Civil Unions and Bigamy

[cand86]

This was actually brought up by someone on Yahoo! Answers, and I found it so interesting I thought I'd bring it up here:

Is it theoretically possible for a bisexual person to get one spouse of each gender using opposite marriage and civil union laws, since they are treated with different terminology and are, essentially, different institutions?

I have a feeling it would probably be considered bigamy in the eyes of the states that do offer both, but anyone with actual legal knowledge would be very welcome to comment!

But it does bring up a lot of issues, about how invisible bisexuality still is in our culture, especially as something romantic and not only sexual. Makes me wonder- for those of us who are polyamorous, if we could get married to our opposite-sex partners and civil union'd to our same-sex partners, would the anti-gay marriage crowd (who so often uses the "slippery slope to polygmay" argument) suddenly change their tune and be in favor of gay marriage?

[FalconAngel]

Yes, it would be bigamy. You have to remember that, according to the law, a civil union is not too different than a marriage. They only gave it a different name so that the right wing Christians wouldn't throw a fit about it, which they do anyway.

[cand86]

Yeah, I figured as much.

[MetaSexual2]

There was already a trial case here in the UK cand86...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2051926.ece

[shybipinay]

I think if we are going to go so far as to allow gay marriage, then we should not restrict polygamy or any other form of loving relationship.

As mentioned in the thread on Libertarianism, etc. we should strive to get government out of the family home and less intrusive into each person's lives. I'm sure deep down each of us, as human beings, want our individual sovernity back. We want the ability to make our own decisions in life and not have the State do that for us.

Whatever kind of a marriage or civil union floats your boat, enjoy it. The late Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau (Canada) stated quite emphatically once that the State has no business in the bedrooms of Canadians. Whatever happened to that concept?

[FalconAngel]

I think if we are going to go so far as to allow gay marriage, then we should not restrict polygamy or any other form of loving relationship.

As mentioned in the thread on Libertarianism, etc. we should strive to get government out of the family home and less intrusive into each person's lives. I'm sure deep down each of us, as human beings, want our individual sovernity back. We want the ability to make our own decisions in life and not have the State do that for us.

Whatever kind of a marriage or civil union floats your boat, enjoy it. The late Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau (Canada) stated quite emphatically once that the State has no business in the bedrooms of Canadians. Whatever happened to that concept?

As it relates to this topic, the problem is in getting Right wing religion (they know who they are) out of the lawmaking business.
The religious wrong has too much control over the lawmaking process and must be removed from it.

[Annika L]

I think if we are going to go so far as to allow gay marriage, then we should not restrict polygamy or any other form of loving relationship.

As mentioned in the thread on Libertarianism, etc. we should strive to get government out of the family home and less intrusive into each person's lives. I'm sure deep down each of us, as human beings, want our individual sovernity back. We want the ability to make our own decisions in life and not have the State do that for us.

Whatever kind of a marriage or civil union floats your boat, enjoy it. The late Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau (Canada) stated quite emphatically once that the State has no business in the bedrooms of Canadians. Whatever happened to that concept?

Neither Canada nor America (to my knowledge) make it illegal to have polyamorous or polyfidelitous *relationships*. But marriage is another thing entirely.

I spelled out in another thread the difference I see between marriage and civil union: marriage is a religious institution and each individual religion should specify who can and cannot marry within that faith; civil union, on the other hand, is defined by the state in order to support its own goals and interests (and since each nation has different goals and interests, each must define this in their own way).

So here is the difference I see between same-sex unions and polyamorous ones:

The goals that the US (and I believe Canada) promote through its unions (called marriages, but again, technically, marriage is defined by religious institutions) tend to revolve around stability and providing a solid emotional and financial environment for raising children...hence promoting a healthy continuance of the state. As I stated in the other thread, research indicates that same-sex couples provide no less stable an environment for children than heterosexual couples, and so it is no less in the interest of the state to support those unions, and I believe they should change their policy to favor these interests.

But I believe there is research that shows that polyamorous relationships are a good deal *less* stable than 2-person relationships, especially when there are children involved. If this is the case, then the state has no interest in promoting such relationships. Again, yes, if a religion advocates such relationships, the state cannot stop people from believing they are ok...but the state need not recognize or promote them, and most nations seem to choose to make such 3+ person unions illegal.

[MetaSexual2]

Annika - The idea that marriage is primarily a religious institution is a falsehood invented by opponents of same-sex marriage in the US. It is not supported by the historical record. There are too many examples of cultures who have had marriage that is not administered for religious purposes for it too be considered accurate. Good examples can be found in classical Greek and Roman societies before the invention of Christianity.

