about liberalized sexual mores than it is about romance. If that is offensive, I speak only from ignorance.

[Duckie]

How common is it really for such an arrangement to happen in the context of wanting to put together a family? I'm talking about 3 people, say, who each want to form a family with the other two. It seems to me most polyamoury is more about liberalized sexual mores than it is about romance. If that is offensive, I speak only from ignorance.

This question seems incomprehensible to me. Why would Romance require forming a "Family" (also, are you aware that a family need not have kids? People united in a semi-permanent (let's not kid ourselves about how many relationships work out) relationship of mutual love or at least tolerance for eachother (let's not kid ourselves about many marriages) are already a family by any sensible definition, with or without offspring)

[Faqa]

I never said otherwise. I was asking, rather specifically, about that.

My question is, does this really happen in any appreciable number? A three-way commitment? As opposed to people just having fun, as it were?

[Broomstick]

NeoPagans.... but it's usually with different results as the ethic there is adult consent and there aren't the fucked up gender roles like in radical Christianity (and I do include Mormons as Christians, even if a lot of Christians don't). But are they usually educated urban types, don't live in exclusive enclaves and try to fly under the radar as much as possible. Very tiny minority.

Do any of these relationships include children? If so, how does the group marriage handle them? I suppose I'm simply wondering if these arrangements can work as a family unit as opposed to simply a relationship between consenting adults.

Of course some of them include children, why wouldn't they?

How child custody is handled is going to vary, and it complicated by the fact there is no legal group marriage.* If a person who already has children enters a group marriage then she retains custody and, assuming he/she legally marries one of the family, that person becomes the step-parent. If a couple is married and has children and a third person joins the marriage they may draw up legal documents stating that in the absence/incapacity of the legal parents they want this other person to have custody or make decisions. Some of them are sort of clueless and don't think of or consider these things.

I know of one instance where a gay couple married in the Netherlands, then moved to the US where, of course, their marriage wasn't recognized (this was the mid-1990's, no same sex marriage anywhere in the US at the time). The Dutch member of the couple legally married his husband's sister to clear up residency issues, and the two men were made legal next of kin to the mother so if something happened to her, custody of her children would go to her brother and his husband. That was a three-way marriage not for love but for convenience, and no doubt would have social conservatives screaming and crawling the walls.

NeoPagan groups that either permit or are in favor of group marriages** will perform the ceremonies, but right now there is no legal standing for such unions, where they aren't simply outlawed.

Since there is no legal group marriage in the US they basically have the status of gay marriage a couple decades ago - any "marriages" are illegal, the ceremonies may have religious/personal significance but no legal standing, and they use purpose-written legal documents to resolve things like custody issues and property ownership, when they actually resolve such matters. Not all of them do that. I'm sure some of these marriages break up, but since I haven't actually seen that happen I can't speak for what happens but I imagine it can be as amicable or as messy/vitriolic as when couples divorce.

My question is, does this really happen in any appreciable number? A three-way commitment? As opposed to people just having fun, as it were?

Yes, I've seen a three-way commitment, the one that sticks in my mind most vividly was at (at the time) 15 year marriage between a woman and two men. A genuine multi-commitment, though, is rarer than a two-way one.

Most NeoPagans I know who are into "just having fun" simply have an open marriage, or not married at all. Why tie yourself legally and socially to someone if all you want is sex? Of course, it helps if your religion doesn't tie sex to reproduction but recognizes that sometimes people have sex just for fun and doesn't require marriage to make that OK.




* Christian polygamists typically use the term "plural marriage". NeoPagans usually use the term "group marriage". I'm sure there's room for a interesting discussion on the difference in terminology.

** Church of All Worlds is what comes to mind - they are very pro-polyamory . Also totally OK with monogamy or abstinence, but probably represents the largest concentration of polyamorists in the NeoPagan world.

[Faqa]

Of course some of them include children, why wouldn't they?

Because defining the nuclear family unit in such a way steps outside of human nature, is my thought. It's not like homosexuality, where I understand it's the same urges and instincts, just gender-flipped. We are not coded, if you will, to create families of the sort you're describing. And parental instinct and feeling toward children is one of the major things that I could see fucking these arrangements up. Infertile and same-sex couples already have their fair share of problems with surrogate solutions for children (I refer chiefly to the surrogates having second thoughts after birth), and those at least give the child a conventional home life after he or she is born. This? This is a far different ballpark.

This is not to say any of what goes on there is wrong - I certainly don't know the situations in detail to determine that - but you can see how it is unusual enough to warrant questions.

