Polygamy

Colombia Sees First Gay Polygamous Marriage. Sort Of.

Three men declare themselves wed. It's not clear if the government will recognize it.

|

Wedding rings
Estudiomaia

Last year Colombia became the fourth country in South America to legally recognize same-sex marriages. Now three men are trying to push the boundaries of the law further by getting a marriage including all three of them recognized as a singular family: a gay polygamous or polyamorous relationship.

If the authorities legally recognize their marriage, it will be a first for Colombia. But that's a big "if."

Western reporting indicates that the three men have signed legal papers with a lawyer in Medellin in an attempt to establish themselves as a family with inheritance rights. That's not the same as saying they are legally married, and Google Translate's version of the original news coverage from the Columbia-based Semana doesn't clear up the confusion. It's clear they've submitted a notarized document declaring themselves a family. It's unclear whether it's legally enforceable and whether a court will recognize it.

We do know they can't be punished for polyamory, and that may be driving some ambiguous reporting. Colombia struck down its laws criminalizing polygamous relationships in 2001. That's not the same as legally recognizing polyamorous marriages as valid. It just means you can't be arrested and imprisoned for it.

These men aren't the first same-sex trio to try to seek out legal recognition. They aren't even the first in South America. Three women in Brazil made a similar effort in 2015, hoping to define their family as they wanted and to raise their future children together.

If this is the future of marriage, it's worth exploring how it aligns with a libertarian philosophy of self-rule. Instead of the government telling citizens what kind of families they're allowed to have, these people are going to the government and essentially saying, "We're going to decide what our family looks like, thank you very much." As one of the men in the Colombian relationship put it, "We wanted to validate our household…and our rights, because we had no solid legal basis establishing us as a family."

This is a form of freedom of association, and it should be encouraged. To the extent that the state should play a role in defining a family, it should focus on intervening in cases of harm or abuse, and overseeing the various legal matters that result from having government involved with complex matters such as inheritances and the guardianship of children.

While polygamy does raise complicated legal issues, they're not unresolvable. In Reason's "Open" issue, published in 2015, family lawyer Diana Adams discussed ways to open marriage to a variety of nontraditional formations, including polyamory. As it stands, she noted, the lack of legal recognition for polygamy certainly doesn't stop people from trying to hammer out ways to make contracts work:

Three-way marriage is not legal in the United States. To create parity between three partners, I've divorced happy couples so that their third partner wouldn't feel left out of the marriage, with the burden of fewer legal rights and protections. I've also helped triads decide whether any two of them should get married strategically to protect a partner's parenting rights, health insurance, or immigration status. This triad might go on to have a polyamorous commitment ceremony that is as elaborate, expensive, or deeply felt as any wedding but not legally binding.

If a triad wishes to share finances or buy a house, we can create a three-person cohabitation agreement. It would include all the factors that make a two-person cohabitation agreement valid and binding, with the intention to set them up for stability that would keep them out of court, but also to create a document that I hope would be enforced by a court to clarify that a three-person cohabitation agreement can be binding. My clients are advised that depending on their jurisdiction, the courts may refuse to enforce the contract.

Read more here. Same-sex couples used to have to jump through similarly absurd legal hoops to define their families in such a way that the government would respect them.

NEXT: Blame the Shooter, Not the 'Rhetoric'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Colombia struck down its laws criminalizing polygamous relationships in 2001. That’s not the same as legally recognizing polyamorous marriages as valid.

    Though it’s in the works through a piece of legislation known as Acto del Tren del Alma.

  2. Every argument for gay marriage can be applied to polygamy and incest. Every single one. Which is why the government should get out of it entirely.

    1. “Every argument for gay marriage can be applied to polygamy and incest. Every single one. Which is why the government should get out of it entirely.”

      I’m not sure whether the first sentence is intended to have positive or negative connotations. Does the fact that the arguments can be applied to polygamy and incest mean that the arguments are awful and shouldn’t justify gay marriage? Or does it mean that the arguments for polygamy and incest are reasonable and shouldn’t be viewed as ridiculously outlandish and controversial?

