{"items": [{"author": "Kelly", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662144744502?comment_id=662145737512", "anchor": "fb-662145737512", "service": "fb", "text": "would it be more difficult to add poly clauses to marriage laws or just revise or delete laws such that marriage isn't a state regulated construct anymore? something like privatizing marriage.", "timestamp": "1401824399"}, {"author": "Ben", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662144744502?comment_id=662146655672", "anchor": "fb-662146655672", "service": "fb", "text": "The state still has the obligation to deal with dispersal of property, matching it up to estates that can owe creditors, power of attorney and hospital visitation in case of incapacitation, etc. Those laws exist not just because some people really like putting religious things in law, but also because there are real-world problems the laws solve. Deleting would create more problems than it solves.", "timestamp": "1401824975"}, {"author": "Mac", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662144744502?comment_id=662147329322", "anchor": "fb-662147329322", "service": "fb", "text": "When my then-wife and I were working on the details of home-schooling our children, I read up on this kinna stuff. Mass laws have some language about an educated citizen being necessary for the stability and health of the Commonwealth. Therefore, it goes on, the state has an interest in the education of children, and by reasonable extension, the well being of children. The marriage contract with the state is primarily to express state interest in the children's well being in the event that the marriage breaks down -- as 50% do. Secondarily, per Ben, it brings the marriage common wealth under the law and courts, if necessary.", "timestamp": "1401825338"}, {"author": "Ron", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662144744502?comment_id=662147409162", "anchor": "fb-662147409162", "service": "fb", "text": "#canofworms", "timestamp": "1401825438"}, {"author": "Theresa", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662144744502?comment_id=662150542882", "anchor": "fb-662150542882", "service": "fb", "text": "As if life isn't already complicated enough ...", "timestamp": "1401825814"}, {"author": "Paul", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662144744502?comment_id=662153062832", "anchor": "fb-662153062832", "service": "fb", "text": "Marriage/Civil Union should be available to any unrelated people who wish to become legally recognized as a family. It shouldn't matter what gender you are, what you do or don't do in the bedroom, or how many of you there are. I think it would make perfect sense for all the nuns in a convent or all the monks in a monastery to enter into a civil union together.", "timestamp": "1401825999"}, {"author": "Sam", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662144744502?comment_id=662157923092", "anchor": "fb-662157923092", "service": "fb", "text": "Would a person be able to be party to more than one marriage, group or otherwise? Could two people be in a pairwise marriage as part of a larger group marriage, and would that be in any way meaningful?", "timestamp": "1401826298"}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1401826649"}, {"author": "Todd", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662144744502?comment_id=662160183562", "anchor": "fb-662160183562", "service": "fb", "text": "I hate framing this question in terms of marriage, and you're doing a good job at getting at why. Most of the points you raise are the kinds of questions that we should be asking about contracts and welfare programs, rather than marriage specifically. E.g., Is there any reason I shouldn't be able to specify that my social security benefits* go to a good friend, rather than a spouse? Is the reason we'd want to avoid paying those benefits out to multiple spouses because we think a 1:1 mapping is reasonable, rather than anything to do with family structure? Framing in terms of marriage gives it moral implications that are really just tangential.
The parental leave one is at least relatively easy to address provided it's not legally enforced (which I think to some extent it is?)- the market can decide, more or less. I suspect that this would result in little, if any, difference between 2-person leave and poly leave, due to the small amount of demand for poly benefits. And this makes sense- if a 2-person marriage can handle infancy, it seems likely that a poly marriage doesn't need leave for much more than 2 parents.