The model you are proposing for state control of societal stability is also an argument invented by the Christian right for attempting to enforce their views on others and it goes against the spirit of the US Constitution. Centralized control of morality is generally considered not to be a good thing in a modern democracy. A key example, the state puts no legal proscriptions on adultery, which it is much easier to argue causes societal instability than polyamory. The idea that polyamory causes instability is also not supported by the historical record and there has been no convincing research on the subject in modern society. To truly do the experiment you would have to allow the full recognition of poly unions with the support of the legal system so that they were on a equal footing with monogamous ones.

[TaylorMade]

Annika - The idea that marriage is primarily a religious institution is a falsehood invented by opponents of same-sex marriage in the US. It is not supported by the historical record. There are too many examples of cultures who have had marriage that is not administered for religious purposes for it too be considered accurate. Good examples can be found in classical Greek and Roman societies before the invention of Christianity.

The model you are proposing for state control of societal stability is also an argument invented by the Christian right for attempting to enforce their views on others and it goes against the spirit of the US Constitution. Centralized control of morality is generally considered not to be a good thing in a modern democracy. A key example, the state puts no legal proscriptions on adultery, which it is much easier to argue causes societal instability than polyamory. The idea that polyamory causes instability is also not supported by the historical record and there has been no convincing research on the subject in modern society. To truly do the experiment you would have to allow the full recognition of poly unions with the support of the legal system so that they were on a equal footing with monogamous ones.

But marriages were solemnized by religious rituals in addition to the state recording it in their records, correct?

That, I think, is what Annika's overreaching point is. Marriage is the religious ceremony, no matter what religon you actually are.

I swear, sometimes I feel more comfortable as a bisexual in church than a Christian on this forum. ("But you're not THAT kind of Christian, Taylor. . ." :rolleyes:)

*Taylor*

[MetaSexual2]

But marriages were solemnized by religious rituals in addition to the state recording it in their records, correct?

That, I think, is what Annika's overreaching point is. Marriage is the religious ceremony, no matter what religon you actually are.

I swear, sometimes I feel more comfortable as a bisexual in church than a Christian on this forum. ("But you're not THAT kind of Christian, Taylor. . ." :rolleyes:)

*Taylor*

Taylor, its the injection of the religion into politics that I am objecting to here. Its not so much Christianity as it is modern US right wing "Christianism" that is my concern. I am particularly interested in the spread of ideas within cultures and the two ideas Annika mentions have only come to the fore very recently. These ideas need to challenged because they are simply not true, and have started being presented as (pun intended) gospel.

There are very clear examples of marriages ceremonies in Greek and Roman society that had no religious rites. There were some that did, but this was by no means universal. There are a number of other non-western cultural examples as well.

[texasman6172003]

Well Taylor ,At least your True too yourself. Id rather have you in my church than a alot of the So called Hypocritical church goers.The ones that go out too the Bar's too Drink smoke,and cuss like every one else,and then being in the front row pew on Sunday morning,makes me want too puke.. Just my :2cents:Hon...:bigrin:

[Annika L]

Annika - The idea that marriage is primarily a religious institution is a falsehood invented by opponents of same-sex marriage in the US. It is not supported by the historical record. There are too many examples of cultures who have had marriage that is not administered for religious purposes for it too be considered accurate. Good examples can be found in classical Greek and Roman societies before the invention of Christianity.

The model you are proposing for state control of societal stability is also an argument invented by the Christian right for attempting to enforce their views on others and it goes against the spirit of the US Constitution. Centralized control of morality is generally considered not to be a good thing in a modern democracy. A key example, the state puts no legal proscriptions on adultery, which it is much easier to argue causes societal instability than polyamory. The idea that polyamory causes instability is also not supported by the historical record and there has been no convincing research on the subject in modern society. To truly do the experiment you would have to allow the full recognition of poly unions with the support of the legal system so that they were on a equal footing with monogamous ones.

Met,

I think you're getting hung up over the semantics I'm using, so let me explain that...if the Christian right heard and understood my views on this, they would not approve.

My argument is not based on history, but rather on modern-day practicality.

First, I am recognizing that today there simply *are* two different (and independent) levels on which a union can be made. A union can be forged/recognized by a religious institution, or a union can be forged/recognized by the state...and the only time these two are truly one and the same is when the state in question is a religious state (e.g., Iran). I don't consider either of these kinds of unions to supercede the other...each has its role: the religious role is a spiritual one, and the civil role is for more practical purposes like taxation, property ownership, etc.