      The awesome part is that it doesn’t matter!!!! Whatever connotation someone assumes, your final statement still applies equally. Government should gtfo the topic.

      1. It means that people need to at least be consistent. I’m gay, and don’t give a shit if you don’t support gay marriage. It doesn’t make you a homophobe. I simply value principled views, and I respect people who oppose gay marriage and polygamy and incest more than people who vocally and obnoxiously profess their support for gay marriage but get angry when people point out the obvious similarities to incest and polygamy, which are actually both far more frequently found in nature, historical cultures, and humans today than homosexuality relationships are.

        1. But yes, I think all of them should be legal if the government has to be involved.

        2. The difference is courts can very conceivably find a compelling state interest in disallowing incest and polygamy, while equal protection and due process necessitated recognizing gay marriages as equal to straight marriages.

          1. I can see incest, but what could possibly be the state’s compelling interest in keeping polygamy illegal? Aside from bureaucratic inertia and an unexamined, fossilized Puritanism.

            1. Meh. Maybe I’m missing a few things about the special nature of marriage, but I kind of wish they could just draw up contracts to deal with property and children and whatever and leave the fucking as people’s own business.

            2. And the actual state interest in preventing incest would really only apply to cases where offspring may be produced.

              1. That’s still not an interest of the State. If it was, then why do we not have compulsory genetic testing for all pregnant women? Admittedly, they’re trying to turn everyones health and ‘well being’ into an interest of the State, but to assume that it actually is one of those interests is giving up a whole lot of ground across the board.

          2. Once you take natural reproduction out of the picture, as we did with gay marriage, there is absolutely no reason to ban incest. If birth defects are the reason, then we should ban everybody with a genetic disease from marrying.

            What compelling state interest does the state have in preventing incest or polygamy? Any answer will be based on the same “Judeo-Christian values” used by the anti-gay marriage people.

            1. Once you take natural reproduction out of the picture, as we did with gay marriage, there is absolutely no reason to ban incest. If birth defects are the reason, then we should ban everybody with a genetic disease from marrying.

              C’mon colorblindkid, banning two people from marrying isn’t going to stop them from having sex and doesn’t do anything about the non-genetic defects that occur for ‘genetically-compatible’ married people. Cut through the red tape and save the taxpayers money by just making live birth of sub-par fetuses illegal.

            2. Reproduction is already out of the picture, at least to a relevant degree, as the courts noted frequently. We don’t do fertility tests before allowing straight couples to marry, so that’s one reason among many why it was unconstitutional to deny the same benefits to gay couples.

              That said, reproduction isn’t totally unrelated to marriage, and the state may have an interest in not sanctioning couples that are likely to lead to freak babies.

            3. The general cultural taboos (and perhaps genetically determined aversions) against incest do a pretty good job of preventing incest. I doubt there are a lot of people out there who would be banging and/or marrying their siblings if only it weren’t against the law.

              1. Depends what culture you’re from, RE: Islam.

                1. They’re definitely a bunch of sick fucks for the most part.

              2. I doubt there are a lot of people out there who would be banging and/or marrying their siblings if only it weren’t against the law.

                Man, IDK. Not only have I been around situations where I’m certain social mores as dictated by law were more the deciding factor, but plenty of people signed off on Lena Dunham’s book detailing her sexual assault/abuse of her sister and lots of people were cool with the effective rape from The Vagina Monologues.

                You’re probably absolutely right in that there’s no way there would be enough incest to damage the larger pool or wider breeding population but that seems exceedingly like a race to the bottom.


                1. You’re probably absolutely right in that there’s no way there would be enough incest to damage the larger pool or wider breeding population but that seems exceedingly like a race to the bottom.

