And here comes polygamy

[Hawkmoon]

Maybe.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/is-limiting-marriage-to-two-people-constitutional/

Article suggests that the Katie Hill debacle may show that the camel's nose is already pretty far into the tent.

[zahc]

The polyamorists are way late to the table IMO. There's very little standing in the way I think. The only possible argument is that there is a fundamental difference between 2 and 3. But if sex was not found to be a fundamental difference, with regards to something as sexually central as marriage, then I think it will be hard to dodge the precedent.

[DittoHead]

Article suggests that the Katie Hill debacle may show that the camel's nose is already pretty far into the tent.

I don't know that Katie Hill deserves any credit in that area - to my knowledge she hasn't even said anything about polygamy.
If anyone deserves credit for that camel toe peeking under there, it's Joseph Smith & the LDS. 

[Hawkmoon]

The author's leap of logic was from Katie Hill and polyamory (or polypartnery) to polygamy.

[Ron]

What possible argument can be made against polygamy in light of our current cultural situation?

If anything it has historical and cultural precedent in human society stretching back throughout human history.

[RoadKingLarry]

This is one of the areas where my hard core libertarian streak comes out.

What business is it of any government to control who or how many consenting adults any person or person can cohabitate and/fornicate with in any fashion they so choose?

[charby]

This is one of the areas where my hard core libertarian streak comes out.

What business is it of any government to control who or how many consenting adults any person or person can cohabitate and/fornicate with in any fashion they so choose?

Pretty much, to me one wife is too much, but if my neighbor wants to balance 3 wives or 3 husbands, more power to you.

[RoadKingLarry]

Pretty much, to me one wife is too much, but if my neighbor wants to balance 3 wives or 3 husbands, more power to you.

Some times one is almost two too many
 

[charby]

Some times one is almost two too many
 

 

[Perd Hapley]

This is one of the areas where my hard core libertarian streak comes out.

What business is it of any government to control who or how many consenting adults any person or person can cohabitate and/fornicate with in any fashion they so choose?

Not this stuff again.  

Is this going to be like the same-sex stuff, the same lie all over again? People are already living with, and having sex with, whomever. I'm sure someone in this country already has their polyamorous household on a web-cam, for all to see. Or if not, there's certainly no legal bar to it. We all know that.

Can we stop pushing this lie that the government has to bless your relationship, or you're somehow not free?

[Perd Hapley]

Oh, well all of what I said is true. I realize now I misread RKL's post.

Still, we have to embrace the degradation, or we're big meanies who won't let people do the stuff they're clearly already free to do.

[dogmush]

To me this is an easier argument than the same-sex marriage.

Like Ron said, there's pretty significant and wide ranging precedent for group families and multiple spouses (certainly multiple wives) being normal and endorsed by society.  If the government is going to be in the business of encouraging stable relationships, I'm not sure there's any real argument not to encourage 3 and 4 person families in addition to 2 person families.

My one concern, and it's not insignificant, is that we would want to look closely at ways to ensure that young people, specifically young women, are not being pushed into these relationships by men in positions of leadership and/or religious power over them.  It would be very easy to cross into abusive "consensual" relationships, which also has significant and wide ranging historical precedent.


I think this is being brought up when discussing Rep Hill's situation because they are deflecting from the main issue.  The issue isn't that she banged a bunch of people, that's between her and her husband.  The issue is she entered a sexual relationship with not one, but two of her employees.  It's almost universally acknowledged that you can't really get consent in that kind of situation, because as their boss, the idea of quid pro quo is always there, like the elephant in the room.  Which is why the federal government (and I'm SURE specifically the House) has fraternization policies prohibiting that kind of relationship.  

Were this a male rep with some female employees we'd have already seen editorials talking about how it was probably rape, because those employees couldn't consent in that situation.

[230RN]

This is one of the areas where my hard core libertarian streak comes out.

What business is it of any government to control who or how many consenting adults any person or person can cohabitate and/fornicate with in any fashion they so choose?

Ditto here.  It's none of my business who lieth with whom or how many "whoms" there are.  There are legal problems which one-to-one marriage addresses automatically (inheritance, next of kin, etc, etc.) but which could be spelled out in a formal (perhaps standardized) contract of cohabitation-- perhaps for specific periods. Ten years seems like a good number, see REF.

I see no non-theological reason to limit the number of parties involved if the parties can handle it.  And any theological reasons should not come under the purview of any governmental entity. (This, apart from the consent issues noted by dogmush and others.)

You want to make limits under the tenets of your religion, fine.  But keep my government out of it.

As it is, Terry said jokingly, right now we apparently have a system of sequential polygamy / polyandry anyway.

Terry

REF:
http://www.hopesandfears.com/hopes/city/city_index/214133-city-index-marriage-lengths

Trivia:
Larry King - 8 Marriages
Zsa Zsa Gábor - 9 Marriages
Boris Karloff - 6 Marriages
Elizabeth Taylor - 8 Marriages
Mickey Rooney - 8 Marriages
Lana Turner - 8 Marriages
Artie Shaw - 8 Marriages
Richard Pryor - 7 Marriages
Elizabeth Montgomery - 4 Marriages
Etc.  
Main source:
https://www.ranker.com/list/celebrities-with-the-most-marriages/general_crack

[Pb]

This is one of the areas where my hard core libertarian streak comes out.

What business is it of any government to control who or how many consenting adults any person or person can cohabitate and/fornicate with in any fashion they so choose?

