(How) does marriage work with non-hierarchical poly??

Infinity

New member
To the poly people who do not like to practice hierarchical poly: how does the idea of marriage fit in with this?

I see a few people on this site who are married to one partner and maybe have another who they consider an equal primary (such as, a husband and a boyfriend). How does this work with them being equal, when that is not represented in your legal arrangements? Have any of you considered divorcing the 'married' partner, so that the relationships can truly be 'equal'?

Another question to those who do not practice hierarchy: would you be in a relationship with someone who IS married? What if they expressed to you that you mean the same to them as their spouse - would that be enough, or would the fact that they are married always mean it felt 'unequal' in some way?

I don't see how non-hierarchical poly and legal marriage can go hand in hand. But I'm open to ideas :)

Of course, I differentiate between legal and non-legal marriage. For example, a person could have two partners and have a commitment ceremony with each which legally meant nothing but emotionally was very significant.

The thing with marriage though is that there can only be one partner, married, legally. This to me makes it inherently unequal.
 
In my not so humble personal opinion, it doesn't.

I'm pretty rabidly anti-marriage, including for that reason, and would love to see the Big M stripped of all legal context and reduced to just a purely religious ceremony with no secular meaning or benefits (legal rights, taxes, etc.pp.), whatsoever. As a rite comparable to baptism and other stuff, marriage sure has its place for those so inclined and will keep it for the foreseeable future; I just don't see the practical use for it in a modern, secular society... especially now that civil unions - which are far more flexible, including in terms of poly structures, as that case in Brazil a few years ago proved - have finally become invented.
 
Im married for tax purposes, we get more money back filing married. To divorce would cost me money. Having a legal marriage ad a symbolic one doesn't mean any difference to me.
 
I practice non-hierarchical poly. However, I am legally married. To combat the inherent inequality of this, we have drawn up arrangements the best that we can - living wills, insurance policies, joint and separate bank accounts.

I would never divorce my husband - it has so much symbolic meaning to him, and we have a child together. That said, my boyfriend is quite okay with not being legally married to me, and says he considers us soulmates in his heart already, and any legal document from a government agency doesn't make it any more legitimate to him. We are going to have a hand fasting though, because it is important to me. I want to take a physical step that others will see as significant. He is correct though - the commitment between us has already been made.

I absolutely wish I could marry both my guys in a legal ceremony. But things are what they are. I just lucked out that my boyfriend doesn't mind passing on the legal designation.
 
To the poly people who do not like to practice hierarchical poly: how does the idea of marriage fit in with this?

To me, the best a person can do while being married is say that they would like to have no hierarchies in their romantic relationships. Nobody who is married can say that there is no hierarchy.

A marriage is a legal contract that gives the people involved in it rights and responsibilities over each other's lives and property. Feelings of love do not come into it.

I appreciate that I do have fairly unusual views on marriage and relationships. The place I've come to regarding poly is that I wouldn't be actively poly unless I were living as a solo person again. To me, the only way to have ethical poly relationships is to do it as a solo person. If I'm committed to a romantic partner then my desire to maintain that relationship would make it hard for any additional relationships to grow naturally.

So I've reached a point where to maintain my own boundaries, if I'm in something that myself and my partner would call a committed relationship, it needs to be monogamous on both sides. To be poly or open would require changing that relationship, shifting it so that we no longer referred or thought of each other as partners but as friends.

IP
 
To the poly people who do not like to practice hierarchical poly: how does the idea of marriage fit in with this?

I am married (16 years) with shared property, children, emotional ties and a little sex tossed in. My other relationships are sexually and emotional intimate, a little world of two. They're very different kinds of relationships. I see no use or need for stacking my relationships up against each other, ordering them in terms of "deeper" or "longer" or "more important" etc. This question is kind of like asking, "If you regularly travel to certain exotic places, how does the idea of having a home fit with this?" or "If you spend time with friends, how does the idea of having a really good friend fit in with this?" I wouldn't assign a rating system to beloved travel locales as I wouldn't to friends as I wouldn't to intimate (sexually) loved ones. Each is beloved and I never encounter a dramatic situation in which I am pressed to prioritize one over the other. They all just fit with me. People are to be appreciated and enjoyed, not rated and stacked up against one another.

Your OP equates marriage with greater emotional attachment, loyalty and status - and that just ain't so. In my experience, marriage is a relationship suited for everything that's involved in raising a family, not necessarily a relationship I hold up as deserving of more loyalty, love or emotional involvement. I would definitely involve myself with someone who is married, but I would never seriously get involved with someone who had the need to practise relationship hierarchy. The whole notion of rating people like that just creeps me out.
 
