Polyamory Rights

[MonoVCPHG]

There is a lot of discussion about equality and rights in regards to the recognition of polyamorous relationships.
Here in Canada there is a group of intervener’s trying to challenge an archaic law that addresses polygamy but is worded so broadly it could be used against any multi-partner coupling or witnesses to any bonding ceremonies.

The apparent intent of the intervener’s is not to win any form of equality with the traditional marriage benefits/rights, but to merely remove the parts that are so sweeping as to threaten loving families that are outside the traditional monogamous structure. I am considering gay and lesbian marriages among "traditional" structure because they are recognized widely and relate to two person unions.

My question is though: if there is an ideal of equality to be fought for with respect to polyamory, what does that look like? Is it freedom from legal persecution and the practice of discrimination from such real world things as employers?

Is it the granting of the same benefits from government and employers to include multiple partners? This would be my big issue. While I would love to see the wording of the law in Canada changed to remove the possibility of discrimination or legal persecution brought on by "concerned" family members or social services, I personally do not support the idea of expecting government or employers to accommodate multi-partner benefits. Perhaps a division of benefits but not full benefits to each individual. Additionally, what would be the criteria for a valid poly relationship? Co-habitation? A recognized ceremony? A committal period of time?

If I was an employer faced with the potential to have to grant maternity leave to a worker for the birth of his metamours baby, I would be more likely to hire the person with a simpler/more stable and predictable family structure.

So what are we asking for? I say we, because although I’m not polyamorous I have been in a multi-partner relationship for a year and it does involve a child which gives me a vested interest in some aspects of poly freedoms….co-habitation will probably be in our future and I would like to think we will be protected from disapproving neighbours or family who would seek to “protect” Redpepper’s son.

I’m not looking for the usual “acceptance” and “understanding” because those can’t be mandated by law. I’m not looking for anti oppression rhetoric because I don’t identify as a victim in my choice to follow this path. I am talking about black and white rights. The kind that get written down.

Peace and Love
Mono

[redpepper]

I am considering gay and lesbian marriages among "traditional" structure because they are recognized widely and relate to two person unions.

Also, gay and lesbian people are able to marry here.

[MonoVCPHG]

Also, gay and lesbian people are able to marry here.

Right! I wasn't sure if it was all across Canada though...hmmm either way. The fight they put up was for two person unions which is much more "traditional" if you will and therefore has a limited affect on real world things like medical benefits and maternity leave. Everything is the same except the same sex aspects.

Thanks for pointing that out :)

[constlady]

Although I'm not in Canada, one of my primary concerns is legal persecution brought on by the presence of children.

I have legal and physical custody of four grandchildren. Believe me when I say that the events these youngsters have been through in their lives would make you weep and let's leave it at that for now.

Yet I have to worry that they could potentially be removed from the only stable, healthy, loving home they've ever known because my boyfriend has another girlfriend.

And believe me, it's a legitimate concern, as their mother once tossed out something along the lines of "that polygamy or whatever the hell it is you do" during one of her threatening moments.

So I'd like to see polyamory recognized as not abusive or neglectful in and of itself as far as a living situation for children.

Part of that may have to be defined in legal terms but I also believe that education of social workers, psychologists, educators etc. will have to take place as well.

[MonoVCPHG]

Part of that may have to be defined in legal terms but I also believe that education of social workers, psychologists, educators etc. will have to take place as well.

Great point! The thing is, there are educators in our local poly community who are in a position to offer a broader view of healthy relationships but they can't because they fear prosecution or discrimination.

Children are the key in regards to many legal aspects I think.

[crisare]

I don't know if anyone here has read any fiction by J.D. Robb. (Nora Roberts by any other name.) Her series is based around a cop in a futuristic NYC - but not too future. Maybe 75 years from now or so.