There is a difference between the gov controlling people cohabitating and fornicating, and giving legal sanction and recognition to these arrangements as a marriage.

What Ron said is absolutely correct.

If the Constitution protects homosexual "marriage" it sure a heck protects polygamous marriage also.

But the fact is, neither homosexual marriage nor polygamy is a constitutional right.

Claiming it protects the first but not the second is wildly inconsistent.

[charby]

There is a difference between the gov controlling people cohabitating and fornicating, and giving legal sanction and recognition to these arrangements as a marriage.

What Ron said is absolutely correct.

If the Constitution protects homosexual "marriage" it sure a heck protects polygamous marriage also.

But the fact is, neither homosexual marriage nor polygamy is a constitutional right.

Claiming it protects the first but not the second is wildly inconsistent.

Marriage to anyone or anything isn't a constitutional right. Even heterosexual.

[cordex]

Marriage to anyone or anything isn't a constitutional right. Even heterosexual.

Maybe not specifically enumerated, but it has been ruled by the Supreme Court as a constitutionally protected fundamental right.

[charby]

Maybe not specifically enumerated, but it has been ruled by the Supreme Court as a constitutionally protected fundamental right.

And everytime they rule, other types of marriages must allowed from sea to shinning sea, here comes pologamy! Thst should make all the SJW's heads explode.

[Hawkmoon]

And everytime they rule, other types of marriages must allowed from sea to shinning sea, here comes pologamy! Thst should make all the SJW's heads explode.

"Be careful what you ask for; you might get it."

[cordex]

And everytime they rule, other types of marriages must allowed from sea to shinning sea, here comes pologamy! Thst should make all the SJW's heads explode.

  Who are you and what have you done with charby?  And why would allowing polygamists to get married offend SJWs?

[brimic]

If a group of people can get married to eachother and somehow work they system to avoid paying taxes, I'm all for it.

ie. why shouldn't 2-5 couples get married together, pool their resources, buy a large property/house, cut their tax liability by having about 1/2 of them work and provide benefits, another few members homeschool the children, and the remainders act as command/coms/support/accounting.

On paper, it beats the hell out of the current system where people work themselves to death to scrape by while government schools indoctrinate their kids against them. In practice, it might be a disater, because of human nature.

ETA: I just provided all of the reasons why .gov would never allow this to happen, and why divorce lawyers would absolutely cream their boxers/panties over such an arrangement.

[charby]

  Who are you and what have you done with charby?  And why would allowing polygamists to get married offend SJWs?

I'm still here, if people minded their own business (kept to themselves and looked the other way), many of the rulings, laws, zoning restrictions, and etc. we currently grumble about, wouldn't be in "law".

SJW's exploding, just think about where one would find polygamy these days.

[cordex]

I'm still here, if people minded their own business (kept to themselves and looked the other way), many of the rulings, laws, zoning restrictions, and etc. we currently grumble about, wouldn't be in "law".

I'm not sure that's true, or at least in the way you're suggesting.  Especially given the rise in grievance seeking agents who seek out victimization in order to achieve their goals.

SJW's exploding, just think about where one would find polygamy these days.

The house of Representatives?
I don't think most SJWs would care if some weird religious sects got to have their plural marriages.  It's certainly not their goal, but not something that would bother them much.

[charby]

I'm not sure that's true, or at least in the way you're suggesting.  Especially given the rise in grievance seeking agents who seek out victimization in order to achieve their goals.

If they (those offended) would of just looked the other way before victim status was achieved, you know live and let die.

The house of Representatives?
I don't think most SJWs would care if some weird religious sects got to have their plural marriages.  It's certainly not their goal, but not something that would bother them much.

How many SJW live in rural western states? Imagine polygamy in the big cities. Some old rich white dude has 3-4, 20 something young wives.

[cordex]

If they (those offended) would of just looked the other way before victim status was achieved, you know live and let die.

There may be a bit of truth to that, but looking the other way has never been an acceptable outcome for people pushing the boundaries of social norms.  Or rather, the subset of those people who militate on the issues.  That's true whether you're talking about Fred Phelps or Jonathan Yaniv.

[MechAg94]

To me this is an easier argument than the same-sex marriage.

Like Ron said, there's pretty significant and wide ranging precedent for group families and multiple spouses (certainly multiple wives) being normal and endorsed by society.  If the government is going to be in the business of encouraging stable relationships, I'm not sure there's any real argument not to encourage 3 and 4 person families in addition to 2 person families.

My one concern, and it's not insignificant, is that we would want to look closely at ways to ensure that young people, specifically young women, are not being pushed into these relationships by men in positions of leadership and/or religious power over them.  It would be very easy to cross into abusive "consensual" relationships, which also has significant and wide ranging historical precedent.


I think this is being brought up when discussing Rep Hill's situation because they are deflecting from the main issue.  The issue isn't that she banged a bunch of people, that's between her and her husband.  The issue is she entered a sexual relationship with not one, but two of her employees.  It's almost universally acknowledged that you can't really get consent in that kind of situation, because as their boss, the idea of quid pro quo is always there, like the elephant in the room.  Which is why the federal government (and I'm SURE specifically the House) has fraternization policies prohibiting that kind of relationship.  

Were this a male rep with some female employees we'd have already seen editorials talking about how it was probably rape, because those employees couldn't consent in that situation.

This would be my concern given the history.  Not sure how that would be put into law if possible.