Creepy guy. On a somethat related note, I asked my 1st Amendment class over the summer whether they thought anti-polygamy laws should be considered unconstitutional. Though it was not unanimous, most of the class took the libertarian viewpoint that people should be allowed to voluntarily engage in multiple marriages.

I don't see any problems with people engaging in multiple marriages from an unofficial point of view, but I see little reason why the government needs to amend its laws to handle n-way relationships where n > 2. I.e., custody battles, visitation rights, tax benefits, etc. can all be limited to n=2 w/o any constitutional breach, the way I see it. But if you want to live the polygamous lifestyle, as long as you don't force it upon those who cannot give consent, there shouldn't be any legal limitations.

Cmonk, are you saying you don't see why the government should bother expanding its laws? How about because it's the fair thing to do?

This is an interesting question, LL, because at heart isn't it about the degree to which the govt should be able to enforce a more typically individualized, capitalist system? I.E., the choice of a 120-member hippie commune to present itself as one legal entity to the IRS and their state marriage clerk, vs. the states forcing people to have a one-on-one relationship with the government, with one slender little 2-person exception.

The difference really is whether the govt would ever be willing to see a piece of property as belonging to several people rather than 1 or two. If marriage could destroy the individualized concept of property ownership, wouldn't our govt be condoning (albeit self-imposed) socialism? Seems to me that your option (the fair thing to do) would weaken the govt's social and economic control regime, which is precisely what has never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever happened.

Because it's the fair thing to do.

doesn't the government already do something sort of like this when it recognizes corporations? In a way they're the opposite - they're entities of zero people, rather than many, but since corporations are controlled by the bylaws of the corporation, can't (and doesn't) a commune set itself up as a corporation and then own property jointly, inherit money, etc. etc.? I'm assuming corporations and a marriage unit function differently in certain critical ways, but how hard would it be to grant a corporation the same rights that marrieds have, and to even extend the same restrictions that a marriage has, in that if one member leaves the corporation it is dissolved, and stuff like that? i guess what i'm trying to ask (and ask genuinely, cause i don't know), is would it be possible to mimic a polygamous marriage with the corporation laws currently in place, augmented by a set of custom by-laws to cover areas not touched by corporate law?

I'm not saying "why should the government bother," I'm saying that I don't think the government should be constitutionally compelled to allow n>2 relationships, whether it be fair or not. Conversely, I do think they are constitutionally compelled to allow gay marriage, since it is a specific case of n=2 where there is no compelling reason to disallow it (such as age of consent).

As for Jon May's comment, you can probably mimic a great amount of polygamy through contracts, but your certainly not going to get any special tax or custody benefits. So your talking apples and oranges. (And by the way, I'm not generally thrilled by the way the law presently treats corporations, but that's a whole 'nother doughnut.)

it might be difficult, as incorporation laws explicitly exist to exclude personal property from liability; AND corps cannot be set up in violation of public policy (ie brothel {outside of lovely nevada}). i think there's still probably a great way to set up a shell corp to mimic this; i, however, never took that subject and am the wrong girl to ask.

but don't underplay the social-v-commerical aspect. social control IS the main point of civic marriage, and giving people freedom to broadly define social relationships, with govt support, is a far more revolutionary and era-altering shift than gay marriage, or marrying cousins, or whatever. i'm not disagreeing with LL, just being cynical about its remote possibility due to its innately dangerous character.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

c-monk: I think you're right that the spirit of the law can't be stretched to protect n-way marriages. But I suspect that the letter of the law could be quite flexible under a radically different Supreme Court.

flea: Maybe I'm naive, but I don't think most gov't decision makers think about it on a macro scale like that. I think polygamy just creeps them out, and then they make up silly reasons to justify acting on that creeped-out-ness (cf. everything out of Rick Santorum's mouth).

Would a nuclear family have "community property"? If I were one of six children of a married couple, would we effectively have an eight-person commune? Or do the adults own everything?

As many have observed before me, the real solution to all this is for the government to get out of marriage altogether.

"I think polygamy just creeps them out, and then they make up silly reasons to justify acting on that creeped-out-ness (cf. everything out of Rick Santorum’s mouth)."
-I think that's just the emotional (as opposed to rational) version of ensuring the security of the capitalist machine- confine identity in order to expand and control a certain kind of non-human circulation that is facilitated by humans.

Is the question about community property of nuclear families regarding some hypothetical? 'Cause currently minors certainly don't have an equal share in family property as their guardians (I mean, I don't think they do).

you have no legal interest in parental property until their deaths (or until they set up a trust for you - i'm still waiting for mine).

i think the abortion policy debate has made me far more cynical about the realities of macro social control. i don't think that republican strategists really give two flying fucks about abortion or fetuses (admittedly cynical; but there are few laws restricting fertility clinics), but i DO believe that they very much want to reduce women's sexual freedom because it threatens the psycho fabric from which is woven the paternalistic bullshit that is conservatism.

and really, i think birth control, sex toys, abortion, gay marriage, and polygamy are very similar debates, in that all involve decoupling the formerly precise corollation between bi-contractual romantic love and child-bearing. at least before the advent of dna testing, men have always had the sole benefit of that decoupling, and I think it scares the hell out of everyone on K street (god rest its soul) that people have sex because they enjoy it.

can you imagine a high school sex ed class teacher saying, "by the way, sex is really fun?" Wouldn't parents go absolutely apeshit?

Geoff,

I'm so surprised your liberal-minded students would approve of multiple marriages in the name of freedom of religion. The women in those polygamist families rarely are educated to even the lowest standards of the public school systems. And just because you can read does not mean you are educated. A woman who has never had any other information but that which has come down from an authoritarian leader is not going to have enough information to choose the best way of life for herself. Those women who ARE educated, who DO know that there are options, THEY should be allowed to live in polygamy. Maybe we should change Health and Human Services rules to state: if you want welfare (many of these polygamist sects live on the PUBLIC trough because they don't CLAIM much income), you must show up for PUBLIC school. Don't forget that in the preamble to the Constitution mankind is granted the right of pursuit of happiness.