*Haha, my social security benefits. I make joke!", "timestamp": "1401826885"}, {"author": "Ron", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662144744502?comment_id=662160582762", "anchor": "fb-662160582762", "service": "fb", "text": "Pretty soon we will need 3 incomes to raise kids. #economiccommentary #notpolycommentary", "timestamp": "1401827104"}, {"author": "Todd", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662144744502?comment_id=662160667592", "anchor": "fb-662160667592", "service": "fb", "text": "That seems... unlikely.", "timestamp": "1401827165"}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1401827228"}, {"author": "Todd", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662144744502?comment_id=662160807312", "anchor": "fb-662160807312", "service": "fb", "text": "Perhaps, though I don't think it really changes my point. If employers had sufficient incentive to increase the amount of available leave, I don't think it would harm anything. Though I think in that case it would probably result in more leave for monogamous marriages as well.", "timestamp": "1401827340"}, {"author": "David German", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/111229345142780712481", "anchor": "gp-1401828187351", "service": "gp", "text": "Why not just stop issuing marriage licenses altogether? \u00a0We already have reasonable legal defaults for single people, including unwed parents.", "timestamp": 1401828187}, {"author": "Rob", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662144744502?comment_id=662165298312", "anchor": "fb-662165298312", "service": "fb", "text": "Probably better to start with a new 'polyamorous civil union' option and go from scratch establishing any desired privileges.", "timestamp": "1401829186"}, {"author": "Laura", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662144744502?comment_id=662166186532", "anchor": "fb-662166186532", "service": "fb", "text": "Fascinating stuff but I've been a long-time proponent of removing the link between these benefits/privileges and marriage...yes it would take work but there are so many assumptions made by the current system, as previous commenters have noted.", "timestamp": "1401829358"}, {"author": "Paul", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662144744502?comment_id=662176690482", "anchor": "fb-662176690482", "service": "fb", "text": "The fundamental problem is that we regard \"marriage\" as a moral / emotional commitment instead of the legal contract that it really is, with the government always as one of the parties to the contract. Poly-amorous relationships work because the people in them want them to work, not because they are parties to a legal contract. Relationships between two people, opposite sex or same sex, could work the same way.", "timestamp": "1401835101"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662144744502?comment_id=662185822182", "anchor": "fb-662185822182", "service": "fb", "text": "@Adam: Are there any good stats on what percentage of enduring monogamous relationships have a male/female structure?", "timestamp": "1401841177"}, {"author": "Evan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662144744502?comment_id=662193511772", "anchor": "fb-662193511772", "service": "fb", "text": "Having a standardized contract is also useful. If you want to visit your spouse or equivalent in the hospital or make decisions on their behalf when they're incapacitated, for example, it's much easier to tell the bureaucrat in charge that you're married to them than to explain how the contract you have with them gives you those rights.", "timestamp": "1401845389"}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/106120852580068301475", "anchor": "gp-1401856772547", "service": "gp", "text": "I really doubt we have sensible defaults for unmarried people. Ending marriage sounds like a quick/good/fair way to get them, though!", "timestamp": 1401856772}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1401856788"}, {"author": "David German", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/111229345142780712481", "anchor": "gp-1401898710112", "service": "gp", "text": "@David Chudzicki\n where might we be lacking sensible defaults? There are a lot of unmarried people in all sorts of situations!", "timestamp": 1401898710}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1401902880983", "service": "gp", "text": "@David German\n\u00a0We certainly have defaults; the question is whether they're sensible.", "timestamp": 1401902880}, {"author": "David German", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/111229345142780712481", "anchor": "gp-1401904460243", "service": "gp", "text": "OK, so what specifically is a concern?", "timestamp": 1401904460}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662144744502?comment_id=662268431632", "anchor": "fb-662268431632", "service": "fb", "text": "@Wang: The author doesn't consider doing:
humans
- id
- name
- marriage_id
marriages
- id
- marriage_date
- divorce_date
