Polygamy is the state of being married to multiple people, not merely sleeping or living with multiple people. Maybe traditionally it has been one many with several wives, but there’s no logical reason it has to be “a man thing.” In MA there’s a lesbian “throuple” of three women (or at least, presenting themselves as women) who are now expecting a child.
Fair enough.
Permissibility of various degrees of affinity in marriage has varied and still varies quite widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction both within the US and outside of it. In some places first cousin marriage is legal, some places it is not, and some places it is legal only after a certain age. As always, the legal restrictions against a civil marriage, if challenged, will be evaluated on whether the restrictions can be objectively supported. Of course, the degree of actual restriction on people imposed by restrictions against incestuous marriage is not all that high (the pool of people someone can marry is shrunk by only a handful of people by such restrictions.) I would also argue the legal purpose of marriage is to establish and formalize new familial bonds.
Why do familial bonds need to be formalized?
It’s a lot of a legal contracts, rights, and responsibilities rolled into one common institution. Legally, it’s you as an adult making a choice about who your closest and most important family member is, and not having to spend afternoons defining every detail or going into the expense of a lawyer for that (and you cannot contract your way into all marriage benefits anyway)? Beyond that, marriage is what people and institutions make of it.
There doesn’t need to be any legal contract–hospitals can simply recognize a signature that says, “I allow A, B and C to visit me. I allow A to make medical decisions for me.”
No. That’s not my point, mj. I’m not talking about marriage between best friends. My point is: I’m married to my DH, P…but do I need to formalize a relationship between me and my BFF, Jill? Why or why not?And if best friends want to marry, so what?
You personally don’t “need” to do anything. If you see no value or purpose in marriage, then you’re obviously not under any obligation to engage in it.
I dunno, maybe. Do you want to leave her something of yours in your will? That may need to be formalized in some way. The default in absence of a will is that the spouse generally gets everything. If that’s not what you want, then, yes, in one way or another something formalized might be necessary.
Well, this is your paradigm I’m trying to understand.
Wow. You’re considering a government registry for friendships? Really?
Ummm…there doesn’t need to be a government registry recognizing my friendship with my BFF, Jill, for me to leave her my Stevie Wonder record collection. All I have to do is put it in my will.
Solomon is far from the only polygamist in the Bible whose polygamy caused trouble. Polygamy was never declared holy by God. Polygamy is wrong because it denies the basic dignity of women.
Formalization might be putting something in a will. Formalization, to me, means in writing. Please do not shove words in my mouth.
Actually, you can’t separately contract into all the benefits of marriage, certainly on a federal level, and indeed, some of the overturned state constitutional amendments specifically banned giving benefits of marriage outside of marriage. For example, in Michigan, there is literally no way to specify post-death burial and disposition wishes outside of a marriage or next-of-kin relationship. You could not contract into it. You also cannot contract into two-parent adoption outside of marriage.
So why would we need a government registry for friendships, mj?
So please offer why you’d consider this as something ok.
I’m all for that.
This isn’t true. I have know a few people who have polygamous relationships, and they have all been women with multiple male partners.
And I clearly stated in that original post and another one that formalization might mean something you’d write down in say, a will. I did not propose any sort of registry.So please offer why you’d consider this as something ok.
Thanks.
Ah, but the “separate, but equal” ship already was sunk years ago:
Fair enough.And I clearly stated in that original post and another one that formalization might mean something you’d write down in say, a will. I did not propose any sort of registry.
Oh, no, no, no. I never stated I would advocate a “separate but equal” paradigm for Same Sex Unions.
Except that it is, as I have pointed out. You in fact cannot contract into all rights associated with marriage outside of marriage. Again, what you seem to be proposing is that you can break marriage legally into all its constituent parts and have people pick and choose from the menu to whatever extent they want to. That’s both (1) not legally possible and (2) seems to run afoul of RC teaching on the issue, so I don’t understand why Roman Catholics would now say they would be willing to compromise to a kind of build-your-own-civil-union proposal.
The act of choosing someone to both be and start a family with is pretty foundational for any society. I would characterize it as a fundamental human right. To answer your question most directly, government should recognize someone establishing a family because it is the citizen’s right.
The act of having a best friend is pretty foundational for any society, too.