How child custody is handled is going to vary, and it complicated by the fact there is no legal group marriage.* If a person who already has children enters a group marriage then she retains custody and, assuming he/she legally marries one of the family, that person becomes the step-parent. If a couple is married and has children and a third person joins the marriage they may draw up legal documents stating that in the absence/incapacity of the legal parents they want this other person to have custody or make decisions. Some of them are sort of clueless and don't think of or consider these things.

So it would appear that, from the POV of how the child is treated, it's more like living with extended family? IE, the mother and father are the child's immediate family, everyone else is more on the level of uncles and aunts or some such?

Does such an arrangement not cause arguments or fighting? When the mother feels one way about how the child should be raised, and one of her partners another? If you say the mother has final rights, doesn't this become a source of tension? Anger? Aren't these supposed to be equal partners?

You're having an arrangement that does not slot neatly into an evolutionary instinct of any sort. That's gotta raise problems. At least, it looks that way from this admittedly inexperienced end.

I can't speak for what happens but I imagine it can be as amicable or as messy/vitriolic as when couples divorce.

I would imagine the mess, vitrol and complications are at least as much as when couples divorce, and almost certainly more so. After all, you have to consider the relationship of each person with all of the others, which sounds like it could be fodder for a few seasons of soap opera in a big hurry.

Christian polygamists typically use the term "plural marriage". NeoPagans usually use the term "group marriage". I'm sure there's room for a interesting discussion on the difference in terminology.

It seems that Christians define the term as "more than one marriage". Neo-Pagans seem to define it as a 'group' getting married.

The Christians seem to count the marriages as increasing linearly, focusing what happens in the number of marriages a single person is engaged in, whilst the NPs seem to count the marriages created as exponential - everyone marries everyone else, or the 'group' marries( (x-1)^x ).

Since Christian polygamy seem to focus more on a man taking multiple wives, whilst by your own description NPs are more about multi-way commitments, this is hardly surprising.

[Duckie]

Because defining the nuclear family unit in such a way steps outside of human nature, is my thought. It's not like homosexuality, where I understand it's the same urges and instincts, just gender-flipped. We are not coded, if you will, to create families of the sort you're describing. And parental instinct and feeling toward children is one of the major things that I could see fucking these arrangements up. Infertile and same-sex couples already have their fair share of problems with surrogate solutions for children (I refer chiefly to the surrogates having second thoughts after birth), and those at least give the child a conventional home life after he or she is born. This? This is a far different ballpark.

These seem to be your opinion on human nature rather than hard facts, would you not say? I for one refuse to make any non-trivial proclamations as to human nature for the avoidance of looking dumb when shown incorrect. I would also note it is clearly human nature to do so or else it would not be humans doing it. Homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto atque whatnots.

So it would appear that, from the POV of how the child is treated, it's more like living with extended family? IE, the mother and father are the child's immediate family, everyone else is more on the level of uncles and aunts or some such?

Does such an arrangement not cause arguments or fighting? When the mother feels one way about how the child should be raised, and one of her partners another? If you say the mother has final rights, doesn't this become a source of tension? Anger? Aren't these supposed to be equal partners?

Why? What happens when a father and a mother fight? Do we declare the institution of heterosexual marriage bunk because jealousy or favouratism (between children, for example) or problems may develop? That seems somewhat of a silly idea, especially given it is merely at this point an assumption that such arrangements cause significantly more arguments than normal. While I'm sure someone will show up with equations to prove this is indeed the case, since very few people here are in such a relationship it seems rather empty to listen to such proofs compared to actually merely finding these people and seeing if they're happy (answer, anecdotally: about as much as anyone else)

You're having an arrangement that does not slot neatly into an evolutionary instinct of any sort. That's gotta raise problems. At least, it looks that way from this admittedly inexperienced end.

Other rules I follow- never proclaim anything about what evolution wants or doesn't, because evo-devo is never right any more than speculating on the involvement of intelligence agencies in current events is. In any case, I'm glad you're fit to make such penetrating speculation with little experience in the matters- it's a rare person with the confidence to speak so authoritatively on something they admit freely they know nothing about. (I kid- for. one, it's the internet, so it's all over the place).

Christian polygamists typically use the term "plural marriage". NeoPagans usually use the term "group marriage". I'm sure there's room for a interesting discussion on the difference in terminology.

It seems that Christians define the term as "more than one marriage". Neo-Pagans seem to define it as a 'group' getting married.

