We Should Organize A Protest

We should organize a protest to get poly marriage legalized. It can be in all 50 states, or only a few, but one should be in Minnesota, where I live, Washington with the White House, New York because New York, and places like that, but they should all be on the same day, like December 22nd, or something like that.
 
Honestly, I doubt enough people care about legal marriage too multiple partners to make a difference. I'm all for the government getting completely out of marriage, personally.
 
Honestly, I doubt enough people care about legal marriage to multiple partners to make a difference.

Agree. Approval of gay marriage provided a cause around which greater acceptance of homosexuality in general could develop. Support for gay marriage swept the land because:

1. Normalizing "gay" was championed in popular culture - for example, Ellen, Will & Grace, Modern Family, the coming out of many public figures.

2. Just about everyone has a gay loved one because homosexuality is naturally occurring in nature and it's ubiquitous across class, race and region. It's socially visible to varying degrees, but gay people themselves are born everywhere.

3. It's now largely seen as innate. The argument that gay people chose that "lifestyle" and could "recruit" others became invalid, since it was based on the false premise that homosexuality is a choice. We became faced with the option to either accept or reject gay people, and given that most of us have at least one gay loved one, we opted to accept.

Poly has none of this wider cultural support, which isn't to say that it might not eventually - it just doesn't right now, at all. Poly is largely seen as a choice, even by many poly people themselves. It's barely recognized in popular culture, let alone portrayed as normal. And very few people know anyone personally who is poly, as most people either opt for cheating or remain completely closeted if they do have open relationships.
 
We should organize a protest
No.

Every offshoot community to which I've ever belonged has at some point had someone leap up & demand 'WE NEED TO BE MORE ACTIVIST!!!"

...& 99% of the time, what they mean is "YOU PEOPLE should go out & start stuff up because, you know, I'm so busy & all, what with the kids, & of course you couldn't possibly expect me to just leap right out there IN PUBLIC & risk my job or upsetting my family or whatever, so go do the work & someday I'll feel safe enough to join in, maybe."

Almost all "poly activist" individuals & groups spend almost all their time... speaking to poly people about how great poly people are.

:eek:

There's no single definition of "polyamory," so "poly marriage" is a meaningless term. If people want to get married, they should get married; if they want to be polyamorous, they should be polyamorous. If they want to do whatever the heck they want but claim privileges afforded to marriage, they should retain a lawyer & look into how to set themselves up as a corporation or religion -- THOSE laws are already on the books.
 
Now, what I'd like to see issome sort of "coming out to each other" day.

Imagine it:maybe one day a year, we ALL wear some little rebellious symbol that clearly says, "yeah, this is what I am."

You see someone across the train platform, or on the other side of the boulevard. And your eyes meet, & you smile & nod at each other, never to meet again (though you live mere miles apart) & realize "damn -- I'm NOT alone."

:cool:

For me (ADD/OCD all the way... :eek:), the problem has been coming up with some symbol that is readily recognizable, easily seen at like 50 feet, yet can fit in with dress at ANY level from stoner casual to boardroom. And can be readily denied if some anti-poly asshat decides to make an issue: "hmh? Oh, no, I just thought it was kinda cool. And my daughter gave it to me, so of COURSE I have to wear it once in a while. Is that a problem for you?" ;)

But wouldn't it be pleasant to realize that there are others in your day-to-day life who kinda-sorta have the same feelings...?
 
I don't think there is enough support for polyamory yet in western culture. It's not just a protest, there's the framework and message and cultural acceptance. This guy examines it quite deeply. He has a few articles devoted to it.
 
Now, what I'd like to see issome sort of "coming out to each other" day.

Imagine it:maybe one day a year, we ALL wear some little rebellious symbol that clearly says, "yeah, this is what I am."

You see someone across the train platform, or on the other side of the boulevard. And your eyes meet, & you smile & nod at each other, never to meet again (though you live mere miles apart) & realize "damn -- I'm NOT alone."

