What's Your Opinion of Polyamory?

[Saint Frankenstein]

If the states aren't interested in the promotion of the institution of marriage itself, then you should be able to pick out a legal reason that cannot be handled just as well between the parties and without a marriage license. You can't do that.

I didn't say that the State doesn't have an interest in promoting marriage. Quite the opposite, actually.

 

[joe1776]

I didn't say that the State doesn't have an interest in promoting marriage. Quite the opposite, actually.

What I meant is that there is no legal reason for state to issue marriage licenses. They are supporting what they believe to be the Christian concept of how a family should be formed. The fact that states license secular marriage doesn't foreclose on that reason.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What I meant is that there is no legal reason for state to issue marriage licenses. They are supporting what they believe to be the Christian concept of how a family should be formed. The fact that states license secular marriage doesn't foreclose on that reason.

You are obsessed with Christianity. It has nothing to do with religion. All nations issue marriage licenses, regardless of the majority religion or lack thereof.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

If the states aren't interested in the promotion of the institution of marriage itself, then you should be able to pick out a legal reason that cannot be handled just as well between the parties and without a marriage license. You can't do that.

Having a bunch of individual contracts between parties and states for things like tax code, automatic inheritance, civilian status through marriage and other immigration issues, protection of spousal testimony, social security, insurance regulating laws, child protection, alimony and the hundred other legal issues marriage covers would be more expensive for couples, for the state to officiate, and would clog up public attorneys for no good reason.
It's much more efficient to have one government contract merging wealth and decision making power between spouses and providing family unit protection. And that one contract is civil marriage.

 

[joe1776]

Having a bunch of individual contracts between parties and states for things like tax code, automatic inheritance, civilian status through marriage and other immigration issues, protection of spousal testimony, social security, insurance regulating laws, child protection, alimony and the hundred other legal issues marriage covers would be more expensive for couples, for the state to officiate, and would clog up public attorneys for no good reason.
It's much more efficient to have one government contract merging wealth and decision making power between spouses and providing family unit protection. And that one contract is civil marriage.

You have exaggerated the problem.

(1) If there are benefits given to married couples that would be denied to unmarried lifetime partners, they are probably unconstitutional (or should be).

(2) A form called a "domestic partership agreement" covering the items you mention is fairly simple. I'm pretty sure there are forms online although an attorney is an option.

(3) Having a state law, for example on automatic inheritance, doesn't have to require a marriage license to be enacted.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

(1) If there are benefits given to married couples that would be denied to unmarried lifetime partners, they are probably unconstitutional (or should be).

To me that's like saying that people not being able to drive without a state license should be unconstitutional. In order to use the government extended benefits (Or roads in the analogy), you need to make an agreement with the government. Marriage is that agreement witg the government.

(2) A form called a "domestic partership agreement" covering the items you mention is fairly simple. I'm pretty sure there are forms online although an attorney is an option.

There already are domestic partnership laws which are different from marriage. In the analogy these are the difference between motorcycle and moped licenses and car licenses. They serve a different function as marriage, providing a different level of legal and financial commitment for people who aren't interested in the whole marriage package. This is also true of civil unions, which have differing uses state to state.

(3) Having a state law, for example on automatic inheritance, doesn't have to require a marriage license to be enacted.

Yes, it does, for reasons mentioned above. Declaring the intent to merge financial and legal authority between partners provides consent for government to treat their holdings as one legal unit. This isn't something the government can just assume of lifetime committed partners. You can create a living will and POA to declare your intentions of inheritance, but it's more expensive than the marriage package, which covers a more thorough legal framework. And you can still have a POA and living will as a married couple which supersedes the automatic inheritance if you choose to.

 

[joe1776]

You are obsessed with Christianity. It has nothing to do with religion. All nations issue marriage licenses, regardless of the majority religion or lack thereof.

Since religion has ruled in most countries, the fact that most nations do it is irrelevant.