Last edited:
My husband and I have stayed married because it would take a lot of time, energy, and money to untangle all our assets. Plus, right now his insurance is better than my insurance (we're talking a hundred dollar difference per visit to my therapist, which happens at least twice a month) but before 2014, when he changed jobs, mine was better. The fact it would freak my children out and make them unhappy is also a reason we don't do it.

We don't subscribe to hierarchical polyamory though. We just happened to have been married for 17 years before opening up our marriage and had entwined our financial lives pretty thoroughly by that point. Does it bother our other partners? Not usually. My husband's girlfriend is also married and for many of the same reasons that we still are (plus, she's a stay at home mom, so that adds a wrinkle). That hasn't affected how their relationship had grown. I had a boyfriend for a year and a half that it did bother him that he wasn't my number one priority but divorcing my husband wouldn't have made a difference, unless I moved in with the boyfriend and made him my primary. And even then, he would have shared the spot with my teenage children. So, nothing short of abandoning my family would have made him feel like a primary and he never saw that I felt like he and my husband were co-primaries, even though I told him a lot that I thought of him that way. I even came out to my family so he could go to holiday dinners with us, so it's not like I was all talk and no action.
 
*Emotionally*, I'm nonhierarchical. Hubby and S2 are equal in my heart and mind.

But... I am legally married to Hubby. He and I cohabitate. We've been together for nearly 7 years, married nearly 5, and he's helped parent Alt and Country since they were 12 and 9 years old, respectively.

S2 and I have only been together for 7 *months*. We live separately. Of his two children and my two, only Alt knows that S2 and I are in a relationship. Country and Spikes think S2 and I are just friends; Beads, because of his needs, doesn't understand or seem to care one way or another.

So in that sense, yes, there is a hierarchy. Hubby has a place and role in my *life* that S2 does not. Hubby and I have *legal* standing as husband and wife. And it's likely to remain that way; S2 has no desire to cohabitate or gain any more entwinement in my life than he currently has.

Honestly, I would be more likely to divorce Hubby for financial reasons than to make things more equal between him and S2... Because I'm legally married to Hubby, I have to count his income, so I don't have the health insurance coverage I would have if he and I were only living together, and I can't collect the disability payments I would otherwise be eligible for.
 
A marriage is a legal contract that gives the people involved in it rights and responsibilities over each other's lives and property. Feelings of love do not come into it.
That's exactly why I believe it's possible to be married and practice non-hierarchical poly. Being married to one person doesn't mean you have to love them more than anyone else, put them on a pedestal, or give them special privileges (e.g. veto power, always putting them on top priority no matter what). That's my understanding of non-hierarchy.

But I guess for some people, "non-hierarchical" also applies to the practical aspect, like equal share of one's time and resources, equal levels of life entanglement, or even equal legal rights. I admit I can't do their version of non-hierarchical poly, and I won't complain if they reject me because I'm married. But I tend to connect with people who value the emotional rather than practical side of things anyway, so they share my understanding of non-hierarchy.
 
Last edited:
From a practical, real-world perspective, I don't think it's possible to not have a heirarchy if a couple is married. There are just too many social and legal privileges built into the system currently, and many of them can't be overridden with any type of contract due to various state laws, etc.

Emotionally, however, it's as many poster said above: marriage doesn't necessarily confer a deeper emotional connection. So, emotional non-heirarchy is completely possible for some people.

I wouldn't date a married couple or one member of a married couple seriously because it leaves me relying on the good will of the partner if something goes wrong (someone ends up in the hospital, dies, etc.). It's great to assume the best about people, but I've seen what happens when people get stressed out too many times to put my emotional (and/or financial) security on the line in that way. But, that isn't a concern for everyone. It depends a lot on what folks need and are looking for whether that kind of thing matters.
 
From a practical, real-world perspective, I don't think it's possible to not have a heirarchy if a couple is married. There are just too many social and legal privileges built into the system currently, and many of them can't be overridden with any type of contract due to various state laws, etc.

Emotionally, however, it's as many poster said above: marriage doesn't necessarily confer a deeper emotional connection. So, emotional non-heirarchy is completely possible for some people.

Thank you for sharing so far, everyone.

The crux of the discussion, so far, for me, has come down to this distinction: emotional vs. practical 'place' in someone's life.

The question: is it possible to be emotionally equal with 2 partners, but practically, one comes first (due to financial / legal / co-habitation / kids)?

I know some people on here claim 'yes!'.

I am wondering if that IS possible.

It seems that giving someone more 'practical hierarchy' in ones' life, means that:

1. They have more of a chance to develop emotional bonds with you, because they are more involved in your life, more fully.

