This article was in USA Today...today. It caught my eye and made me think of the endless debates we've had here on the gay marriage subject. I guess it's time to beat that horse some more.
IMO, the guy has a point. This example applies as a reason why it's dangerous to mess with the federal definition of marriage. Should something so widely rejected as polygamy be legalized? If the answer is no, than it seems difficult to justify the legalization of same sex marriages according to the points brought up by this author.
posted
Here's my answer to an exam question about the constitutionality of a law banning one man marrying multiple women, but not banning one woman from marrying multiple men. It's roughly written because of time constraints, but it got an A .
quote:The Court has held that the marital and familial spheres are entitled to protection under the due process clause of the 14th amendment. Zablocki held that the right to marry was fundamental and restrictions on it were subject to strict scrutiny. Moore underscored that the familial sphere was to be protected beyond the narrow definition of the immediate family. Both decisions emphasized the importance of tradition when analyzing liberty interests under substantive due process. Lawrence emphasized that recent trends in traditions and attitudes should be accounted for when deciding if a right is fundamental. Michael H., however, emphasized that the court must examine the tradition underlying a fundamental right at the most specific level at which a relevant tradition denying or upholding the right can be identified. Here, despite the great liberalization in societal views on marriage and sexual relations, no such trend favoring polygamy can be identified. However, even if the right is deemed a fundamental part of marital rights, the law survives intermediate scrutiny.
There are two principle purposes for marriage in our society: First, it defines a legal relationship that provides a convenient legal classification in many contexts. These legal classifications are used in determining ownership of property, guardianship in the event of incapacitation, default rules of inheritance, and tax regulation. In the private sector, the distinction is used to determine eligibility for medical benefits in employment and many other classifications. Many, if not most, of these classifications are useful because of their binary nature. Who can consent to medical care for this man? His wife. If there is more than one wife, the distinction is no longer as useful. This obstacle is not insurmountable, but it is high. Many questions that could be decided with a simple answer will now require either execution of a legal document or an evidentiary hearing to see what the wives’ desires are.
The second purpose of marriage is that it forms the core subunit of organization upon which society is based. This unit is responsible for the care and education of our children and the principle private safety net. A man with several wives can produce many more children. The principle traditional limiting factor on his reproductive capacity is removed. This means there is less paternal care available for each child. Instead of two potential caregivers per set of siblings, there is one full-time potential caregiver and a fraction of another. In divorce cases, the already difficult job of extracting child support will become harder, because less resources per child are available.
Both types of ends obtained from limiting marriage to a single partner are important, and both are substantially related to the means: banning the multi-wife situation. This solution is closely tailored to the ends; as it deals with the source of multiple potential problems without infringing beyond the scope of those problems.
Smith’s equal protection claim under the 14th amendment is that the polygamy statute punishes men for being married to more than one woman but not women for being married to more than one man. This facial gender classification must survive intermediate scrutiny. (Craig v. Boren). In reviewing the ends identified above, it is clear that only the ends related number of offspring are relevant to gender classification. The facts of reproductive biology have been recognized as legitimate reasons for making gender distinctions (Michael M.). Here, a woman with multiple husbands will not reproduce any more often than one with one husband. In fact, such families will generally have more adults per child than a normal two-person couple. This important end is substantially served by the gender distinction. While it’s true that some other problems can occur in woman/men polygamous marriages, such as inability to identify the father, the state is under no compulsion to solve all potential problems. The only other means to address this problem, such as a requirement of birth control by all but one woman or a limitation on offspring, would entail greater intrusions on personal liberty. The specific ends met by this law are important and the means are closely tailored to achieve them. The law is a valid gender distinction.
Smith and City of Boerne rejected strict scrutiny for neutral laws that burden the free exercise of religion. Here, absent any showing that the law was targeted at a specific religious group (which would raise the scrutiny level to strict), we apply the rational basis test, which is less stringent than the intermediate scrutiny already examined. Smith’s claim that his desire for multiple wives is religiously based does not strengthen his case.