                  RE: Pakistani Muslim genetic-based disease after a few hundred (thousand) years of marrying their cousins. Seriously, and it’s not just the Pakistani but pretty much all Muslims, it’s just the worst in Pakistan for some reaosn. This is apparently not widely known for some reason…

                  1. This is apparently not widely known for some reason…

                    Right, I don’t think Pakistan/Muslims have done much to hold the rest of us back genetically. Moreover, there’s also a distinct element of ‘What exactly constitutes an inbreeding as a (social) disease?’ in this regard. I don’t recall the exact history but it was something like marrying your cousins/family was tolerated or prized and then, well before anyone understood anything about incest or genetics (independent of it), those tribes were hunted and scattered to the point where their choices were to reproduce with their oppressors or (continue to) mate with family members. Bear the children of the person who murdered your family, allow your family/culture to die, or have sex with your cousin is an admittedly shitty decision matrix.

                    Regardless, “We aren’t, as a race, inbreeding ourselves into sterility.” is an exceedingly low bar.

                    1. Prevalence of genetic disease from hundreds, or possibly thousands, of years of inbreeding can indeed be a problem for several generations after the practice is halted is my understanding, but I’m no geneticist so I’ll leave that determination to your own research on the subject.

                      One can look to the English monarchy for a closer-to-home example of this in the West.

                    2. Prevalence of genetic disease from hundreds, or possibly thousands, of years of inbreeding can indeed be a problem for several generations

                      One can look to the English monarchy for a closer-to-home example of this in the West.

                      I’m not denying that inbreeding can be deleterious and/or widespread but it gets a bit tautological/existential at the social (moral) policy level. You could assert that sickle-cell anemia and sun exposure/skin cancer disease are the result of inbreeding. Moreover, it gets exceedingly hard to say that inbreeding caused the collapse/extinction of a given tribe rather than a tribe that was pushed to extinction practiced inbreeding or a subset of a tribe or culture that died out was known or suspected to practice inbreeding.

                      I’d maybe we could, as a species, inbreed ourselves back to the stone age. I’d like to think we’re sensible enough, at this point in history, to only let small groups who ignore conventional wisdom and social mores do so (which at some point, I would still consider to be rather cruel on ‘our’ part).

          3. There is no compelling state interest in disallowing incest and polygamy. None whatsoever. Colorblind is essentially correct. Personally I don’t give a shit who marries what; it’s a religious instiution and if you believe in the separation of the church and the state you should want the state out of the marriage business completely. It was never a Civil Rights issue unless you consider that religious institutions somehow fall under the States right to regulate something, which is bullshit at face value by-and-large.

            I fully admit that the Religious right is mostly at fault for this type of legislation in the past, but instead of doing the right thing the left did the wrong thing for the right reasons. They knew they would never be able to take away the bennies that married folk got from the State through various avenues, so instead they tried to turn it into a civil rights issue which is utterly illogical. Thus we’re left with a big fucking mess because everyone is too attached to the idea of tax breaks in various forms instead of just saying ‘fuck it, lets just lower the god damn taxes’.

            1. Marriage is not a religious institution. Marriage is older than religion, older than language.

              1. How could you possibly know that if it’s older than religion or language given that those are literally two things that predate history itself?

                1. Fossil records show an approximate 50/50 male/female ratio going back millions of years, duh.

                  1. Fossil records show an approximate 50/50 male/female ratio going back millions of years, duh.

                    In response to

                    How could you possibly know that

                    and half sarcastic.

                2. It’s older than language because the words associated w it are of an age equal to or greater than the oldest we know of. But more importantly, marriage is conserved in the line leading to humans. Marriage is pre-human.

              2. Marriage is not a religious institution. Marriage is older than religion, older than language.

                I got this exact talking point from a friend in Australia the other day when the marriage topic came up. Was there a new revision of The Points released recently?

                1. They must have, because this is such utter and obvious nonsense that it belies the imagination how someone could believe it without supporting evidence. The earliest known human that I can recall was Lucy, and it’s theorized (without real compelling evidence, mind you) that even they were monogamous. I would suspect that, as primitive as we were at the time, that their ‘beliefs’ were probably more ‘spiritual’ than ‘religious’ since we were literal animals but you need to split a lot of hairs to arrive at such an absurd point of view that marriage was never religious.

