WI Supreme Court legalizes Polygamy

polygamy will have to overcome a huge stigma here in the USA... basically that, so far, it has been the policy of a handful of radical religious sects who have used it to force marriage upon women who don't really want it, 'child brides', ejecting 'excess' males from the community, etc. There was a story on MSN about this yesterday, about three women who escaped from a rather ruthless polygamist cult in UT... one of them was being groomed at 14 to be the third wife for her uncle(!!!!). If legalizing polygamy will allow anything like this, expect it to keep on being illegal...
 
When i said it was possible i meant with fully grown adults,not brainwashes cults,how are we going to stop responsible adults from doing what they wish?
 
It'd need to be treated as a contract that any member could dissolve. I think the biggest issue in the way of polyAmory besides the lack of widespread support is the legal headaches it would cause.
 

TinyTartar

Banned
That seems to be where we are headed. I think that context will matter, though. If the ones bringing it up are cultists or fundamentalists of some kind, it will be rejected.

But if it is by a more liberal group of people, and gets the zeitgeist rolling in its favor, as did gay marriage, and therefore becomes the accepted practice of the youth, it is inevitable that it will be legalized.
 
When i said it was possible i meant with fully grown adults,not brainwashes cults,how are we going to stop responsible adults from doing what they wish?
As I said, the movement will have to overcome that stigma first, and that will take some doing...
It'd need to be treated as a contract that any member could dissolve. I think the biggest issue in the way of polyAmory besides the lack of widespread support is the legal headaches it would cause.
the main legal headache being inheritance and benefits. The government needs to know who is married to who, and who is the child of who, mainly for this reason. With poly marriage, that gets complicated...
 
polygamy will have to overcome a huge stigma here in the USA... basically that, so far, it has been the policy of a handful of radical religious sects who have used it to force marriage upon women who don't really want it, 'child brides', ejecting 'excess' males from the community, etc. There was a story on MSN about this yesterday, about three women who escaped from a rather ruthless polygamist cult in UT... one of them was being groomed at 14 to be the third wife for her uncle(!!!!). If legalizing polygamy will allow anything like this, expect it to keep on being illegal...

That's the biggest initial hurdle, right now poly marriage is associated with Mormons and Muslims and initial opposition would be "Well, we see who wants this, don't we?"
 
Depends when. Now and any time in the past, or in the future when social attitudes have yet to shift: Constitutional Amendment, either restricting marriage to two people or allowing states to restrict marriage to two people.
 
the main legal headache being inheritance and benefits. The government needs to know who is married to who,
Recorded agreement could be used to determine who is married to whom. No record, no marriage.
and who is the child of who, mainly for this reason.
DNA testing can prove this to a reasonable possibility subject to identical twins being involved.
With poly marriage, that gets complicated...
Yes, which is why lawyers should love it.
 
Of all the fundie's arguments that "gay marriage will lead to pedophiliac marriages, marriages with dogs, marriages with ears of corn, and polygamous marriages" the only one that is possible under the US Constitution and current court rulings is polygamy. Animals, children, and vegetables all lack the right of consent. Animals can't give consent, neither can vegetables. From a legal standpoint yes children are closer to an animal in most legal matters. Without special circumstances young children can't testify in court, they can't purchase normally legal things (cigarettes, lotto, and alcohol or rent a car being just a few of the many things), they can't drive, they can't vote, they can't work, they can't leave their family's household on their own free will. You can easily argue just based on ability to give consent that the fundie's fears of a free for all are unfounded.

However, we get to polygamy. The only argument against is about "traditional marriage" and is what the courts have already rejected in the matter of marriage for same-sex couples. If a man wants to have five wives, and each of those wives takes 3 men as husbands and two wives of her own maybe one of those wives is in common with one of the man's other wives, and so on... the problem we will have is when there is a divorce. How does a divorce between a man and a woman divide up property that other parties also married to the same man and woman. To simplify a man has two wives, the two wives are also married to each other and to another man. One of the wives wants to divorce the man and the other woman, but stay married to the other man who is still married to the other wife, who gets custody of the van gogh painting? Pre-nuptials and post-nuptials constantly renewed will become mandatory by the courts! Not to mention wills and inheritance of so many children, presumably all living under one roof. Though polygamy may help the economy in that multiple breadwinners in one household pooling their resources and money, household income increases while household expenses decrease (mostly through carpooling and less need for daycare expense) this can allow an expansion of the economy even if wages stagnate.
 