The differences between the two types of mutli-marriages isn't directly relevant, but much of the rest is.
posted
I do not see a problem with polygamy, and would not object to its legalisation. That said, I also see no problem with legalising gay marriage but not polygamy. Gays are a powerful lobby group, having an identity forged by decades of persecution. Polygamists are not. Both groups would, in my ideal society, be entitled to marry as they desired. If the gays get the right first, that's not hypocrisy, that's just how democracies work.
You'll note, while I support gay marriage, I'm not so incensed about it that I get up off my arse and argue for it in public fora. (The net doesn't count, I should be doing something else.) I have precisely the same attitude to polygamous marriage. Laziness, possibly, hypocrisy, no.
And Dag, if I were grading that, you'd get a B-, tops. I don't care about the legal issues, you used a 'principle' where you meant 'principal,' in "two principle reasons.' In any case, what's wrong with 'main?' Nice four-letter word.
[ October 04, 2004, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It was written in 22 minutes, and included a whole section on standing I didn't include here, with no proofreading time available.
Right, and 'main' would have saved you a good two seconds, as well as reducing the number of mistakes. This is why you should never use Latin words when a perfectly good Anglo-Saxon one is available.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag's command of common English is coming to an end, I'm afraid. The fate of many law students.
Yes, well. From my Master's thesis in particle physics :
quote:Flavour-changing neutral currents do not exist at tree level in the Standard Model, but may occur in second-order penguins. The existence of penguins has been verified at (long list of references) (...)
No Latin, but that's about all you can say for it. Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find this thread amusing. Embrace the latin side of the force, young padawan. The roman ruled the world for centuries, after all...let them rule your pen.
And KoM, you barbarian descendant! Let Dag be as ped...well...write at will! Posts: 1785 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see what's so clearly wrong with polygamy...
But since this thread is off topic let me just add that grading an essay based on grammar and spelling rather than the content it is supposed to be testing is silly. Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the argument against it in case of divorce therefore fewer resources to extract from the father is BUNK. How many dad's out there (yes, I know there are some women, too) paying child support for children from multiple relationships . . . ? Polygamy ain't gonna affect that - it's already a fact of support enforcement.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I long for the day when polygamy will be legalized in New Jersey. I'll finally be able to introduce my wives.
Posts: 236 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
There are numerous unwed parents out there. The child support cases are filled with parents paying (or not) child support on numerous children brought into this world by various sets of parents. I hardly see how it could worsen.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Remember, I'm not listing policy reasons for banning polygamy; I'm listing differences between polygamous and monogamous marriages that make it constitutional for the legislatures to distinguish between them.
It's a very different standard, and it's easily met by the signficantly greater likelihood of simultaneous multiple children being sired by a husband with multiple wives than by a husband with only one wife, even if he is cheating on her.
posted
I think if you start legalizing one, you really can't keep other forms illegal based on Tax laws or the way the government collects and distributes money.
It all boils down to forcing the moralities of it being wrong on those who think it's right.
If you are willing to move the line for some people, you have to have VERY good arguments as to why not move that line for others as well.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm listing differences between polygamous and monogamous marriages that make it constitutional for the legislatures to distinguish between them.
But, you can't assume all Polygamous marriages will have multiple children or children at all. What if I want to marry 4 women and they all are unable to have children?
Why can't I marry all 4?
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
CStroman, if you grant homosexual marriage rights because you think people should be able to marry whomever they want however they want, then yes, the same argument would also justify polygamy. But that's not the argument made by most homosexual marriage advocates.
My post above gives several reasons that might distinguish the two scenarios. Even the reproductive reasons, which don't specifically apply, are all based on not increasing the number of offspring per parent.
I don't actually believe that the current interpretation of equal protection and due process support mandating homosexual rights. I just happen to think it's the right thing to do, since the benefits can be extended to homosexual monogamous marriage with almost no effort (short of the politics) and no impairment of the legal operations of marriage.
posted
I know, Dag, but also remember the astonishing divorce rates in this country, most of which happen after children are born. And then one or both parents re-marry and do it all over again, and again, and again . . .