                  1. It occurs to me that perhaps they’re trying to say that pairing itself existed before religion, which is probably true, but marriage is an act created most commonly by religion so it falls apart any which way you cut it.

                    1. Not created by religion, just accommodated by it. You think people wouldn’t get married w/o religion? You don’t think atheists married? You don’t think people of different religions marry each other?

                      Just taking one of the recent religions, Xtianity, the church didn’t have its reps perform marriages until about a millenium after the church’s founding. Protestant sects except for Anglicanism didn’t have their ministers perform marriages at 1st either.

                    2. Look at various contemporary religions. They disagree on practically everything that you could call religious, yet they all recognize marriage. How could that be, unless marriage was around before them? If marriage were invented by a religion that then differentiated into all these religions, you wouldn’t have such widespread recognition of marriage across religions; why would only marriage be kept, & every other religious belief changed? If the religions arose indpendently, what kind of coincidence could’ve produced their agreement on 1 subject?

                      By the usual ways we determine the relative priority of elements of things like genes & language (i.e. by conserv’n between branches), marriage is older than we can measure anything in religion or gov’t, & in behavioral evolution it appears to go back a few millions of yrs., to a time well before the branching of anatomically modern humans from other species.

          4. Tony you bigoted hater. Who are you to deny these people their freedom and happiness?

          5. Polygamy gets a bad rep because in the past it often was associated with old men and multiple under-aged girls.

          6. Sadly, courts have found compelling state interest in disallowing all kinds of shit. I find it very likely that someone (who was really bored) could dig through various court decisions and find one where a judge declared that the state had a compelling interest in banning gay marriage FuR tHe KiDz!!!!

            That said, while I might concede a little more state interest regarding incest, I don’t think that there is any state interest that rises to a sufficient level to allow the state to justify rejecting those people’s freedoms on the basis that they don’t meet some traditional definition of family.

      2. Does the fact that the arguments can be applied to polygamy and incest mean that the arguments are awful and shouldn’t justify gay marriage? Or does it mean that the arguments for polygamy and incest are reasonable and shouldn’t be viewed as ridiculously outlandish and controversial?

        Yes. /sarc (kinda)

    2. Gov’t can’t get out of it unless you abolish the judiciary.

  3. I see no problem, as long as everyone involved is acting of their own free will and is old enough to give consent. I’m sure the future will continue to see both mixed and same-sex couples as well as various configurations of mixed and same-sex groups. Who cares?

    Why other people, and especially governments, are so hung up on sex-related matters is puzzling to me. It’s not bad enough that they want to control what people eat and smoke (soda tax, tobacco and marijuana laws, etc.), they also have an entirely unhealthy interest in what their neighbors are doing behind closed doors. These slavers really need to fuck off.

    1. I see no problem, as long as everyone involved is acting of their own free will and is old enough to give consent. I’m sure the future will continue to see both mixed and same-sex couples as well as various configurations of mixed and same-sex groups. Who cares?

      Chickens and eggs. Why did we care about polyamory in the first place? I wouldn’t go all third-wave feminist and assert that the whacko religious sects will be forcing 12-yr.-olds into concubinage tomorrow, but the slippery slope was claimed to exist and is kinda demonstrably validating the claims.

      1. whacko religious sects will be forcing 12-yr.-olds into concubinage tomorrow

        Tomorrow?

        1. Maybe more like the weekend. Tomorrow might be pushing it a little bit. Definitely no later than Monday after lunch.

      2. Why did we care about polyamory in the first place?
        I can’t speak for Asian cultures, but in European (and thus American) culture, it’s because of Christianity. A lot of our “cultural” and “taboo” laws draw their roots to various shades of the Church.

        As for 12-year old concubines tomorrow… you do know that there are Polygamist Mormon sects in Arizona and Utah that are still trying to do that, right? That’s kind of why Jeff Warren is in jail.