This is a slight variation of their #5, dismissed early in the process, and would be appropriate if your legal system went with group marriage instead of multiple pairwise marriage.", "timestamp": "1401904462"}, {"author": "Alan", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/116622117068577394094", "anchor": "gp-1401904767722", "service": "gp", "text": "An example of a situation where we don't have reasonable defaults: Unmarried parents raising a child who is biologically related to one or more but not all of the parents and there is a blood relative of the child's who is estranged from their relevant relation due to some child related reason such as a history of abuse. The estranged relative has custody rights before the non-blood related parent(s) by default. I believe it is possible to legally fix this though last I heard it involves hoops such as the biological parent(s) disowning the child and then adopting them. No idea if this has ever been held up in court but the default definitely has. ", "timestamp": 1401904767}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/106120852580068301475", "anchor": "gp-1401904977500", "service": "gp", "text": "E.g. medical decisions defaulting to the closest family member. I believe that even with pre-planning it can be difficult to assign those rights to a non-family member in a way that will always trump family (parents, etc.).\u00a0", "timestamp": 1401904977}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/106120852580068301475", "anchor": "gp-1401905146066", "service": "gp", "text": "Also \n@David German\n, there's probably a bunch of stuff relating to taxes, inheritance, medical insurance, where maybe you think we have sensible defaults but many people wouldn't. (I.e., in the absence of marriage, would a lot of people think we should be able to have our unmarried partners covered by health care? Some such decisions are private, but many are very influenced by laws, right?)", "timestamp": 1401905146}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/106120852580068301475", "anchor": "gp-1401905265436", "service": "gp", "text": "I don't have time to look into more details at the moment, unfortunately. But to reiterate, I love the idea of not having marriage. Whether or not the current defaults are want we want as a society in that situation, it'd be better than the status quo at least once we've set things up right.", "timestamp": 1401905265}, {"author": "Ben", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662144744502?comment_id=662269868752", "anchor": "fb-662269868752", "service": "fb", "text": "One potential improvement would be clarification of language in new/revised law and contracts. In particular, \"spouse\" can be used to mean \"decision proxy\" (as in cases of hospitalization that need decisions), or \"the members of the pool that accrue my benefits\" (as in healthcare benefits). One of these is basically required to be one person (because a proxy must have decision capacity with the inability to disagree or tie on voting), while the other is just a pointer for allocation, and disambiguating them would be useful.
I wonder, though, if the demand for this sort of deeply-rooted change is sufficient to justify rewriting all the laws, rather than making a model contract that interested parties can opt into to cover benefits (as happened with gay marriage re: visitation, inheritance, etc before states got with the program).", "timestamp": "1401905295"}, {"author": "Ben", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662144744502?comment_id=662270317852", "anchor": "fb-662270317852", "service": "fb", "text": "Other side note: given the incentives, I feel like most benefits that accrue to a spouse could not be written extensibly for more people. The incentive to cut in another person for the extra social security money and take a kickback would be too strong.", "timestamp": "1401905499"}, {"author": "BDan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662144744502?comment_id=662271934612", "anchor": "fb-662271934612", "service": "fb", "text": "Benefits could probably simply be written so that the same amount accrues to one spouse or is shared among multiple spouses.", "timestamp": "1401905870"}, {"author": "Ben", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662144744502?comment_id=662274659152", "anchor": "fb-662274659152", "service": "fb", "text": "BDan: Clarification: I agree. I do not think additional benefits could be extended based on their being more people for the kickback reason.", "timestamp": "1401907261"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1401910006447", "service": "gp", "text": "Talking to \n@David German\n\u00a0offline I wasn't actually able to think of cases where we have bad defaults currently. \u00a0Specifically, all of these are things where whatever you want for people getting married you also want as an option for single people.", "timestamp": 1401910006}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/106120852580068301475", "anchor": "gp-1401913778145", "service": "gp", "text": "\"Let single people do all the things married people can do\" sounds fine, but (a) it's not what I understood \n@David German\n\u00a0as initially saying (which was: Only let anyone do what single people can do), and (b) it does seem like it needs a bit more fleshing out.", "timestamp": 1401913778}, {"author": "David German", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/111229345142780712481", "anchor": "gp-1401918552987", "service": "gp", "text": "@Alan\n\u00a0Do step-parents today have any custodial priority? \u00a0AIUI the answer is no, so I'm not sure how marriage would help in the situation you describe - the defaults would be just as wrong. \u00a0I can think of some legal changes unrelated to marriage that might help, and sound like good ideas to me:\n
