Currently they are for two people (one male and one female). With same sex marriage they would stay with two people, just no longer restricted to one of each gender - legalising polygamy would mean extending the legal rights to a third (and fourth and fifth and how ever many are in the marriage) person.
For myself, I couldn't care less. There is no law against more than two people living together in a relationship, the only issue is around the granting of legal rights.
In terms of your example, I dunno how it is in the US, in the UK you just don't get any legal recognition for additional marriages if they happened before moving to the UK - the marriage still exists, just not legally. Is it different in the US? I mean, sure the marriage wouldn't be a legal marriage if people moved... but wouldn't their religious marriage still exist, or does the US government pry into that?
For myself, I couldn't care less. There is no law against more than two people living together in a relationship, the only issue is around the granting of legal rights.
In terms of your example, I dunno how it is in the US, in the UK you just don't get any legal recognition for additional marriages if they happened before moving to the UK - the marriage still exists, just not legally. Is it different in the US? I mean, sure the marriage wouldn't be a legal marriage if people moved... but wouldn't their religious marriage still exist, or does the US government pry into that?
*MySmiley*
Robert Graves "There is no money in poetry, but then there is no poetry in money, either."
Henning Mankell "We must defend the open society, because if we start locking our doors, if we let fear decide, the person who committed the act of terror will win"
Robert Graves "There is no money in poetry, but then there is no poetry in money, either."
Henning Mankell "We must defend the open society, because if we start locking our doors, if we let fear decide, the person who committed the act of terror will win"
For all you supporters of Gay Marriage: What about polygamy?
- 20/10/2012 12:02:06 AM
1397 Views
Legal rights.
- 20/10/2012 12:14:10 AM
801 Views
should be legal, would be nice for poly people. should include polygyny and polyandry. *NM*
- 20/10/2012 03:29:05 AM
391 Views
Government needs to stop legislating morality. So yes *NM*
- 20/10/2012 03:36:37 AM
378 Views
That's a huge chunk of what government does.
- 20/10/2012 04:35:45 PM
731 Views
That's not what I'm saying
- 21/10/2012 03:21:08 AM
749 Views
So you're opposed to abortion and gun control then? Welcome aboard!
- 21/10/2012 06:14:14 AM
703 Views
Why do you keep talking about gay marriage and polygamy in the same sentence..
- 20/10/2012 03:58:26 AM
771 Views
Get a grip. Your response is just what I tried to avoid.
- 20/10/2012 04:33:40 AM
694 Views
The more fool you.
- 21/10/2012 05:55:30 AM
790 Views
This, and legal recognition of it, is precisely why marriage has become an Equal Protection issue.
- 22/10/2012 03:40:01 PM
724 Views
*NM*
Because they are both violations of the paradigm of genuine marriage. Like it or not.
- 21/10/2012 05:49:32 AM
679 Views
I have no problem with polygamy being legal, but marriage is a privilege and can be limited to two.
- 20/10/2012 04:16:08 AM
792 Views
The only problem with that is that it was established with a heterosexist assumption
- 21/10/2012 06:33:32 AM
750 Views
From a legal perspective, all of your arguments are irrelevant
- 21/10/2012 03:12:39 PM
855 Views
This really is blatantly obvious, but still it might bear repeating...
- 21/10/2012 04:43:13 PM
745 Views
Yes, but only if its equal. Multi-people relationships should be more acceptable by society.
- 20/10/2012 05:15:24 AM
797 Views
*NM*
"Polygamy" is the all-inclusive term; whether or not he meant it, he said it.
- 22/10/2012 04:31:09 PM
692 Views
I support autogamy in addition to various forms of exogenic relationships
- 20/10/2012 05:49:07 AM
718 Views
Have you seen the Glee episode where Sue Sylvester conducts a marriage of herself to herself? *NM*
- 20/10/2012 09:50:32 AM
377 Views
I am fine with it if all existing parties to the marriage consent to each addition.
- 20/10/2012 10:10:19 AM
791 Views
The case for polygamy has really weakened rather than strenghtened, you might say.
- 20/10/2012 03:53:34 PM
894 Views
I have no problem with it, but as Amy says, it's not really relevant. *NM*
- 20/10/2012 05:40:50 PM
405 Views
Legalize polygamy and create a familymaking process, but don't cover polygamy under marriage.
- 20/10/2012 10:14:58 PM
714 Views
The state shouldn't even recognize marriage beyond name changes anyway
- 21/10/2012 03:52:40 AM
769 Views
Indeed
- 21/10/2012 06:04:41 AM
830 Views
I don't give a damn what you call it. That's your business.
- 21/10/2012 06:17:40 AM
1101 Views
And so?
- 21/10/2012 07:05:08 AM
725 Views
Re: And so?
- 21/10/2012 04:10:19 PM
898 Views
So can we call it garriage, give the same legal effect and call it good? *NM*
- 22/10/2012 03:28:33 AM
383 Views
According to your argument we could afford gay couples the same legal privileges...
- 22/10/2012 03:20:17 AM
661 Views
"...separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."
- 22/10/2012 04:45:31 PM
729 Views
That may well be the ideal solution. And also the most ironically amusing in how it would fail.
- 22/10/2012 07:35:05 PM
690 Views
We already went there and did that in '04, and yes, it was funny as f--k.
- 22/10/2012 09:51:49 PM
637 Views
Agreed in principle, but custody/cohabitation/assets go well beyond name change.
- 22/10/2012 04:37:09 PM
692 Views
This is the sort of thing that *needs* to be about principle
- 23/10/2012 04:54:10 AM
631 Views
Parental, property and other rights need government protection, and thus government involvement.
- 23/10/2012 05:14:37 AM
676 Views
Legal contracts must be open to all consenting adults, or none.
- 22/10/2012 03:11:55 PM
780 Views
You are correct, yet your reasoning is flawed.
- 23/10/2012 03:20:25 PM
699 Views
Again, the Equal Protection Clause has far less force on private entities than on government.
- 23/10/2012 03:52:06 PM
636 Views
Much less force, yes.
- 23/10/2012 04:15:03 PM
644 Views
The crux is "If it's my business, it's my business."
- 23/10/2012 04:43:25 PM
719 Views
Re: The crux is "If it's my business, it's my business."
- 23/10/2012 07:15:17 PM
659 Views
Like you said: By referring to "all invididuals" (or, better, "persons" or "citizens.")
- 24/10/2012 04:14:55 PM
686 Views
But we know very well that it doesn't have dire commercial consequences.
- 25/10/2012 07:17:55 PM
734 Views
I have several friends who practice polyamory, if they wanted to marry I would support it. *NM*
- 24/10/2012 06:47:58 PM
355 Views