  4. “That’s not the same as saying they are legally married, and Google Translate’s version of the original news coverage from the Columbia-based Semana doesn’t clear up the confusion”

    So, it’s an article about the finer points of Colombian law on polygamy and gay marriage based on the results of a Google Translate version of a newspaper article?

    Even assuming that the translation wasn’t crap (horrible assumption), bets are pretty good that the original article was crap. How often do you see a news article in the US that covers some court decision and completely mangles both the law in question and the decision that was reached?

    Imagine a Colombian person using Google Translate to understand an article written in some Florida newspaper and explaining how the entire George Zimmerman verdict was rooted in the state’s Stand Your Ground law.

    1. Imagine a Colombian person using Google Translate to understand an article written in some Florida newspaper and explaining how the entire George Zimmerman verdict was rooted in the state’s Stand Your Ground law.

      To be fair, a lot of English language news papers did try their level ass best to link the Zimmerman verdict to Stand Your Ground laws. Some of the coverage made it sound like Stand Your Ground laws legalized the hunting of young black men for sport.

      1. Yeah, sorry, I might have phrased it poorly. I was trying to point out that (even if the translation was well done), there’s a good chance that the source material was spectacularly wrong about the facts of the case. The “and explaining how…” portion was intended to refer to the article, not the Colombian person.

        But, I guess that can also be further complicated by the person who is reporting on the article having even more complete lack of understanding of relevant laws. So… F the media twice*.

        * Not you, Scott.

  5. I’ve said for years that gay polygamous incestuous marriage is the estate planning of the future.

    1. Hitler only married Eva for the tax incentives, you know.

    2. Group linear marriage was the form of estate planning in “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”. The group would bring in new spouses over a span of years to maintain the line beyond the original group. Not necessarily a bi-sexual thing, but that would depend on the group.

      1. True. And science fiction has touched on group marriages in other contexts as well.

      2. The group would bring in new spouses over a span of years to maintain the line beyond the original group.

        The group would also ‘opt in’ siblings and girls as young as twelve. Not necessarily a sexual thing, but tolerance of it would depend on society at large.

        1. Depends on whether there’s grass on the field.

          1. It wouldn’t be illegal if nobody wanted to do it.

  6. I’ve been saying for a while that this is where the whole shebang leads to. The gay marriage angle opened the door to these concepts, such as ten men and three women getting legally hitched, which will effectively end the institution of marriage by the state.

    It was a religious practice that the state decided to encourage and limit in various ways, but now that the state has completely forgotten why it was doing any of this in the first place they’re flailing around like a headless chicken.

    The only logical choice is to let marriage go back to what it always was before; a religious practice that the state has no real say in whatsoever. It was never a Civil Rights issue, no matter how much gay folks wanted to make it into one. I’m not upset about these rulings, but they make a mockery of the states regulation of marriage which is ultimately a pretty good thing. Now, if only people would see the inherent idiocy in the state being in the marriage game in the first place maybe we’ll get some sensible rollbacks of these idiotic and outdated rules and laws, but lets just say I’m not holding my breath.

    1. “but they make a mockery of the states regulation of marriage”

      And this is bad?

      1. Read the entire sentence you quoted and you’ll have your answer.

        1. I had to read it a couple of times to get what you meant – my first run through it seemed like you were saying the regulation of marriage was ultimately a pretty good thing. Second time, I realized that modifier was attached to the mockery.

          1. Yeah, I would kill for an edit button since upon rereading my posts I inevitably find something that could be clearer. In a sense that’s not a bad thing though, it forces me to try harder to proof read the first time.

    2. Your idea of the hx of gov’t involvement in marriage is entirely wrong. It didn’t start as a religious thing; religions accommodated themselves to marriage as it was already known to exist. Same with law/gov’t.