\n
\n- Greater flexibility for family court judges to consider the overall welfare of the child, de-prioritizing blood relationship.\n
\n
\n- Permitting a child to have more than two parents, by adoption.", "timestamp": 1401918552}, {"author": "David German", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/111229345142780712481", "anchor": "gp-1401920308711", "service": "gp", "text": "@David Chudzicki\n\u00a0\n@Jeff Kaufman\n\u00a0Somewhere in between. \u00a0I didn't mean to say the law is absolutely perfect for single people today and there is no room for improvement. \u00a0I meant that I can't think of any examples where it's broken for single people but not for married people.\n
\n
\nMedical decisions are a great example where it's easy to treat everyone equally. \u00a0If other states don't have provisions like the MA health care proxy, they should. \u00a0Inheritance is another: anyone can leave a will, it's easy.\n
\n
\nIn the cases mentioned so far where married people enjoy special privileges or suffer special penalties (taxes, insurance), I would suggest the special treatment doesn't actually serve a worthwhile purpose.", "timestamp": 1401920308}, {"author": "Alan", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/116622117068577394094", "anchor": "gp-1401933150309", "service": "gp", "text": "@David German\n I believe if the non-biological parent is married to the biological parent at time of birth and the child is living with/raised by the married couple the non-biological parent has full parental rights on par with the biological parents and significantly above that of non-parent blood relatives. This may just be a hold over from before biological fatherhood could be proven, but I do think works well with acknowledging the intentional decision to coparent which is the standard assumption for married couples with children. ", "timestamp": 1401933150}, {"author": "David German", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/111229345142780712481", "anchor": "gp-1401934913580", "service": "gp", "text": "@Alan\n\u00a0OK, fair enough, there's one. \u00a0I guess my view is now effectively the same as \n@David Chudzicki\n's.", "timestamp": 1401934913}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1401936521"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662144744502?comment_id=662347378422", "anchor": "fb-662347378422", "service": "fb", "text": "Wang: (2) is a good point and something I missed.
Whether (3) is a problem depends on how the law implements poly marriage. If it's just \"marriage is no longer limited to two people\" then (3) actually matches the situation well.", "timestamp": "1401968084"}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1401975070"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662144744502?comment_id=662354374402", "anchor": "fb-662354374402", "service": "fb", "text": "@Elliot: \"if you want the law to represent primary/secondary relationship structures it is very nontrivial\"
I agree; what did I say that made you think I didn't?", "timestamp": "1401975174"}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1401977060"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662144744502?comment_id=662360107912", "anchor": "fb-662360107912", "service": "fb", "text": "@Elliot: Are there people who want legal recognition of primary/secondary status? What would that mean?", "timestamp": "1401979320"}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1401982887"}, {"author": "Todd", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112947709146257842066", "anchor": "gp-1401999617344", "service": "gp", "text": "i am on board with Davids' position. Apostrophe location intentional =P", "timestamp": 1401999617}, {"author": "Christopher", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662144744502?comment_id=663550711932", "anchor": "fb-663550711932", "service": "fb", "text": "I support being able to arbitrarily and legally designate any single person to have hospital, inheritance, etc rights. This would greatly support single people, elderly who have survived spouses, etc while sidestepping the sticky issie of marriage, because even two friends could have such rights. However, many arguements about marriage, and some suggested byyourpoly sources, seem to focus on societal acceptance of certain practices - in which case I don't really have an issue with saying I don't accept those societal changes. Incidentally, \"marriage\" is an extremely useful tool in all consular work, as it determines citizenship claims, immigration priority, and strongly influences intent to immigrate illegally. If polygamy were a common practice, it would be extremely difficult to assess legitimacy of marriages, because you could sponsor a fraudulent spouse without having to abandon your real spouse.