Of all the fundie's arguments that "gay marriage will lead to pedophiliac marriages, marriages with dogs, marriages with ears of corn, and polygamous marriages" the only one that is possible under the US Constitution and current court rulings is polygamy. Animals, children, and vegetables all lack the right of consent. Animals can't give consent, neither can vegetables. From a legal standpoint yes children are closer to an animal in most legal matters. Without special circumstances young children can't testify in court, they can't purchase normally legal things (cigarettes, lotto, and alcohol or rent a car being just a few of the many things), they can't drive, they can't vote, they can't work, they can't leave their family's household on their own free will. You can easily argue just based on ability to give consent that the fundie's fears of a free for all are unfounded.

However, we get to polygamy. The only argument against is about "traditional marriage" and is what the courts have already rejected in the matter of marriage for same-sex couples. If a man wants to have five wives, and each of those wives takes 3 men as husbands and two wives of her own maybe one of those wives is in common with one of the man's other wives, and so on... the problem we will have is when there is a divorce. How does a divorce between a man and a woman divide up property that other parties also married to the same man and woman. To simplify a man has two wives, the two wives are also married to each other and to another man. One of the wives wants to divorce the man and the other woman, but stay married to the other man who is still married to the other wife, who gets custody of the van gogh painting? Pre-nuptials and post-nuptials constantly renewed will become mandatory by the courts! Not to mention wills and inheritance of so many children, presumably all living under one roof. Though polygamy may help the economy in that multiple breadwinners in one household pooling their resources and money, household income increases while household expenses decrease (mostly through carpooling and less need for daycare expense) this can allow an expansion of the economy even if wages stagnate.

"Biblical definition of arriage!"
"Bible says polygyny is OK"
"Traditional marriage!"

As for being complicated I think it's possible to adapt existing laws concerning marriage assets to poly marriage. You just look at each poly marriage as separate thing. And I think best thing would be that prior to marriage each party lists their assets so anything that is divided is what was created after marriage took place and how tha'ts divided is agreed separately.
 
This is really ASB territory where the past is concerned. As for the future, Rchard Posner has suggested a distinction between SSM and polygamy:

"But later in his opinion the chief justice remembers polygamy and suggests that if gay marriage is allowed, so must be polygamy. He ignores the fact that polygamy imposes real costs, by reducing the number of marriageable women. Suppose a society contains 100 men and 100 women, but the five wealthiest men have a total of 50 wives. That leaves 95 men to compete for only 50 marriageable women." http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...issent_in_obergefell_is_heartless.single.html

Jonathan Rauch takes a similar line:

"Here's the problem with it: when a high-status man takes two wives (and one man taking many wives, or polygyny, is almost invariably the real-world pattern), a lower-status man gets no wife. If the high-status man takes three wives, two lower-status men get no wives. And so on.

"This competitive, zero-sum dynamic sets off a competition among high-status men to hoard marriage opportunities, which leaves lower-status men out in the cold. Those men, denied access to life's most stabilizing and civilizing institution, are unfairly disadvantaged and often turn to behaviors like crime and violence. The situation is not good for women, either, because it places them in competition with other wives and can reduce them all to satellites of the man." http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...t-next-gay-marriage-119614.html#ixzz3gNqh3mQl

This argument has been criticized as "marriage socialism"--a preference for equality over liberty, which is hardly consistent with the quasi-libertarian views Posner and Rauch otherwise espouse:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/06/richard-posner-marriage-socialist.html
 

jahenders

Banned
People might have thought that about gay marriage but that clearly wasn't the case (with a handful of exceptions)

Perhaps this thread should be in future history?

I do see some momentum towards polygamy emerging in about 20 years but the battle will be fought in state legislatures not the courts.
 

jahenders

Banned
I think that legalizing polygamy does follow with the logic of legalizing gay marriage -- notably that traditional society doesn't get a say in saying "what's right" and that marriage is a legal contract and it's illegal to be biased against any particular form of that contract without decisive justification. The court concluded there was no such justification regarding gay marriage and it's hard to see what they could find against polygamy between multiple consenting adults.

That being said, I don't think the court will follow that logical extension. Rather, for some years they'll reflect the (current) societal taboo against polygamy and find some reasoning (though it'll reflect their views more than it'll reflect logic).
 