      Law as it developed re marriage was a very libertarian thing. Before the law recognized individuals as equally empowered individuals, marriage was all the same to the law, which was whatever the chieftan dictated. However, when law arose to treat individuals as individuals, families had to be accommodated as something of an exception to the law. However, these must be recognized as exceptions which are inconvenient in a system that evolved mostly to protect individual rights. Marriage addresses a similar problem to that of incorporation; in each case there was a societal benefit to make exceptions to the individual-rights regime, but only under specified conditions. I think the common law got it pretty much right re marriage, and that trying to expand it to cover situations like same-sex couplings (which would be better handled as corporations or joint-liability partnerships) is inapt.

      Polygamy is usually conceived as a situation of someone’s participating in more than 1 binary marriage at a time: A married to B + A married to C. The story we’re being presented here of a ternary marriage?A, B, & C all being simultaneously married to each other?is very unusual & presents problems for the law worse than bigamy does.

      1. You could write a shorter sentence and say that historically the state was religion and have an argument, but even that potential argument is patent bullshit for obvious reasons in that it would still be a religious institution.

        ‘Marriage’ itself has been a religious rite for well over 5000 years across multiple cultures and faiths across the entire planet. I’m sure you could find a few isolated cases with that date range of it being ‘something else’ but I’ll await your citation to judge.

        1. Did those faiths arise from a single one over 5,000 yrs. ago?

          The marriage law we have to deal w comes out of common law, which was the result of an evolutionary process made to serve individuals of equal station. It was not dictated by a lord to the lord’s subjects.

    1. Aren’t they playing at the road house this weekend?

  7. It’s Adam and Steve. Not Adam, Steve and Bob

  8. Colombia Sees First Gay Polygamous Marriage. Sort Of.
    Three men declare themselves wed. It’s not clear if the government will recognize it.

    I haven’t heard a cogent argument as to why polygamous marriages, gay or straight should be illegal.

    1. And by the way, there is no such thing as gay polygamous marriage, there is merely polygamous marriage.

      1. Au-contrair! Poly-gamous = multiple wives/women. In a relationship with three males there is no wives at all. “Poly-androus” perhaps? It’s been over a decade since Greek class.

        1. Are you telling me that high-maintenance gay princess isn’t the wife?

        2. Yes, polyandry is the word.

        3. No. Polygamy means many marriages. Polygyny means many women. Polyandry I see you already got.

          And that’s significant. Polygamy literally means a situation of more than one marriage at a time, not more than one spouse in a single marriage. Someone’ll have to come up w a word for ternary, etc. marriages which are not just couplings, but joinings of 3 or more at a time, each to all.

          1. Google Translate gives “syzygos” as Greek for “spouse”. Huh?I’d thought “syzygy” was derived as cis-(uh)-geos, i.e. on the same side as Earth, when it was actually from Greek for “joint” or “yolk”. Guess the yolk’s on me, I shoulda smoked a joint.

            So…polysyzy, pron. “poly-sissy”? That won’t fly.

      2. Isn’t gay polygamy more popularly known in the gay community as ‘Saturday night’?

  9. I support not getting married at all. I am not married to my wife of 20 years. We talked with a probate attorney a few years back about this. He’s said don’t worry, she can inherit your personal estate and joint holding in the same way an officially married spouse could. I’m don’t know why he was sure I would die first though.

    1. I’m don’t know why he was sure I would die first though.

      Probably because your wife told him that over drinks.

    2. Unmarried men die early

    3. Are you significantly younger, than your wife? If not, you are statistically more likely to die first.

      1. you are statistically more likely to die first.

        There was a comedian (I think it might have been Don Rickles) who once said something the effect of the reason why men die before their wives is because we’re trying to get away from them.

      2. You just assume I am not a woman too, shitlord.

        1. You said wife of 20 years. Before the “year love won” everyone knows that gay people who tried to marry were enslaved on the old Chick fil-A plantations.

          1. You said wife of 20 years.

            But I also said I was not married. Woke yet?

      3. Daddy always went for the young ones. Mother was a good deal younger than he, but happened to die 1st. He remarried late in life to someone my sister’s age; when asked why he didn’t date women his own age, he answered, “There are no women my age.” Of course in Fla. that was demonstrably false, and in fact he’d previously dated a woman much older than the one he wound up marrying; but it was a good line, I think he credited some comedian.