 

[joe1776]

To me that's like saying that people not being able to drive without a state license should be unconstitutional. In order to use the government extended benefits (Or roads in the analogy), you need to make an agreement with the government. Marriage is that agreement witg the government.

False analogy. To marry, you don't need to be qualified for public safety.

There already are domestic partnership laws which are different from marriage. In the analogy these are the difference between motorcycle and moped licenses and car licenses. They serve a different function as marriage, providing a different level of legal and financial commitment for people who aren't interested in the whole marriage package. This is also true of civil unions, which have differing uses state to state.

You have the domestic partnership laws plus a domestic partnership agreement which, if properly drawn, should take care of the legal issues.

Yes, it does, for reasons mentioned above. Declaring the intent to merge financial and legal authority between partners provides consent for government to treat their holdings as one legal unit. This isn't something the government can just assume of lifetime committed partners.

Why isn't it something the government can just assume unless directed otherwise by the parties? It's a simple matter of writing it into the law, isn't it?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

False analogy. To marry, you don't need to be qualified for public safety.

Even if you proved competency in safe driving, that's not all drivers licenses dictate, or what is involved in the relationship between government and citizen license (as well as ID laws). There is no separate contract that is just safe driving competency.
You can drive without a license, just not on government roads. You can't get federal government benefits relating to spousal merging of holdings without a marriage license. (Domestic partnerships and civil unions are state level contracts, not federal).

You have the domestic partnership laws plus a domestic partnership agreement which, if properly drawn, should take care of the legal issues.

Making separate but equal contracts is unconstitutional. We already have a contract covering legal issues. It's called a marriage contract. Domestic contracts are something different, providing specific state level and some federal level benefits.

Why isn't it something the government can just assume unless directed otherwise by the parties? It's a simple matter of writing it into the law, isn't it?

Nothing about lawmaking is simple. And I already said why they wouldn't assume it: inheritance requires consent of the party to merge wealth. Living with a someone, even a lifelong partner, is not consent to inheritance. It would fall to next of kin without a specific POA, living will, or marriage contract which dictates otherwise. Marriage means the partners have stated that their assets are merged, so a partner automatically receives the others property upon death unless stated otherwise by aforementioned POA or living will.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Since religion has ruled in most countries, the fact that most nations do it is irrelevant.

Dude, if you don't like marriage, don't get married. It just seems like you have a personal issue with it.

 

[joe1776]

Dude, if you don't like marriage, don't get married. It just seems like you have a personal issue with it.

I don't care how it seems to you. I'd be interested in any valid argument you might make, but so far, you've not given a valid reason that governments should be involved in the marriage business.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't care how it seems to you. I'd be interested in any valid argument you might make, but so far, you've not given a valid reason that governments should be involved in the marriage business.

I have. You just ignored it. You haven't given a valid reason why governments shouldn't be involved in marriage. You've been shown to be wrong multiple times.

 

[joe1776]

Even if you proved competency in safe driving, that's not all drivers licenses dictate, or what is involved in the relationship between government and citizen license (as well as ID laws).

Driver's licenses are necessary because the primary issue is public safety; marriage licenses are not. This is no legitimate primary issue involved.

Making separate but equal contracts is unconstitutional.

You're applying the basis of separate and equal to marriage issues? Reaching a tad there, aren't you?

We already have a contract covering legal issues. It's called a marriage contract. Domestic contracts are something different, providing specific state level and some federal level benefits.

Ground already covered.

Nothing about lawmaking is simple. And I already said why they wouldn't assume it: inheritance requires consent of the party to merge wealth. Living with a someone, even a lifelong partner, is not consent to inheritance. It would fall to next of kin without a specific POA, living will, or marriage contract which dictates otherwise. Marriage means the partners have stated that their assets are merged, so a partner automatically receives the others property upon death unless stated otherwise by aforementioned POA or living will.