I just don't buy the argument that there would be less child support because frankly, I work in a field where i see the effects of "serial monogamy" and multiple serial marriages and divorces. The women raising the children on their own with little to nothing from the fathers who are paying on several children by previous relationships and/or marriages.
The picture is already so muddied, I don't think legalizing polygamy will make it any worse.
However! I have an idea! Instead of marriage contracts, let's have "childbearing" contracts! Who will raise the child, pay for medical, clothing, education, etc. And there would be a standard hard-line contract for those parents that did not play by the game rules . . . oh - I'll stop daydreaming now.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But, you can't assume all Polygamous marriages will have multiple children or children at all. What if I want to marry 4 women and they all are unable to have children?
Why can't I marry all 4?
First, your conveniently ignoring my first argument, which is the destruction of the majority of benefits to the legal system.
Second, laws designed to meet certain societal goals do not have to be exactly inclusive. They can extend benefits to those whom are not directly contributing to those societal goals, and deny them to some who might further those goals. For example, the driving age is 16. Many 16-year olds who can pass the test are not really ready to drive. Many 15 year olds probably are. We accept this imperfect line-drawing because of the costs and imprecision associated with determining who is ready to drive when.
posted
More and more households today are two income families. This means a lot of kids are raised by nannies or *shudder* television.
In theory, one benefit of polygamy is that at least one member of the family can stay home and raise the kids while the other members go out and earn a living.
I'm not saying I support polygamy, but that's just an interesting thought I had.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: But, you can't assume all Polygamous marriages will have multiple children or children at all. What if I want to marry 4 women and they all are unable to have children?
Yeah, sure, blame the women when you can't get them pregnant Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just don't buy the argument that there would be less child support because frankly, I work in a field where i see the effects of "serial monogamy" and multiple serial marriages and divorces. The women raising the children on their own with little to nothing from the fathers who are paying on several children by previous relationships and/or marriages.
The picture is already so muddied, I don't think legalizing polygamy will make it any worse.
So, you talk about understanding serial monogamy, which is one and one person doing the practice, but you don't see how the numbers could inflate drastically if one and two, three, or four people are doing it? This isn't a prediction by any means, but what you claim doesn't make logistical sense.
Divorce problems aren't the only part that would have issues. What about insurance? What about those who try to bypass immigration? Federal income tax would be incredibly difficult to arrange, because do you change the status with each consecutive marriage, or do you just keep it the same? Either way a large group of people will take both sides of that issue and make a stink over it.
Then there are the human rights issues. In places where polygamy is still allowed today, women have a lower status than men politically and socially. In some places young women are married off at the age of 13 rather often. Idealistic fantasizing aside, I find it difficult to be able to defend such things.
Frankly, I don't see anything in the original article except sour grapes, much like the typical "Jimmy is allowed to stay up late" argument used by children.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the polygamy-that-would-be-practiced in America would be vastly different from the polygamy that is practiced in. . .say, Southern Utah, or the Middle East.
Child abuse is illegal already, for example, and sexual contact with a minor is statutory rape, even if it's consensual.
I think it much more likely that if polygamous marriages pop up again in the west, they'd be more along the lines of communal living groups.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that the polygamy-that-would-be-practiced in America would be vastly different from the polygamy that is practiced in. . .say, Southern Utah, or the Middle East.
Why do you think that? That doesn't seem to make much sense, since we already have examples in the US right now that give us a pretty good indication of what it would be like. And why do you say southern Utah? From what I've been able to find, there are whole groups of pro-polygamy people all over Utah, Nevada, and surrounding states.
[ October 05, 2004, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Jutsa Notha Name ]
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the same reason that pro-legalization folks think that government control of recreational drugs would mean less addicts-- oversight.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, in other words, you're using an unprovable situation as the basis for your opinion? Or do you have a time machine to test the theory out? (if so, could I borrow it?)
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only thing I have against polygamy is that we really don't need that manyy babies anymore, and there are more than enough men to go around. If one guy has six wives, then there are four guys out there who just aren't getting any. Guys who aren't getting any are statistically more likely to do crazy, destructive stuff.