    4. I suggest you start sleeping with one eye open.

      1. And gripping your pillow tight….

    5. Your lawyer lied.

  10. THERE ARE FOUR RINGS!

    1. Do you really want to know where the fourth ring goes?

    2. There was a fourth one, but he died of stomach cancer before the others got “married”

    3. Gollum has the fifth one.

      1. Do you really want to know where the thumb goes?

  11. But what about bakeries being forced to bake cakes!!!!!

  12. I’ve also helped triads decide whether any two of them should get married strategically to protect a partner’s parenting rights, health insurance, or immigration status. This triad might go on to have a polyamorous commitment ceremony that is as elaborate, expensive, or deeply felt as any wedding but not legally binding.

    During the Great Gay Marriage Debate, there was an argument on NPR (and one I happen to agree with) that one of the concrete ways in which straight-only marriage was measurably discriminatory was that there were something like over 12,000 (you read that right) federal benefits that married couples were eligible for.

    It would be interesting to see how… and I’m just throwing out ideas here… survivor pension benefits from say, a police officer who kills himself driving into a tree while he’s texting his side-chick will play out.

    Currently, the spouse receives the officer’s pension for life. Since they’re public benefits, I’m essentially paying for that.

    One might presume that the state would merely declare that the pension benefit will go to the multitude of spouses, but be divided between them. I wonder how long it would be before the screeching would ensue as to how unfair it all is, and how the poor grieving spouses can’t possibly live large on a pension divided three ways and so… well, you get the idea.

    There’s a reason why people are going to want to hang on to government-recognized (read: permission-based) marriage.

    1. Like i said in an earlier thread, there are really very few people who care about shrinking the nanny state, or even think about it at all until one of their particular horses gets eaten by Leviathan.

    2. One might presume that the state would merely declare that the pension benefit will go to the multitude of spouses, but be divided between them.

      You’re not thinking of the children. Again. The spouse with the most children should be the proporational winner in the estate’s disbursement.

      1. Wow, even more opportunity for unfairness. We need some sort of government hand in defining marriage and benefits. Private contracts will leave people unfairly treated. And it hurts minorities.

        1. Wow, even more opportunity for unfairness. We need some sort of government hand in defining marriage
          and benefits. Private contracts will leave people unfairly treated. And it hurts minorities.

          John ran us through this whole rigamaroll back when your NPR argument broadcast and I don’t exactly disagree with him. We are still going to have divorce and marital dissolution and the same (biological) factors that essentially drove us to prefer/condone (axiomate?) one man/one woman are going to do the same thing again.

          Also, IIRC, it was 1,100+ federal benefits rolled into marriage. Now, some of them apply to literally no one (gay grazing rights on Federal lands transferred by marriage), some are tautological nonsense (now that you can get gay married, you can legally sign a prenuptial agreement!), and some probably shouldn’t exist or aren’t exactly libertarian-y (preferential hiring based on marriage) but the number I recall was 1,100.

          1. Yes, many of the federal benefits are going to be incredibly narrow and rarely apply, but the point being they exist. But there are many that will apply to almost every married couple and create a clear case of discrimination.

            John’s augments as I recall then were wanting because he would pivot to wanting the state out of marriage when you’d point out concrete benefits which would be denied to gay couples. Since that’s a non- starter, recognize couples joining in matrimony (again, there is no gay marriage, there is only marriage) And be done with it. He would also point to the gay cakes controversy as proof that giving the gays marriage would create a rift on other rights. While I am adamantly against the gay cakes lawsuits and public accommodation b’s, that’s simply not a reason to deny people rights –fear that assholes will create new unrelated ones down the road.

            1. John’s augments as I recall then were wanting because he would pivot to wanting the state out of marriage when you’d point out concrete benefits which would be denied to gay couples.