2. It sends a clear message that in some way, they are more important, because they are the one you have chosen to make (and keep) this arrangement with - not that other one, or none at all.

3. Society may see the 'married' relationship as more legitimate (take the example of Hannahfluke who came out to her family so her boyfriend could join them on trips. But, for the husband - this would have never even have been an issue, something he would never have even had to have asked for).

So my question - is is possible to have one partner come first in a practical sense (e.g. to have a marriage and all that entails) but have MORE than one come first in an EMOTIONAL sense?

At the moment, I think 'no' it is not, for the reasons given above.

I wouldn't date a married couple or one member of a married couple seriously because it leaves me relying on the good will of the partner if something goes wrong (someone ends up in the hospital, dies, etc.). It's great to assume the best about people, but I've seen what happens when people get stressed out too many times to put my emotional (and/or financial) security on the line in that way. But, that isn't a concern for everyone. It depends a lot on what folks need and are looking for whether that kind of thing matters.

This would also be a problem if you weren't legally entwined with your partner *at all* (e.g. only dating non-married people). Their family could still say 'oh that's only his girlfriend / boyfriend - NOT his husband / wife' and you may have no legal recourse. Though I agree for sure that if they HAD a husband / wife PLUS you, that your position would be even more 'legally' unstable / indefensible.
 
Thank you for sharing so far, everyone.

The crux of the discussion, so far, for me, has come down to this distinction: emotional vs. practical 'place' in someone's life.

The question: is it possible to be emotionally equal with 2 partners, but practically, one comes first (due to financial / legal / co-habitation / kids)?

I know some people on here claim 'yes!'.

I am wondering if that IS possible.

It seems that giving someone more 'practical hierarchy' in ones' life, means that:

1. They have more of a chance to develop emotional bonds with you, because they are more involved in your life, more fully.

2. It sends a clear message that in some way, they are more important, because they are the one you have chosen to make (and keep) this arrangement with - not that other one, or none at all.

3. Society may see the 'married' relationship as more legitimate (take the example of Hannahfluke who came out to her family so her boyfriend could join them on trips. But, for the husband - this would have never even have been an issue, something he would never have even had to have asked for).

So my question - is is possible to have one partner come first in a practical sense (e.g. to have a marriage and all that entails) but have MORE than one come first in an EMOTIONAL sense?

At the moment, I think 'no' it is not, for the reasons given above.



This would also be a problem if you weren't legally entwined with your partner *at all* (e.g. only dating non-married people). Their family could still say 'oh that's only his girlfriend / boyfriend - NOT his husband / wife' and you may have no legal recourse. Though I agree for sure that if they HAD a husband / wife PLUS you, that your position would be even more 'legally' unstable / indefensible.

My husband is much more emotionally entwined with his girlfriend than he is with me. In fact, other than the practical parts of finances and our children (who are young adults, so that part doesn't matter as much as it would with little ones), my husband's girlfriend is his primary (not that he'd admit this, but it's what his actions show).
 
I'm married to Hubby because when I met him, I was attempting to be monogamous.

Hubby actually interacts and "emotionally bonds" with me LESS than S2 does, by virtue of their personalities. Even though I spend less time in the same physical space as S2, during the time we're together, he and I are completely focused on each other and our relationship, whereas during the time Hubby and I are in the same physical space, he's usually gaming or sleeping and not actually having any interaction with me whatsoever other than a hug as he walks past the living room on the way to the bathroom.

S2 does not *want* to entwine his life with mine. He's not even legally divorced yet, and at this point, he prefers to live alone and have his own separate finances and so on, and just have me around occasionally.

And with all due respect... fuck what society thinks. Society's opinion of my marriage and relationship have ZERO bearing on how I feel about the men in my life. Society doesn't dictate what's more important TO ME.

My choice to stay married to Hubby is because he is the sole financial support for me and my kids, and because *he* wants to stay married. And because the marriage predates my meeting S2 by four and a half years. My choice not to have a commitment ceremony or cohabitate or whatever with S2 is because *he* does not want that level of connection.

So Hubby might have more opportunity to build emotional bonds with me... but he chooses NOT TO. Staying married to him is NOT an indication that he's more important on ANY level. It's an indication that I'm a practical woman who prefers financial stability for herself and her children over abandoning a perfectly acceptable marriage so I can prove to other people that Hubby isn't emotionally more important to me than S2.

So yes... being non-hierarchical emotionally IS possible regardless of practical hierarchy. Whether you believe it or not is entirely up to you.
 