:cool:

For me (ADD/OCD all the way... :eek:), the problem has been coming up with some symbol that is readily recognizable, easily seen at like 50 feet, yet can fit in with dress at ANY level from stoner casual to boardroom. And can be readily denied if some anti-poly asshat decides to make an issue: "hmh? Oh, no, I just thought it was kinda cool. And my daughter gave it to me, so of COURSE I have to wear it once in a while. Is that a problem for you?" ;)

But wouldn't it be pleasant to realize that there are others in your day-to-day life who kinda-sorta have the same feelings...?

Yes! Love this idea!
 
Humm

Has to start somewhere right! Throw in ideas?

Poly or some other bird you like with certain color beak.. Wings splayed a bit. The body in really polished sheen.. So you see it in the sun. Or glows some how! 50' is a Long way... And I don't want or have ever wore that much jewelry.... But for one day.. Why not

Not much thought into that.... But it's a start
 
Go to http://www.polyribbon.com/ and scroll down. There's a heart-tied-into-infinity pin there that I've always fancied. Someday I'll buy that pin ...
 
Truthfully, I don't see it ever happening. Now, before you dismiss my comments as rantings from a bitter mono, understand that if all parties involved are consenting and happy, then I have no objection to polyamory whatsoever.

The reality is, poly marriage would be a fiscal and legal nightmare. The first thing to decide would be, should there be a limit on how many partners can get married? If so, then what's the number, 1 additional? 2?3? 8?

Let's start with just one additional spouse. What does a 3 way joint tax return look like? Should an employer be required to carry insurance for an extra spouse? You know that they would fight tooth & nail to prevent that.

Second, (and this is where it can get really messy)... picture this scenario... partner A has a stroke & ends up in a coma. Partner B wants to remove him/her from life support, partner C does not. Leaving the courts to break the tie. Anyone who remembers the Terry Schaivo incident, knows how intense that got, and that was between the husband and parents (and the latter didn't even have legal rights), so between two spouses considered "equals", it's practically impossible to have a solution. And it only gets tougher with more spouses added to the mix.

And the universe help them if kids are involved.
 
The reality is, poly marriage would be a fiscal and legal nightmare.
FWIW, I am totally in agreement with you. ;)

Most of the "legal protections" arguments don't work for me. I consider myself a "social capitalist": though I like the idea of a Free Market world, & I am generally a fan of capitalism, I'd also like to see socialistic universal healthcare (Obamacare on steroids!!) because in part I believe that would be GREAT for business: pretty much guaranteeing a healthy & long-lived labor force, retaining plenty of pocket money with which to BUY STUFF.

And it'd be MUCH easier to get voters behind fixing the healthcare system than even attempting to define "poly marriage."
 
Go to http://www.polyribbon.com/ and scroll down. There's a heart-tied-into-infinity pin there that I've always fancied. Someday I'll buy that pin ...

That's the common one I've seen too. Great prices on the link!

BDSM pride people have a bumper sticker, a blue = on a black ground (black and blue, get it?). I see them fairly often driving around here in Massachusetts.
 
The reality is, poly marriage would be a fiscal and legal nightmare.

We have had this convo many times here and I am still not buying it.

Think of how complicated business and corporate law gets and yet still we have business. You draw up a pre-nuptual marriage contract and then that is what you go by. Each person draws up a living will/healthcare power of attorney naming who (it doesn't need to be spouse or family member) they designate to make their decisions if they are incapacitated.

Get government out of the marriage business entirely and you wipe out all the tax-benefits to marriage and insurance issues. People are "married" in whatever way they see fit and contract law (which is well established) covers it.

Never understood why insurance should be tied to employment - seems like a cumbersome way to cope with healthcare. People change jobs, get laid off, retire, etc. Either go national/socialistic or geographical (each state or county or whatever has it's own plan - like with CHIP or Medicaid or Medicaid. Basic minimum coverage and prevention services for everyone and then people can add "riders" like we do for every other damn insurance type.
 
We have had this convo many times here and I am still not buying it.