              I didn’t mean so much as John’s personal beliefs as much as I was (and still mostly kinda am) in favor of either eliminating marriage, reverting to common law, or converting it to some manner of familial LLC.

              His point or argument against the latter two was that you would still need to streamline and/or legally boilerplate to make common law functional in any real way and that with open partnerships, you essentially end up liberalizing special protections, benefits, and legal priorities in an inconsistent or unfeasible manner and otherwise end up needing to divide up indivisible assets among n-partners. At which point, you have to return to effectively prioritizing the atomic (as in basally defined and indivisible) family.

            2. It jived or resonated with was a sort of mental ‘social experiment’ I do: If you owned an island and wanted resources extracted from it what’s the minimal social structure you would desire/prefer/enforce to do so? You end up recognizing that only heterosexual couples intrinsically incur risks from reproduction and incur those risks to the benefit of their offspring and peers. Which isn’t to make them sacrosanct, but shows that you don’t exactly rid yourself of risk or discrimination, you just displace it.

              I don’t mean to say his logic was perfectly sound or that he didn’t work backwards from his conclusion, but he’s not exactly wrong. It’s not like polyamory/polygamy hasn’t been tried historically and/or that we live under some Christian Sharia law enacted by the FF.

              1. Which isn’t to make them sacrosanct,

                We are still, very much, a nation founded in protest of hereditary succession.

            3. He would also point to the gay cakes controversy as proof that giving the gays marriage would create a rift on other rights
              Well that was a horrible argument. Those cases started before gay marriage was a thing. Elane Photography? Pre-dated gay marriage in New Mexico by something like seven or eight years.

              Part of the reason the whole “discriminating against the marriage, not gay people” argument was never persuasive.

            4. Yes, many of the federal benefits are going to be incredibly narrow and rarely apply, but the point being they exist. But there are many that will apply to almost every married couple and create a clear case of discrimination.

              Also, from both a pragmatic and libertarian perspective (as I understand it), if the law is redundant or tautological those redundancies should be reduced or eliminated rather than justifying and reinforcing themselves/each other. ‘Because everyone should have a right to an annulment.’ is not a valid argument to end marriage discrimination or, if it is, the number of privileges is irrelevant; and, if it is, then you effectively corrode the definition of ‘Rights’ if not explicitly, then through displacement.

  13. Hahaha. We promised you the whole time that it wouldn’t be a slippery slope, but the secret goal all along was child-goat unions, or even perhaps the holy matrimony among an adult, child, octopus, and a chaise longue!

    Suckers.

    1. That’s fine. We just won’t let you march in our St. Pattys day parade.

      1. But I’m gay and Irish.

        1. It’s the St. Patty’s Day Parade, not the St. Patty’s Gay Parade. Don’t you people (yeah, I just said you people) already have your own parade? Yes, I understand it’s been overrun with frumpy lesbians pushing strollers, but still.

          1. I don’t actually give a shit because St. Patrick’s is an amateur night. The lines are so long that I cannot drink enough to get a buzz before it’s all over. The same cannot be said for my own sitting room at home.

            1. That’s because you’re not fuckin’ Irish enough and you show up after the Sun is up. You must be Scottish or, worse, a Protestant.

    2. And they’ll live in the octopus’s garden in the shade.

    3. Speak for yourself.

      My response all along was “When interracial couples wanted to marry, they had to fight their own battles. When gay couples have wanted to marry, we’ve had to fight our own battles. When incestuous of polygamous couples want to marry, they’ll have to fight their own battles too. Expecting me to explain why gay marriage won’t lead to something down the line is as moronic as expecting the Lovings to explain why their case wasn’t going to lead to mine. That is to say, even if you’re right about the slippery slope, it’s unreasonable to expect me to not argue for my rights because someone else might later argue for theirs.”

  14. In theory, I don’t think it’s any business who marries whom.

    But practically, polygamy ends up with rich men having lots of wives, leaving lost and lots of frustrated, pissed off young dudes.

    While this is a plus if you are fighting wars (which is why Islam is big on it), it’s generally not a great thing for society.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.