This would also be a problem if you weren't legally entwined with your partner *at all* (e.g. only dating non-married people). Their family could still say 'oh that's only his girlfriend / boyfriend - NOT his husband / wife' and you may have no legal recourse. Though I agree for sure that if they HAD a husband / wife PLUS you, that your position would be even more 'legally' unstable / indefensible.[/QUOT=Infinity;289491]

It's much less of an issue in many ways, though, in most states. Someone can, for example, have a non-marital person as their heir on life insurance, in their will, etc. Family can contest, but doesn't win nearly as often as a spouse will (spouses win the vast majority of the time, because in most states having a partner outside of the marriage, regardless of how consensual everyone was about it, constitutes infidelity and isn't a recognized status at all--it is, in fact, the opposite and actively frowned upon). Same thing with things like hospital visitation (people can have a list of those who they'd like to be able to visit them or to have their medical information, or a non-family member who they'd like to be their MPoA, for example), and it's rarely overturned if there's no spouse. It's almost always overturned, however, if there is a spouse (in many, though probably not all, states). Children are even more difficult.The bio parents will *always* get full rights, regardless of how long a partner has been involved in the child's life and at what level. This could be devastating for a partner who'd helped raise a child.

Essentially, in most of the US, legal contracts with individuals will usually trump family, but will almost never trump marital rights, even if all parties sign and consent. This happens ALL the time with inheritances where, for example, someone is separated and divorcing, but the legal proceedings aren't finished when a person dies. Actually, it happened to my sister a few years ago (state of MI), in which she was divorcing, her husband died of a heart attack, and she still got *everything* because she contested his will revisions, etc. As his wife, the law said she got the vast majority of his assets, including more than his children (of which she is not the mother). Which is fine if the spouse is a great metamour, but people get wonky and weird when stuff like this happens (been there, done that, though only with family and not lovers, thus far--thankfully).

It's one of the reasons I strongly caution people buying something like a house with a married couple: in many states, that and other possessions are considered marital assets regardless of the deeding or any other contracts and third party investments aren't weighed the same (and weird things happen that are often surprising: in MI, my ex-husband's house became half my house when we married, and even though I signed a quit-claim deed, the state law said I got half when we divorced, as was his retirement, etc. We were divorcing on good terms, and I didn't take any of it, but I could have royally screwed him, and if we'd been poly, any metamours who'd contributed to the house, and support of the household, etc.).

Marital laws have not been updated in many states to reflect changing societal values, and often mean a whole lot more than people realize they're signing up for. It's an awful lot to count on someone else's good nature in a time of deep stress. For some, it's a totally acceptable risk, and that's okay. For me, it's not.

I am not saying that makes it impossible to have more than one emotional primary. It's not. Clearly some people do it, and the needs of everyone are different. But, it's very difficult to have more than one "practical" primary if two partners are married.
 
How does this work with them being equal, when that is not represented in your legal arrangements?

I am legally married to Butch. Honestly the only reason is for health insurance and retirement reasons. He is a state employee and I would not receive survivor benefits if we were not married.

Murf is protected legally. He is a beneficiary on my life insurance. He is on my health care proxy. We share expenses in the home he and I share just like I do in the house I share with Butch.

Have any of you considered divorcing the 'married' partner, so that the relationships can truly be 'equal'?

Define equal... There is no reason for me to divorce Butch. Murf doesn't need that piece of paper from the gov't. He never wanted to get married before me.
 
Greetings Infinity,

I am in a poly-fi V, three people, consisting of:

  • a man and a woman who are legally married to each other,
  • me, a second man who isn't married to the woman but is still considered co-primary.
Really, we just figure it out as we go along. God forbid that our V should break up someday and I don't think it'll happen, but if it does, I don't know what things'll look like when the smoke clears. I'm afraid Snowbunny (the woman in our V) would be forced to choose between primary partners (or break up with both of us). I'm actually thinking I'd be the one she'd keep, and I know it sounds really arrogant for me to say that. There's sure no guarantee I'd be right about that prediction.

Anyway, even if I was the guy she kept, I'd still be way depressed about the whole thing. I like the other guy in our V. I like the relationship he has with Snowbunny. I wouldn't want to lose him as a companion and a friend. I wouldn't want him to be devastated like that. Not cool.

Meanwhile, in day-to-day reality, we just comfortably think of each other as primary partners/companions. It's not hard at all for us to think that way. Everyone brings something different to the table, and that's cool. Little priorities (e.g. which guy to spend the next few hours with) are decided on the basis of short-term want and need. It's not really rocket science to us, we've been together as a V for almost nine years and most of the time we just know what to do.

Snowbunny and Brother-Husband (the guy she's legally married to) have never considered divorcing each other to "even things out," and I've never considered asking them to. It seems like it would be unnecessary. How we see our relationships with each other is more important to us than what this or that legal document says. (We did handfast as a trio in 2009.)

