"Sound bite" from a weekly standard article|
Use your crystal ball and try to picture the world twenty years from now. From "Here Comes the Brides", pg. 2:
For what gay marriage is to homosexuality, group marriage is to bisexuality.
I've never heard it phrased exactly that way, and yet it rings true. The best part of the Dutch "cohabitation contracts," to me: it's a private contract. The problem is that many of the anti gay-marriage laws and amendments on the books or on their way there would void this sort of private, contractual arrangement--or even make it a crime to attempt to create such a contract.
Is this a "slippery slope" or social progress? I guess it depends upon which "side of the aisle" you sit. I, for one, would love to see the aisles married folks walk be made wide accessible for parties of three, four, or more. Will many require such accomodation? No, of course not. What possible harm could it cause to make room in our society for those few who do?
|Date:||January 16th, 2006 02:26 pm (UTC)|| |
|Date:||January 16th, 2006 08:29 pm (UTC)|| |
Re: WHy not?
Along the same lines, what about presumption of medical proxy, for example. Or estates. If there's more than one spouse there can be disagreement between them, and the assumption of role that the state now provides is then meaningless.
|Date:||January 16th, 2006 04:43 pm (UTC)|| |
Marriage & Divorce Law
Dear Ms. Noel, I quite agree with you that divorces of group marriages could be inconceivably messy. That's why I propose that we Poly folks need to become very clever about the Asset Protection strategies used by millionaires: Land Trusts, Charitable Remainder Trusts, Limited Family Partnerships, and the like. ANYBODY can form a corporation; you don't have to be married to do it! And you don't have to be a millionaire to use the same strategies that they do.
I hate the attitude that bisexuality is somehow intimiately linked to polyamory. Just because someone is attracted to men and women doesn't mean they can't pick an individual of whichever sex and remain faithful to them. It's really no different than saying hetero- or homosexual people will of necessity be poly because they can be attracted to more than one particular man or woman.
|Date:||January 16th, 2006 09:54 pm (UTC)|| |
I don't see an "intimate" link being drawn
but it's undeniable that most people are of only one gender...
I would tend to disagree that bisexuality is a direct tie to polyamory. That being said, plural marriage is eventually going to come up - as traditional marriage weakens, things are going to arise to replace it. The nuclear family and neighborhood support group is so weak now that a lot of things are arising to replace it - urban tribes, unofficial plural marriage, long tem co-habitation without marriage, etc. I think this is all good as it allows individuals to find what works for them without forcing everyone into a "one-size fits all" relationship mold.
On the other hand, I find the super-DOMA concept of not only protecting traditional marriage, but trying to invalidate contract law on a strictly religious basis, to be appalling. I honestly can't imagine that a super-DOMA will survive constitutional review.
> I honestly can't imagine that a super-DOMA
> will survive constitutional review.
Ha. What's "constitutional" is only what judges (ultimately Supreme Court justices) say is constitutional. Owning another person as property was constitutional for a third of the constitution's existence.
Contrary to what you were told in school, we have a government of men, not laws -- now under Bush especially. If you want to keep your rights, get active and vote.
picket, write letters, organize, boycott, blog...
it's getting pretty seriously thick in this country...we need to clean house.