I mention this because in her world, she has created "cohab" laws. People can marry (gender notwithstanding - m/f, m/m, f/f ... or any variation thereof) if they choose and want the religious or historical significance of marriage. But people can also get a "contract" for Registered Cohabitation. You can live together w/out it, but if you choose to "cohab" as it's called in her world, you have a certain set of rights and responsibilities. Some of them are mandated by law and some of them are optional and are spelled out in the final contract. That includes legal rights, rights of survivorship, insurance coverage (at increased premiums), etc., etc., etc. This applies not only to couples (again, gender non-specific) but to triads, and quads as well. In the series she has not gone into relationships past triads and quads, but based on how the series is written, I'm sure the permutations would be limitless. You can also be Registered Cohabs with someone w/out actually living in the same house.

(Her world also has legalized prostitution - or as she refers to them: Licensed Companions who also have legal rights, and who are mandated to have testing every so many months and to undergo certain psychological tests to receive and maintain a license. But that's another thread. :) )

Obviously this is a fictional series and it's easy to skim the particulars when you're talking about fiction, but in my perfect world, J.D. Robb's version would be very close to what we'd have.

[MonoVCPHG]

I don't know if anyone here has read any fiction by J.D. Robb. (Nora Roberts by any other name.)
.

Sounds like an interesting read! I think I have read some of her stuff under Nora Roberts...time to do some research. :)

[CielDuMatin]

This is the case from BC, yes, Mono?

The ones that the Vancouver Poly group has been involved with?
http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/Vancouver_polyamorists_to_intervene_in_polygamy_ca se-7900.aspx

and a case against presented by a self-styled social activist at http://stoppolygamyincanada.wordpress.com/

Or is this another one?

[MonoVCPHG]

This is the case from BC, yes, Mono?

The ones that the Vancouver Poly group has been involved with?


That's the one I believe. We've been asked to help out but there are publicity issues that I have major issues with. I don't mind taking heat or judgment but will not let my choices affect my other family such as daughter and parents. We would make a good example of a long term MFM "V" though.

[Ravenesque]

I’m not looking for the usual “acceptance” and “understanding” because those can’t be mandated by law. I’m not looking for anti oppression rhetoric because I don’t identify as a victim in my choice to follow this path. I am talking about black and white rights. The kind that get written down.

I have to ask, how are these "black and white rights" going to be written down in law without polyamory being accepted?

If no one understands then what is the incentive to lift "legal persecution." How is this anything but dealing with the symptoms and not the underlying illness.

Laws don't come into being at the governmental level without education and change happening on a social level.

It is ironic that the term persecution is being used when we're not talking of victims here.

Changing the language does not change the reality. "Legal persecution" is institutionalized oppression. Trying to separate it because the term "oppression" offends white male monogamous privileged sensibilities is absurd.

~Raven~

[MonoVCPHG]

Perhaps a new thread on oppression is in order? I would hate to be in a world where I saw and felt oppression everywhere. Glad I am not there but would love to see a thread started to explain it to me. I don't feel it is a part of my multi-partner community.

[ImaginaryIllusion]

This is the case from BC, yes, Mono?

The ones that the Vancouver Poly group has been involved with?

There has been information on the case posted on the board at
Call for Intervenors in BC Court Reference on Polygomy and Group Marriages (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1204)
along with some other background information...including I believe some information about how and why the law got on the books in the first place.


I have to ask, how are these "black and white rights" going to be written down in law without polyamory being accepted?


Laws can be written (or striken) without full acceptance...sometimes one has to show up in law first...and then society can follow suit. I'd suspect there's examples to be found in Civil Rights legislation and same sex marriage laws (and other places) in both the US and Canada where the process of acceptance was ongoing well after the laws came into force.

[Ravenesque]

Perhaps a new thread on oppression is in order? I would hate to be in a world where I saw and felt oppression everywhere. Glad I am not there but would love to see a thread started to explain it to me. I don't feel it is a part of my multi-partner community.

I suppose that's different from seeing persecution everywhere in the world. What exactly is the purpose of fighting for polyamorous rights if poly people do not feel they are disadvantaged, oppressed and not treated equally without these rights? What then is the issue?

Laws can be written (or striken) without full acceptance...sometimes one has to show up in law first...and then society can follow suit. I'd suspect there's examples to be found in Civil Rights legislation and same sex marriage laws (and other places) in both the US and Canada where the process of acceptance was ongoing well after the laws came into force.

Indeed. Acceptance translates into numbers. Numbers of people who vote. Discussing what laws should be changed or freshly implemented becomes a null point if the majority of the ones that vote, such as Representatives and Senators in the U.S, don't understand or accept polyamory. Or is the acceptance of legislators not needed here?

~Raven~

[MonoVCPHG]

[QUOTE=Ravenesque;17603]I suppose that's different from seeing persecution everywhere in the world. What exactly is the purpose of fighting for polyamorous rights if poly people do not feel they are disadvantaged, oppressed and not treated equally without these rights? What then is the issue?


I don't think people are actively oppressing me at all or that I am at a disadvantage...I don't even think most know about multi-partner relationships honestly. As far as legalities go I see only two that are desperately needed; those in regards to protecting the rights of parents and not allowing people in the workforce to be discriminated against.

So, back to the original question..what are the rights we would want? Additionally, what would be the criteria for a valid poly relationship? Co-habitation? A recognized ceremony? A committal period of time?

These are the black and white details that would need to be addressed in order to form legal recognition. Not acceptance or even respect. It's a case of just tell us what you are and what you want. Being vague and talking in sweeping generalities is where the anti Polygamy law in Canada failed...let's not make the same mistake again.

[crisare]

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"][B][FONT="Comic Sans MS"]What exactly is the purpose of fighting for polyamorous rights if poly people do not feel they are disadvantaged, oppressed and not treated equally without these rights? What then is the issue?
I'm kind of baffled by this mindset.

One doesn't necessarily have to be oppressed to need legal protection and rights.

[CielDuMatin]

One doesn't necessarily have to be oppressed to need legal protection and rights.Definitely agree - I think the word is thrown around a lot more than it should be, along with a few others.

To go back to your question, Mono:

I think that the idea of being free to build a life with whosoever one chooses to is key here. "Building a life" means having the same benefits across the board, and not being differentiated based on who one chooses to have a relationship with.

I don't want to destroy the sanctity of marriage in any particular religious institution - I respect that some people hold this very dear to them, along with their faith. They should be allowed to keep that. If a particular church dictates that same-sex or plural marriages are not allowed, then that tells me a lot about that church, and helps me make a decision as to whether I feel comfortable in that religious community or not.

I would like to suggest a separation of church and state (radical, I know) when it comes to marriage, domestic partnerships, or whatever label it is given. Maybe we avoid the trigger-word "marriage" and allow that to be used only in a religious context, and use "domestic partnerships" or some other term. The main thing is that legally, the rights are the same from a legal perspective. This might mean some changes to the laws as far as marriage is concerned (I have read some opinions that the current structure would struggle to be applied to a plural marriage).

If we are going to treat everyone equally, then I think we need to truly treat everyone's relationships with other humans as equal in the eyes of the law.
We can deal with the issue of human-alien marriages when that situation arises, I think... (OK, maybe the reworking of "V" made an impression on me).

To do that some deconstruction and rebuilding will be necessary, and I'm not sure that the willingness is there to do it.

I think it would be nice to be able to get to that point without having to get into a confrontational "oppression/privilege" mindset, if possible.

[crisare]

I would like to suggest a separation of church and state (radical, I know) when it comes to marriage, domestic partnerships, or whatever label it is given. Maybe we avoid the trigger-word "marriage" and allow that to be used only in a religious context, and use "domestic partnerships" or some other term. The main thing is that legally, the rights are the same from a legal perspective. This might mean some changes to the laws as far as marriage is concerned
My husband and I were married by a judge. By the state. Neither of us are religious, we don't go to church, we chose to be married in a secular ceremony by a judge.

Yet, the piece of paper issued by the state says at the top, very clearly: MARRIAGE LICENSE.

Now. If you want to say that marriage has religious meaning or religious significance, then by all rights, my husband and I should NOT be married.

And I'd be fine with that. I'd be really fine if marriage were limited to a religious context and the churches/synegogs/etc decided who could be married or not.

That way the rest of us could have whatever government sanctioned legal "joining" existed and we'd all be finel.

[CielDuMatin]

Now. If you want to say that marriage has religious meaning or religious significance, then by all rights, my husband and I should NOT be married.

And I'd be fine with that. I'd be really fine if marriage were limited to a religious context and the churches/synegogs/etc decided who could be married or not.

That way the rest of us could have whatever government sanctioned legal "joining" existed and we'd all be finel.Yes, exactly! Separate the two, and call them Bert and Ernie if you want, for all I care - but one is too tied up in the other, in my opinion.

[MonoVCPHG]

I've got to admit I don't see any blending of church and state in my part of Canada. They are very separate. But any move to make things le confrontational would be beneficial.

So if we are to recognize multi-partner relationships how do we define them? Can any one just fill out a form to qualify thier OSO's for things like life insurance and any spousal benefits? Is that feasible? Or do we require some sort of criteria?

[JonnyAce]

Can any one just fill out a form to qualify thier OSO's for things like life insurance and any spousal benefits? Is that feasible? Or do we require some sort of criteria?

Honestly i think there would have to be some sort of screening process, because some people would try to take advantage if that type of system was put in place. Hell people try to cheat in today's marriage system

Is this a double standard? Absolutely.

do i like the fact that this is the what i think the "normal" world would need to feel comfortable with multiple partner marriages? No

[crisare]

Is this a double standard? Absolutely.
How is it a double standard? You can't just contact your insurance now and say "I'm married - add my spouse." I know when I got married, my husband had to provide a copy of our marriage license before they'd add me. I don't think it's a double standard to require some proof of relationship to add a dependent to your insurance.

[JonnyAce]

i more meant that there will prob. be a more thorough screening process when people try to get married in a multiple partner marriage, as to prevent fraud. sorry if i wasn't clear on that.

[Ceoli]

I've known a quad and a triad that decided to form an LLC (Limited Liability Corporation) instead of marry. The found that it worked quite well for them in terms of financial rights and some additional legal rights. I don't know the details, but I'm sure someone has written something about it somewhere on the web.

[GroundedSpirit]

I think this would be a really pertinent topic to delve into. I can see a lot spin-offs in a really positive direction that could affect everyone regardless of lovestyle preferences. There are many laws/policies that are really outdated that need to be looked at and changed anyway.
Is anyone else interested in developing a list of any & all known laws & policies that would be potentially impacted by poly lifestyles ?
As I mentioned somewhere before - I have a feeling most of these could be dealt with via contract anyway (which to me is all marriage is) but it would be useful to analyze as complete a list as possible as well as address what "default" rules/judgements would apply in absence of such contract.

I'll start with just a few from the U.S that spring to mind and hopefully others can add more from here & other countries.

1> Health benefits
2> Tax obligations
3> Parental rights
4> "Family" rights/permissions (medical emergencies etc)

???????

[CielDuMatin]

Yes, GS, I think that some work in this area would be great.

I think the areas that you have outlined encompass most of what I can imagine (due to my possibly limited imagination ;) )

I've known a quad and a triad that decided to form an LLC (Limited Liability Corporation) instead of marry. The found that it worked quite well for them in terms of financial rights and some additional legal rights. I don't know the details, but I'm sure someone has written something about it somewhere on the web.Yes, Ceoli, I have heard the same - from what I heard it definitely helped out in some significant financial areas for them, but I think they came up against some legal stuff in other areas - like parenting.

But it's definitely an option for some.

[crisare]

I've known a quad and a triad that decided to form an LLC (Limited Liability Corporation) instead of marry. The found that it worked quite well for them in terms of financial rights and some additional legal rights. I don't know the details, but I'm sure someone has written something about it somewhere on the web.Now that's a VERY creative way to deal with the situation. I like it a lot.

[CielDuMatin]

More information on this model can be found at http://www.relationshipllc.com/

This seems to be US-based, but there may be other similar models in other countries.

[DrunkenPorcupine]

My question is though: if there is an ideal of equality to be fought for with respect to polyamory, what does that look like? Is it freedom from legal persecution and the practice of discrimination from such real world things as employers?

I don't advocate for "equality" in the modern political sense. I advocate for "voluntary" and "consentual".

I beleive every human being: child or adult, man or woman, gay or straight, asexual or pansexual, poly or mono, rich or poor - has the right to associate freely. I believe they have the right to contract in whatever arrangements they want. A couple buying a house together, or a group of friends forming a commune. Two men marrying, five men and two women marrying.

But I don't think ANYBODY should be forced to respect the associations you and I make when they have NOTHING to do with those associations. If an employer doesn't want to offer benefits to a gay married couple, I think that should be their choice, just as they currently have (or SHOULD have!) the option to provide NO benefits to their employees.

People value respect and diversity. If people were free to associate and contract as they see fit, and likewise, able to ignore other people's associations as they see fit, you'd still see social regulation. You'd see people boycotting and protesting companies for denying homo benefits but offering hetero benefits just as you see today people boycotting companies that choose to use fur on their models in fashion ads.

So...

If you want to see poly equality in terms of marriage, you need to remove the state from marriage. As long as the state (and the laws, and the violence behind them) sanctifies ANY kind of marriage it must inherently ignore (and be unequal to) another kind.

The same is true of employee benefits and anything else that would make poly "unequal" today.

[Quath]

But I don't think ANYBODY should be forced to respect the associations you and I make when they have NOTHING to do with those associations. If an employer doesn't want to offer benefits to a gay married couple, I think that should be their choice, just as they currently have (or SHOULD have!) the option to provide NO benefits to their employees.
I tend to agree with anti-discriminatory laws. For example, if an employer decides to pay black people half of white people or men three times as much as women for the same work, then I can the government regulating that. It means that a subclass of people can not be formed.

I think a simple model if you are "poly" married is to just get the health benefits in cash instead of the employer trying to get health insurance for you.

[GroundedSpirit]

If an employer doesn't want to offer benefits to a gay married couple, I think that should be their choice, just as they currently have (or SHOULD have!) the option to provide NO benefits to their employees.


This is why it's necessary when we try to make things "better" we often need to throw out everything (at least temporarily) and start from scratch rather than take something existing and try to "fix" it.

Because the whole healthcare system in the states is so fatally flawed to begin with, it's a prime example (and opportunity) to start again.
I can personally not envision ANY model where healthcare can be "contributed to" by any third party except one that contributes to EVERYONE's in some fashion. In other words, healthcare is both an individual responsibility and a joint community responsibility. Countries who have adopted some model of "socialized" medicine seem to be the closest to a workable model even with all the issues that exist because that model is technically still in it's infancy and we're learning how to do it best.

If some "employer" feels a desire to contribute to the cost of that as a "fringe benefit" then fine - but it should be treated as such and acknowledged as such - nothing more than an extra enticement to work for me vs them. But it seems this could only be the case for the individual "employee" and the whole concept of "dependents" needs to be tossed. In a model where healthcare was targeted at the base unit of ONE (the individual), then the concept of dependents (wives, children etc) no longer applies.

It seems much the same needs to be applied to tax code. Any tax liability is the responsibility of an "individual" once they reach an age of employability. The whole concept of manipulating the structure to accommodate the concept of a "dependent" only complicates and opens chances for abuse. If the concept of taxation is to support the overall public good then it's a simple matter to determine how many potential wage earners exist and determine the per capita need from that. Obviously that's a much over-simplified example but I think you get the idea.

[Ravenesque]

This is why it's necessary when we try to make things "better" we often need to throw out everything (at least temporarily) and start from scratch rather than take something existing and try to "fix" it.

Well no one ever said "Viva la reform"

~Raven~