And, I was "added on" to their relationship well after they had married each other; it was easier to just leave the legal structure as it stood. Actually one other factor is that they (Snowbunny and Brother-Husband) don't want us to out ourselves to our families (yet), so their staying married is kind of one component of how we keep our poly stuff in the closet. (Though I suppose they could divorce without telling their families.)

The way current marital laws are structured is flawed, and we realize that. It's one of the reasons why we don't take the legal marital document too seriously. If we live to see the day when poly marriages become legal (and legally recognized), then we might get married as a trio. We'll see.

We have no children (and almost certainly never will). Though if we did I fancy that both of the men in our V would think of themselves as the kids' dads, regardless of who the genetic father was. I know that the Law would probably count Brother-Husband as the father of "our" kids.

Does Brother-Husband have more of a chance to develop emotional bonds with Snowbunny, because he's more involved in her life, more fully? I guess so -- if technical involvements yield emotional involvements. For me at least, technical involvements only yield a headache. I'm much more concerned about how Snowbunny and I relate to each other as people. And, none of the three of us are joined at the hip. We're not using every speck of possible involvement. So we have some wiggle room in this area.

Re (from Infinity):
"Is it possible to have one partner come first in a practical sense (e.g. to have a marriage and all that entails) but have *more* than one come first in an *emotional* sense?"

Well I know your answer is no, but it feels to me like a yes in my poly household. If I'm deceiving myself, then I'm doing a good job of it, and I like it. :)

Sincerely,
Kevin T.
 
One of my game-changers would be if Chops were to marry Xena. There are a number of rights conferred to married couples that would put me in a position of legal (and yes, social) deference to Xena if something were to happen to Chops. I don't like the idea of having my relationship with Chops being beholden to Xena's good will, and in the event of hospital visits, etc., those things very much could be.

Here's a list of rights conferred upon marriage in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

While some of these (Power of Attorney, for example) can be established via other means, the legal spouse still can be given an awful lot of power, regardless of what was established via contract. And like someone said above, relying on people's goodwill in times of stress isn't always something you can do.

Community Property states can also confer some rights that leave the unmarried partner at a disadvantage.

There's also the piece of me that thinks that, socially, explaining "Chops loves both me and Xena and has relationships with the both of us" to the kids is easier when it isn't "Yes, Xena is his wife, but it's okay with her." It keeps our relationship at a level where it belongs - ours, rather than relying on the good will or permission of someone else.

But that's MHO, and everyone's mileage seems to vary here. :)
 
I think one reason it might be different for me is because I do trust Brother-Husband, 100%. He's got my back. If Snowbunny was in the hospital, he'd totally make sure I was allowed to see her (and would probably be the person driving me there since I don't have a car). I could be wrong, but I don't worry about how Brother-Husband would treat me with respect to my relationship to his wife, ever. (And believe me, there's plenty of non-poly things I do worry about.)

I think I am very lucky to have the metamour that I have. He is generous and deferential towards me, always.
 
Kevin, it's a rare and wonderful thing you have! I think, if more people were like this, the practical matters would be somewhat easier to navigate for many people.

And, for some people, the practical matters really...well, don't matter. It depends a lot on situation. Two people who are both legally married to others, for example, may not have the same concerns. Or, if someone doesn't ever plan on living with a partner (and therefore don't contribute financially to communal property, household support, etc., which can be suddenly pulled out from under their feet legally by the spouse of their partner should anything happen). Or, in cases like yours where there's a really great relationship between metamours. (I admit to cyicism about that last, because I've seen so much of how crazy people go when their partner is hospitalized or dies...seriously, people change so entirely sometimes it's like they're a stranger).

Infinity, thanks for the link to marital rights. It's one of those things I think people should research much more closely before they do the deed. Not because I have anything against marriage, but because it's a contract and folks should know what they are getting into.



I think one reason it might be different for me is because I do trust Brother-Husband, 100%. He's got my back. If Snowbunny was in the hospital, he'd totally make sure I was allowed to see her (and would probably be the person driving me there since I don't have a car). I could be wrong, but I don't worry about how Brother-Husband would treat me with respect to my relationship to his wife, ever. (And believe me, there's plenty of non-poly things I do worry about.)

I think I am very lucky to have the metamour that I have. He is generous and deferential towards me, always.
 
Doesn't even have to me marriage, just having time in a relationship can put that one on priority the first couple of years because the newb isn't going to just right off the bat share in such a close relationship. How long into a relationship would you take vacation or meet family or cohibitate, not typically right away
 
Back
Top