Think of how complicated business and corporate law gets and yet still we have business. You draw up a pre-nuptual marriage contract and then that is what you go by. Each person draws up a living will/healthcare power of attorney naming who (it doesn't need to be spouse or family member) they designate to make their decisions if they are incapacitated.

Get government out of the marriage business entirely and you wipe out all the tax-benefits to marriage and insurance issues. People are "married" in whatever way they see fit and contract law (which is well established) covers it.

Never understood why insurance should be tied to employment - seems like a cumbersome way to cope with healthcare. People change jobs, get laid off, retire, etc. Either go national/socialistic or geographical (each state or county or whatever has it's own plan - like with CHIP or Medicaid or Medicaid. Basic minimum coverage and prevention services for everyone and then people can add "riders" like we do for every other damn insurance type.


That doesn't make any sense. You want to get government out of marriage, and yet, suggest everyone draw up prenups & powers of attorney? Who do you think enforces those in the event of a dispute? The government.

Now sure, if government had nothing to do with marriage, then people could call their relationships marriage all they want. The odd thing is, they can do that anyway right now without having to change a thing. Oh, and "contract law" cannot, by definition, exist without the government. I'm sorry but, I'm having a tough time understanding what you're specific argument is even about. If you seek legal poly marriage similar to monogamous marriage, it's impossible without government sanction. Otherwise there's no real argument to change anything.

As for the insurance, currently, it's seen as a benefit that companies provide to employees. Which they extend to their spouses & children. Sure, change to universal healthcare (which I'm not opposed to), you have a point. But, that's an entirely different argument altogether. Until that changes, companies will fight multiple marriages in order to keep from being forced to provide insurance for several spouses. Maybe your energy should be focused more on changing healthcare law first. My point is based solely on how poly marriage would impact the current structure.

And as for designating certain partners to have more say than others... well, I can tell you that that's going to make for some interesting conversations around the poly dinner table. Especially among those who don't believe in primaries. "In the event I'm incapacitated, Lisa will make all of the decisions, and if Sarah disagrees? Too bad".

Sorry, but I'M not buying the notion that it's anyway feasible without drastic first steps to the current landscape. Once those change, then it might make sense.
 
That doesn't make any sense. You want to get government out of marriage, and yet, suggest everyone draw up prenups & powers of attorney? Who do you think enforces those in the event of a dispute? The government.

Now sure, if government had nothing to do with marriage, then people could call their relationships marriage all they want. The odd thing is, they can do that anyway right now without having to change a thing. Oh, and "contract law" cannot, by definition, exist without the government. I'm sorry but, I'm having a tough time understanding what you're specific argument is even about. If you seek legal poly marriage similar to monogamous marriage, it's impossible without government sanction. Otherwise there's no real argument to change anything.

As for the insurance, currently, it's seen as a benefit that companies provide to employees. Which they extend to their spouses & children. Sure, change to universal healthcare (which I'm not opposed to), you have a point. But, that's an entirely different argument altogether. Until that changes, companies will fight multiple marriages in order to keep from being forced to provide insurance for several spouses. Maybe your energy should be focused more on changing healthcare law first. My point is based solely on how poly marriage would impact the current structure.

And as for designating certain partners to have more say than others... well, I can tell you that that's going to make for some interesting conversations around the poly dinner table. Especially among those who don't believe in primaries. "In the event I'm incapacitated, Lisa will make all of the decisions, and if Sarah disagrees? Too bad".

Sorry, but I'M not buying the notion that it's anyway feasible without drastic first steps to the current landscape. Once those change, then it might make sense.

I agree with Jane. The government shouldn't issue "marriages." They should enforce contracts that people actually have to understand before entering. People don't always think about the consequences (both the good and the bad) before getting married, but they would if they had to sit down and list who should get to make their medical, financial, and other decisions should they be incapacitated. Maybe it would be their spouse. Maybe it would be their cousin who is a doctor or their best childhood friend or a different partner or whomever.

Marriage licenses and governmental tracking of marriages make no sense. Tax everyone as individuals. