Copy this sentence into your livejournal if you're in a non-same-sex marriage, and you don't want it "protected" by the bigots who think that gay marriage hurts it somehow.
Most polygamous societies have a primary pairing rather than an all-equal-parties arrangement, suggesting that making non-primary spouses a new kind of dependent and having them rank fairly high in the next-of-kin hierarchy would be a fairly workable logistic.
A polygamous plank in the movement's platform could draw active support and historical cred from residents who are already members of polygynous religions. It would also pointedly trump the "marriage has been one man and one woman for thousands of years" bull.
I guess what I'm saying is, if you can't get popular support for multiple wives, you aren't likely to get it for gay couples, either.
Poly folk use the term "hierarchical polyamory" for the first example. Kirsten and I are that way, with us being the primary partners with rules for Secondary involvement.
The problem with mining the past for a theoretical future set of poly marriage laws is modern polyamory is far more diverse than most people imagine. In it's ideal form, a poly family would consist of dozens of people, couples, and groupings spread across the world with varying levels of commitment and obligation.
I(f group marriage ever comes, I think it will be modeled on business law. A group marriage would be an opt-in contract, with clearly defined rights and duties.
The problem with mining the past for a theoretical future set of poly marriage laws is
No, I'm not saying to do this, just to line up support from resident Mormons, Muslims, Native Peoples, etc. etc.
Your suggestion about biz law is a good one; you can have a synthetic immediate family right now with a trust and assorted powers of attorney. There's still no foolproof, full recognition for insurance purposes, but hetero-mono people don't necessarily have that locked in any more, either.
1. marriage is a religious institution, and governments don't do marriages.
2. any church that will marry you means you are married.
3. however, since the government doesn't do marriages, you have to appear before the judge with a standard legal contract, between 2 or more legally consenting adults that specifies *everything*: rights, responsibilities, advance directives, care & custody of the chillins if the contract breaks, support, etc the whole 9 yards, and sign the contract in front of numeri witnesses. like any good contract, it will also have accounting rules and a neutral fund handler, the standard out clauses, and breakup agreements, so that any dissolution is straightforward.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori and
no subject
Date: 30 Oct 2008 05:44 (UTC)no subject
Date: 30 Oct 2008 12:08 (UTC)Philosophically, we're poly ourselves, so see hoe it can benefit people.
no subject
Date: 30 Oct 2008 16:34 (UTC)A polygamous plank in the movement's platform could draw active support and historical cred from residents who are already members of polygynous religions. It would also pointedly trump the "marriage has been one man and one woman for thousands of years" bull.
I guess what I'm saying is, if you can't get popular support for multiple wives, you aren't likely to get it for gay couples, either.
no subject
Date: 31 Oct 2008 00:30 (UTC)The problem with mining the past for a theoretical future set of poly marriage laws is modern polyamory is far more diverse than most people imagine. In it's ideal form, a poly family would consist of dozens of people, couples, and groupings spread across the world with varying levels of commitment and obligation.
I(f group marriage ever comes, I think it will be modeled on business law. A group marriage would be an opt-in contract, with clearly defined rights and duties.
no subject
Date: 31 Oct 2008 01:41 (UTC)No, I'm not saying to do this, just to line up support from resident Mormons, Muslims, Native Peoples, etc. etc.
Your suggestion about biz law is a good one; you can have a synthetic immediate family right now with a trust and assorted powers of attorney. There's still no foolproof, full recognition for insurance purposes, but hetero-mono people don't necessarily have that locked in any more, either.
i have a solution to the whole problem
Date: 31 Oct 2008 08:20 (UTC)1. marriage is a religious institution, and governments don't do marriages.
2. any church that will marry you means you are married.
3. however, since the government doesn't do marriages, you have to appear before the judge with a standard legal contract, between 2 or more legally consenting adults that specifies *everything*: rights, responsibilities, advance directives, care & custody of the chillins if the contract breaks, support, etc the whole 9 yards, and sign the contract in front of numeri witnesses. like any good contract, it will also have accounting rules and a neutral fund handler, the standard out clauses, and breakup agreements, so that any dissolution is straightforward.
Re: i have a solution to the whole problem
Date: 31 Oct 2008 18:50 (UTC)marriage is *not* a constitutional right
Date: 31 Oct 2008 08:10 (UTC)/white smoke out. %-)