There are hundreds of different religions in the world, and each defines what kinds of unions it will sanctify. Some permit unions between same-sex couples, some permit polygamy, and some permit far less mainstream practices.

Nations *cannot* make decisions about those religious unions. For instance, if Hinduism does not permit same-sex marriage (and I have no idea whether it does, nor is it relevant to the argument), then the US Government cannot decide that it is ok for two Hindu men to marry...they can only decide that if two Hindu men *are* allowed to marry, they will (or won't) support that union. But if Religion X does permit same-sex marriage, the US Government cannot stop adherents to that religion form believing those marriages are sanctified by the god they believe in.

Similarly, religions *cannot* make decisions about what unions are supported by the state: if two women marry in Massachussets, the Catholic church cannot change that fact...but if the women are devoutly Catholic, it would mean that although the state supports their union, they are not married in the eyes of the god they believe in. On the other hand, an Episcopal church in Alabama may be willing to marry two women, but the state would not recognize that marriage for the purposes of taxation or joint property ownership.

So I am simply recognizing the distinction between the power of a religious institution (that the state can attempt to influence, but ultimately is powerless to control) and the power of the state (that religious institutions can attempt to influence, but ultimately is powerless to control). Each and every religious institution decides who can and cannot marry based on their own sense of morality and spirituality, and each and every nation decides who can and cannot be united based on its own interests and goals.

Given that there are these two kinds of union, I operationally define two different terms, so we can tell the ideas apart: I use "marriage" to describe a union created by a religious instituion, and I use "civil union" to describe a union created by the state. In the US what I call civil unions are generally called marriages for historical reasons, and because they tend to coincide with marriages (in my sense of the word) within *major* world religions. But the distinction I describe stands: Islam has rules by which a man may marry more than one woman, but the US government would not permit such a union (nor would any individual US state).

So in my language, in the US, a heterosexual couple who marries, say, in a Baptist Church, would be both married and in a civil union. A heterosexual couple that marries in a courthouse would have a civil union, but not be married. A gay couple who marries in an Episcopal church in Alabama would be married, but not have a civil union. And the Moslem man who takes a second wife may be married to both of his wives, but only has a civil union with at most one.

Hopefully that clears up my use of language, and I apologize for not laying that out clearly in my first post...um...I was in a hurry. Perhaps you should re-read my first post with this language in place. I stand by my argument that same-sex unions should be supported by the state (whether the state chooses to continue to call their civil unions marriages, or chooses some other word for them).

You may certainly debate the evidence, if you wish, of the stability or impact on children of polyamorous relationships. This is not an area that I have researched, and I was only presenting my sense of what was out there. I believe there is a lot of hearsay evidence on both sides, and until I see something more solid presented by either side, I will understand the state exercising caution.

[TaylorMade]

Met,

I think you're getting hung up over the semantics I'm using, so let me explain that...if the Christian right heard and understood my views on this, they would not approve.

My argument is not based on history, but rather on modern-day practicality.

First, I am recognizing that today there simply *are* two different (and independent) levels on which a union can be made. A union can be forged/recognized by a religious institution, or a union can be forged/recognized by the state...and the only time these two are truly one and the same is when the state in question is a religious state (e.g., Iran). I don't consider either of these kinds of unions to supercede the other...each has its role: the religious role is a spiritual one, and the civil role is for more practical purposes like taxation, property ownership, etc.

There are hundreds of different religions in the world, and each defines what kinds of unions it will sanctify. Some permit unions between same-sex couples, some permit polygamy, and some permit far less mainstream practices.

Nations *cannot* make decisions about those religious unions. For instance, if Hinduism does not permit same-sex marriage (and I have no idea whether it does, nor is it relevant to the argument), then the US Government cannot decide that it is ok for two Hindu men to marry...they can only decide that if two Hindu men *are* allowed to marry, they will (or won't) support that union. But if Religion X does permit same-sex marriage, the US Government cannot stop adherents to that religion form believing those marriages are sanctified by the god they believe in.

Similarly, religions *cannot* make decisions about what unions are supported by the state: if two women marry in Massachussets, the Catholic church cannot change that fact...but if the women are devoutly Catholic, it would mean that although the state supports their union, they are not married in the eyes of the god they believe in. On the other hand, an Episcopal church in Alabama may be willing to marry two women, but the state would not recognize that marriage for the purposes of taxation or joint property ownership.

So I am simply recognizing the distinction between the power of a religious institution (that the state can attempt to influence, but ultimately is powerless to control) and the power of the state (that religious institutions can attempt to influence, but ultimately is powerless to control). Each and every religious institution decides who can and cannot marry based on their own sense of morality and spirituality, and each and every nation decides who can and cannot be united based on its own interests and goals.