Polyandry doesn't have those societal problems, I think. *peeks out window* And I'm not just saying that because of the half-naked twentysomething who's helping install my neighbor's new siding. *whimper*
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The issue is the nature of the marriage right. Polygamy is useful in helping define that right.
If you favor civil homosexual marriage rights and oppose civil polygamous marriage rights (as Justa and I do), then you are justifying the former for some reason other than "government shouldn't say who people should marry." Which is fine.
Justa's brought up equality issues, essentially saying the government's interest in protecting people from exploitation is great enough to justify the intrusion into personal autonomy.
I'm essentially saying that preserving the usefulness of marriage as a legal construct and social concerns regarding parenting justifies exclusion of polygamy.
vwiggin has brought up the potential for better child care in mutli-parent households as a possible reason to support it.
Scott has argued that legalization will prevent some of the abuses feared by Justa.
The key thing all these arguments have in common is that they have a clear underlying assumption that personal definition of marriage is not an unfettered right. Some governmental intrusion on the definition of marriage is justifiable.
posted
I, for one, am everlastingly grateful that I can usually pick between a Latin and an Anglo-Saxon word. What a beautiful thing.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't currently have one, no, but the guy I dated when I was 20 used to write me love letters in Latin. *dreamy*
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: The only thing I have against polygamy is that we really don't need that manyy babies anymore, and there are more than enough men to go around. If one guy has six wives, then there are four guys out there who just aren't getting any. Guys who aren't getting any are statistically more likely to do crazy, destructive stuff.
I guess we would need to go to war then. Well, do it more. Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As usual, I think many people aren't aware of the growing practice of polyamory. Here is a FAQ from the newsgroup.
I know that in Boston there is a growing community called Poly Boston.
You find many straight, gay, and bisexual people intermingled in stable, non-two relationships. I think if any kind of polygamy were legal, you would find a huge number of polyamorists marrying. What was once the pet issue of Mormons has become part of the growing sexual exploration of LGBTS relationships.
The polyamorists I've talked to feel that this is how they're most comfortable. They are comfortable being in trusting, stable relationships with more than one person. Often all three, or four, are involved with each other.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, if I could show statistically that black marriages or hispanic marriages had more children than white marriages, or vice versa, would that be grounds to ban marriage for certain racial groups?
No, certainly not.
The number of children a certain type of marriage might of often does lead to should not be a factor in determining whether people are entitled to that sort of marriage. It's not a justifiable line to be drawn.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
dabbler, you beat me to it Thanks for posting the links. My husband and I are poly, and I'd love to see the day when we can marry whoever we want to (sadly, I think it's highly unlikely). I agree with the first point in Dagonee's essay, too--it would be legally fairly simple to extend civil marriage rights to gay couples, because it's still only two people, but the inclusion of groups larger than two would require a whooooole lot of restructuring and adding-onto of the current institutions.
As for the children thing, I'm gonna say that I don't see a whole lot of difference between a polygynous marriage and a man who fathers too many children through serial monogamy and/or cheating. Not saying it'd be exactly the same, but I don't think it'd be a huge difference either. And it is true that poly families have it better when it comes to childcare; I don't have any myself, but my poly friends who do say that their larger family-of-choice provides an excellent support network.
Lastly, a small nitpick: polygyny is a marriage of one man and multiple wives, polyandry is a marriage of one woman with multiple husbands, and polygamy is a marriage of more than two people, no gender configuration specified. Polyamory is the practice of having romantic/sexual relationships with more than one person at a time, no marriage arrangements specified.
Posts: 957 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Okay, if I could show statistically that black marriages or hispanic marriages had more children than white marriages, or vice versa, would that be grounds to ban marriage for certain racial groups?
You would have to use very short-term statistics, taken without context or life span. Also, you would have to ignore the often similar reasons for different groups of people, whether white, black, polygamous, monogamous, rich, poor, Christian or whatever to have numerous kids. Historically, having more kids meant that more of them had a chance to survive to adulthood. If that is still an issue in the modern United States, then we have far worse problems to contend with than allowing a man to marry three women.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
It caught my eye and made me think of the endless debates we've had here on the gay marriage subject. I guess it's time to beat that horse some more.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