This is really ASB territory where the past is concerned. As for the future, Rchard Posner has suggested a distinction between SSM and polygamy:

"But later in his opinion the chief justice remembers polygamy and suggests that if gay marriage is allowed, so must be polygamy. He ignores the fact that polygamy imposes real costs, by reducing the number of marriageable women. Suppose a society contains 100 men and 100 women, but the five wealthiest men have a total of 50 wives. That leaves 95 men to compete for only 50 marriageable women." http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...issent_in_obergefell_is_heartless.single.html

Jonathan Rauch takes a similar line:

"Here's the problem with it: when a high-status man takes two wives (and one man taking many wives, or polygyny, is almost invariably the real-world pattern), a lower-status man gets no wife. If the high-status man takes three wives, two lower-status men get no wives. And so on.

"This competitive, zero-sum dynamic sets off a competition among high-status men to hoard marriage opportunities, which leaves lower-status men out in the cold. Those men, denied access to life's most stabilizing and civilizing institution, are unfairly disadvantaged and often turn to behaviors like crime and violence. The situation is not good for women, either, because it places them in competition with other wives and can reduce them all to satellites of the man." http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...t-next-gay-marriage-119614.html#ixzz3gNqh3mQl

This argument has been criticized as "marriage socialism"--a preference for equality over liberty, which is hardly consistent with the quasi-libertarian views Posner and Rauch otherwise espouse:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/06/richard-posner-marriage-socialist.html

So women are commodity one accumulates and then they serve as status symbol? :rolleyes:
 
So women are commodity one accumulates and then they serve as status symbol? :rolleyes:
Yeah, welcome to the patriarchal world in which we live? Women have been objectified like that for thousands of years. If you think the large mass of single men created in that unlikely scenario are suddenly about to become model feminists and not become upset that they'd lost what they think they are entitled to, you are being overly optimistic. They are going to be angry, and probably turn to the MRA type nonsense, and I think you'll see some get violent in this scenario. Sad, but true.

Of course, this scenario is about as likely as Obama legally changing his name to "Sidney Snacklebottom"
 
Last edited:
This is really ASB territory where the past is concerned. As for the future, Rchard Posner has suggested a distinction between SSM and polygamy:

"But later in his opinion the chief justice remembers polygamy and suggests that if gay marriage is allowed, so must be polygamy. He ignores the fact that polygamy imposes real costs, by reducing the number of marriageable women. Suppose a society contains 100 men and 100 women, but the five wealthiest men have a total of 50 wives. That leaves 95 men to compete for only 50 marriageable women." http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...issent_in_obergefell_is_heartless.single.html

Jonathan Rauch takes a similar line:

"Here's the problem with it: when a high-status man takes two wives (and one man taking many wives, or polygyny, is almost invariably the real-world pattern), a lower-status man gets no wife. If the high-status man takes three wives, two lower-status men get no wives. And so on.

"This competitive, zero-sum dynamic sets off a competition among high-status men to hoard marriage opportunities, which leaves lower-status men out in the cold. Those men, denied access to life's most stabilizing and civilizing institution, are unfairly disadvantaged and often turn to behaviors like crime and violence. The situation is not good for women, either, because it places them in competition with other wives and can reduce them all to satellites of the man." http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...t-next-gay-marriage-119614.html#ixzz3gNqh3mQl

This argument has been criticized as "marriage socialism"--a preference for equality over liberty, which is hardly consistent with the quasi-libertarian views Posner and Rauch otherwise espouse:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/06/richard-posner-marriage-socialist.html

Oh, thank Christ some sanity showed up. And the Banhammer, but mostly the sanity. Now, I know it's quite popular to find some way that comfortable members of the current majority can find someways that they are the persecuted oppressed minority, but now, with me, everyone take a few deep breaths. In and out. I'll wait.

He's the big thing: the argument for the social goods, the public policy reasons, of limiting a marriage bond to a man and a woman involved a crap ton of special pleading and junk science, layered over some outright bigotry.

However, society gets a whole lot of good from allowing two people to join forces like that. Heck, we have tons of legal mechanisms that allow people to club together legally - corporations, partnerships, etc. Marriage, allowing two people to club together for their own good is a very good social thing to have. It was one of the arguments for allowing gay people to marry.

There's a host of reasons allowing that bond, the most comprehensive one the law recognizes, turns into a disaster when you allow more than two people to do so, especially when one of them is likely the holder of most of the power. That'll keep polygamy off the radar for a damn good long time.

The weirdos are not coming for you monogamous marriages, your blue sci-fi, and your guns.
 
Top