Given that there are these two kinds of union, I operationally define two different terms, so we can tell the ideas apart: I use "marriage" to describe a union created by a religious instituion, and I use "civil union" to describe a union created by the state. In the US what I call civil unions are generally called marriages for historical reasons, and because they tend to coincide with marriages (in my sense of the word) within *major* world religions. But the distinction I describe stands: Islam has rules by which a man may marry more than one woman, but the US government would not permit such a union (nor would any individual US state).

So in my language, in the US, a heterosexual couple who marries, say, in a Baptist Church, would be both married and in a civil union. A heterosexual couple that marries in a courthouse would have a civil union, but not be married. A gay couple who marries in an Episcopal church in Alabama would be married, but not have a civil union. And the Moslem man who takes a second wife may be married to both of his wives, but only has a civil union with at most one.

Hopefully that clears up my use of language, and I apologize for not laying that out clearly in my first post...um...I was in a hurry. Perhaps you should re-read my first post with this language in place. I stand by my argument that same-sex unions should be supported by the state (whether the state chooses to continue to call their civil unions marriages, or chooses some other word for them).

You may certainly debate the evidence, if you wish, of the stability or impact on children of polyamorous relationships. This is not an area that I have researched, and I was only presenting my sense of what was out there. I believe there is a lot of hearsay evidence on both sides, and until I see something more solid presented by either side, I will understand the state exercising caution.

There's actually a Conservative columnist (I think she's Catholic) who floated your concept out. . .It got a mixed reception, and a couple out and out liked it.

<shrug> More people may be happier with the solution than you think.

*Taylor*

[shybipinay]

Neither Canada nor America (to my knowledge) make it illegal to have polyamorous or polyfidelitous *relationships*. But marriage is another thing entirely.


Ya, that's why the leader of Bountiful, British Columbias has been brought up on 1 charge of polygamy. Rumours abound that he is married to underage women, but no charges of consorting with minors or contributing to the influence of minors. Just one (1) charge of polgamy. Gay marriage is ok, but polygamy is not!

[Annika L]

Ya, that's why the leader of Bountiful, British Columbias has been brought up on 1 charge of polygamy. Rumours abound that he is married to underage women, but no charges of consorting with minors or contributing to the influence of minors. Just one (1) charge of polgamy. Gay marriage is ok, but polygamy is not!

Yes, that's exactly what I said: polyamorous relationships are not illegal (i.e., it is legal, if grounds for divorce, to screw around outside of wedlock), but polygamous *marriage* is not legal.

What is your point? Are you asking why this is the case, or are you disputing that this is the case?

[Annika L]

There's actually a Conservative columnist (I think she's Catholic) who floated your concept out. . .It got a mixed reception, and a couple out and out liked it.

<shrug> More people may be happier with the solution than you think.

*Taylor*

I don't really consider it to be "my" concept, and it's not really meant to be any kind of solution...it's just fact.

Is it controversial to say there are two different agencies (religion and government) that have differing (though sometimes intersecting) interests in who is considered united?

Perhaps my putting words to these different kinds of union is controversial, or at least the words I used, since "marriage" and "civil union" are charged words in our society. But I only define them operationally, and I don't put one above or below the other. If you don't like those words, call them unionA and unionB if you prefer...or legal union and spiritual union...or whatever. The fact remains that they are two different things, even though they frequently coincide.

[MetaSexual2]

Annika, I agree with you that we should let religions handle the spiritual side of unions as they see fit, but the danger involved in the semantics now is that we are risking creating a two-tiered system with differing rights such as the one that currently exists in California. As you are saying, a single legal system for recognising unions between individuals is what would be fair and just. As it is now though, for the majority of the US we have a religious legal and semantic definition of marriage that is suppressing individual rights. I go back and forth on what the best way to sell it to the US public is, but my thinking is moving towards that with the ongoing change in cultural attitudes it is not necessary to cede the word marriage to social conservatives. What got my back up a bit is that the two arguments you were using (marriage is strictly religious, social stability) were invented by right wing pundits as arguments against same-sex marriage and for suppressing individual freedoms. For the reasons I stated above, neither of them is valid.

On the original topic, it is almost always in the interest of the state to officially recognise contracts between individuals in order to bring them under the jurisdiction of the legal system. The situation as it stands now for poly marriages is arbitrary in deciding that their de facto contracts aren't valid. Corporate partnership law is well equipped to handle entities comprised of multiple people, and this could readily be adapted to poly marriages.