Minor point: for immigration purposes, in many cases stepparents are considered parents.", "timestamp": "1402705241"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662144744502?comment_id=663572283702", "anchor": "fb-663572283702", "service": "fb", "text": "@Christopher: doesn't the government already need to assess marriages for fraudulence in dealing with immigration etc?", "timestamp": "1402716068"}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1402717315"}, {"author": "Christopher", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662144744502?comment_id=663814288722", "anchor": "fb-663814288722", "service": "fb", "text": "Jeff - Yes, and assessing marriage fraud is hard already. Many people ate dissuaded from marriage fraud because (1) they are already married or (2) they think they want to get married soon and don't want to put that in jeopardy. If polygamy is legal, neither of those facotrs will dissuade others. Furthermore, to build off the primary/secondary idea, you might have what would normally be a casual lover listed as your second spouse - this degrades the seriousness of a marriage partner, which also makes marriage fraud harder to detect since you can have more casual marriage relationships, and the fraudsters can merely say that their relationship is more casual.", "timestamp": "1402796984"}, {"author": "Charvak", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662144744502?comment_id=717354977752", "anchor": "fb-717354977752", "service": "fb", "text": "It doesn't address all problems, but maybe there could be fractional marriage. A woman could have a 40% husband and a 60% husband, maybe based on the level of support each provides for the children. Social security benefits would flow proportionally. And decision-making responsibilities would be given as voting rights with priority rules in the case of ties.
I'd still prefer doing away with government recognition of marriage. Let it remain a religious construct for those who are into that.", "timestamp": "1428456624"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662144744502?comment_id=717356055592", "anchor": "fb-717356055592", "service": "fb", "text": "@Charvak: Imagine A has a 60% spouse B and a 40% spouse C. Can A add additional spouses, diluting the others?
You say \"support for the children\" but would A, B, and C all legally be coparents? If C gains a new spouse D are they a coparent as well? Is D a spouse of A and B too or can they just be D's?", "timestamp": "1428456981"}, {"author": "Charvak", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662144744502?comment_id=717357303092", "anchor": "fb-717357303092", "service": "fb", "text": "When spouses are added, do all existing partners have to agree? And how does it look from B's perspective? Is A the 100% spouse, or does B give C some weight too? And how do we deal with the complexity of desiring different weights for various spousal benefits? It quickly becomes too complicated to be practical, I think.
As far as co-parenting goes, I don't see why it would be a problem to give all parents rights to pick up the kids at school. When it comes to making important decisions, their voting rights would come into play. But that's where it gets weird. Since the child comes from a single mother, should it be up to them (I read your singular pronoun post) to allocate the decision-making rights to all the relationship partners?
Maybe we need to draw ideas from how startup partnerships work. They involve multiple partners, addition and removal of partners, legal rights, etc.", "timestamp": "1428457540"}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1428458979"}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662144744502?comment_id=717371125392", "anchor": "fb-717371125392", "service": "fb", "text": "Looking back through the comments, it's a good/important point (from Kelly, Todd, etc.) that the real issue isn't \"how would polyamorous marriages work?\" but \"Let's give people access to these various things society does in some other way instead -- how do we do that?\"
There are lots of different possible family structures, and the current system is unfair to more than just people wanting polyamorous marriages.", "timestamp": "1428463452"}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662144744502?comment_id=717399882762", "anchor": "fb-717399882762", "service": "fb", "text": "Oops, to clarify, I'm not saying \"marriage\" should be reserved for monogamous people. We should get rid of marriage as a legal notion. It would still be a cultural notion (whose meaning can evolve fluidly and be different in different communities).", "timestamp": "1428497699"}, {"author": "Andrew", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662144744502?comment_id=717400840842", "anchor": "fb-717400840842", "service": "fb", "text": "Fun fact: in Massachusetts, it is currently legal to marry your parent, sibling, or child--but only if you are the same sex.", "timestamp": "1428498779"}, {"author": "Chris", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662144744502?comment_id=717405217072", "anchor": "fb-717405217072", "service": "fb", "text": "Robert's Rules or no Robert's Rules?", "timestamp": "1428502097"}]}