You're repeating yourself but not denying that the current marriage laws could be edited to allow the same privileges to all lifetime partners.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Driver's licenses are necessary because the primary issue is public safety; marriage licenses are not. This is no legitimate primary issue involved.


You're applying the basis of separate and equal to marriage issues? Reaching a tad there, aren't you?


Ground already covered.


You're repeating yourself but not denying that the current marriage laws could be edited to allow the same privileges to all lifetime partners.

Drivers license are necessary for agreement between persons and government on how roads are to be utilized by drivers. You're getting hung up on the public safety issue, but it's not related to what we're talking about. The same would be true of any other government contract, say, for use of public land, for use of financial services. You must have a federal contract for use of federal benefits, it is not assumed by informal agreement between any parties.

1. You can't make redundant contracts (which yes, falls under separate but equal) because you don't like the word 'marriage.' That's not an actionable proposal for lawmaking.

2. Marriage laws already allow the same privilige to all lifetime partners. Who sign marriage contracts. There's no reason for the government to assume that those who don't sign have formally declared that their wealth and decision making power have been merged. That sort of legal decision requires formal consent. They need to take that step to file a formal contract with the government. And that contract is a marriage contract. If they don't like the word or the level of commitment, there are other options available to them such as domestic partnerships and civil unions. But they aren't and shouldn t be the same thing.

 

[joe1776]

Drivers license are necessary for agreement between persons and government on how roads are to be utilized by drivers. You're getting hung up on the public safety issue, but it's not related to what we're talking about. The same would be true of any other government contract, say, for use of public land, for use of financial services. You must have a federal contract for use of federal benefits, it is not assumed by informal agreement between any parties.

Your arguments don't get stronger with repetition.

1. You can't make redundant contracts (which yes, falls under separate but equal) because you don't like the word 'marriage.' That's not an actionable proposal for lawmaking.

Giving lifetime partners the same rights as married couple isn't creating a redundant contract. I oppose the licensing of marriages because the government has no reason to be in the marriage business except to promote the Christian majority's concept of the ideal family unit.

2. Marriage laws already allow the same privilige to all lifetime partners. Who sign marriage contracts. There's no reason for the government to assume that those who don't sign have formally declared that their wealth and decision making power have been merged. That sort of legal decision requires formal consent. They need to take that step to file a formal contract with the government. And that contract is a marriage contract. If they don't like the word or the level of commitment, there are other options available to them such as domestic partnerships and civil unions. But they aren't and shouldn t be the same thing.

Why shouldn't unmarried lifetime partnerships have the same rights as married couples?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Your arguments don't get stronger with repetition.

If there's repetition it's because you keep rephrasing the same statements and questions I've already answered.

Giving lifetime partners the same rights as married couple isn't creating a redundant contract.

Yes, it is. If you don't want to be married, you can't be covered by the marriage benefits outlined in the marriage contract unless you're creating a separate but equal contract extending the same benefits to unmarried partners.

I oppose the licensing of marriages because the government has no reason to be in the marriage business except to promote the Christian majority's concept of the ideal family unit.

Christianity has no more to do with it than federal land contracts, or the constitution itself. I got married, as an atheist, with no bibles or clergy in sight, no requirement of a specific family size or arrangement for family plans. Where exactly is the Christianity in my marriage?

Why shouldn't unmarried lifetime partnerships have the same rights as married couples?

I've already been over this, multiple times.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Incidentally i have no problem with polyamory and think concerns that you cant balance love and commitment equally with a romantic partner is on par with concerns that you can't balance love and commitment equally with multiple children.

I can't personally see myself in a poly relationship because my husband, who is a pretty private guy, wouldn't be interested in opening his house and bed to more people and I don't want to do the split bed thing. Plus, I just haven't met anyone I have the same kind of chemistry and love for as my husband, and I wouldn't seek being poly just for it's own sake. But who knows? Things can happen.