The Christians seem to count the marriages as increasing linearly, focusing what happens in the number of marriages a single person is engaged in, whilst the NPs seem to count the marriages created as exponential - everyone marries everyone else, or the 'group' marries( (x-1)^x ).

Since Christian polygamy seem to focus more on a man taking multiple wives, whilst by your own description NPs are more about multi-way commitments, this is hardly surprising.

Probably. That seems reasonable. Although let's note that people who are in multi-person relationships are not only neopagans and strange christian sects.

[Duckie]

ghetto edit: evo-psych, rather, not evo-devo, which granted is much more fun to say

[Faqa]

It's called speculation, based on what I do know and can suppose. The tone of my posts has never been authoritative, simply because I don't know much. This is a forum. It's for discussion. You seem to be finding something offensive in the fact that I'm throwing out ideas. If they are stupid, mock them freely as the banner up top says, but why is one forbidding from speculating on a topic? Particularly one where I can be corrected or enlightened by people who do know something?

That said, do you really contest that the arrangement of a pair in a romantic relationship being the center of a family unit is ingrained into humans? Because I'm pretty sure that's a tough sell, given how humans come to this arrangement independently the world over unless the gender ratio is screwy. And given that the male-female pairing is how we reproduce, it makes a lot of SENSE for it to be ingrained in us, up to and including the typical human response to infidelity.

Do we declare the institution of heterosexual marriage bunk because jealousy or favouratism (between children, for example) or problems may develop?

No, because there you are typically dealing with the biological parents, or at the very least an arrangement which brings to mind the same instincts.

The issue I could see in a group marriage was where the biological parent was at odds with one or several of the other partners. Do you really not see how the biological parent's instinct here could come into conflict with treating the others as equal partners? How "It's MY child, I know what's best for him!" might not be perceived as a "fuck you" to the others?

I could be as wrong, wrong wrong as the doctors who classified masturbation as a disease until the 20th century, but I would argue that there is room to discuss it, at least.

In any case, I'm glad you're fit to make such penetrating speculation with little experience in the matters- it's a rare person with the confidence to speak so authoritatively on something they know nothing about.

Well, you clearly seem to know more than I. How about answering some of these questions from your experience instead of being a smarmy little bath toy? It seems more productive, as long as we're all taking the time to post here in the first place, but that might be my 'penetrating' speculation again.

(Huh, huh, he said "penetrate")

[Duckie]

Ah, no, just teasing you. After all, you're throwing out a lot of speculation on what is human nature and what is evolutionarily mandated and whatnot, which would raise my eyebrows were you even Steven Pinker (granted mostly that'd raise my eyebrows because his work is a load of crap) and not Faqa. I'm sorry if it came off as aggressively snarky, rather than amused ribbing, but you sure have a lot of preconceived ideas of what a human being is and what a human being does and what a human being should do with its life because of abstract genetic calculi done at the dawn of the two-sex system. I had hoped Terence would fix that for you, but it occurs to me you may not have even translated it.

Nonetheless I would note that ingrained in typical human beings is not the same as "required of all human beings", or else we could easily mandate the heterosexual relationship, or more amusingly forbid the eating of lactose products.

Also, evolution doesn't work that way. We mate in male-female pairs, so it'd make SENSE for gays to be an aberrant part of humanity with negative utility towards reproduction. Yet eminent frog biologists assure me this is not the case, and if we take silly evo-psych logic like you're using to its extreme, of course that makes sense because if it were negative, it'd be bred out of humanity, so it must have some kind of positive effects. We could claim the same about polygamy, then, though, and you'd be skewered by your own triumph.

Then again, we could, if we take this argument to its full point, claim there must be a positive evolutionary use to racism, which is wired into the human brain too (it can be empirically shown at the age of just a few months, so it isn't entirely cultural).

So then we come to the obvious question- if racism is a natural part of humanity, what sense does it make following what evolution says human beings should do and not do? There may be societal reasons not to encourage mass polygamy in particular due to frog equations like alyrium says, but occasional multiple-person relationships don't post any systematic threat to the fabric of society due to their rarity- I mean, how many people can possibly make them work and find enough willing participants? I'd wager stable multifaceted relationships are rarer than transsexuality*, which also threatens operative sex ratios because of the numerical imbalance of MTF and FTM types in some abstract "Evolution says it's bad because numbers!" sense, but not in the practical sense.

*I'd wager this because I can think, off the top of my head, of well over a dozen transsexual people, and I definitely know I've only ever once seen two triads (and I've heard of a pentad, once, but that's like thirdhand).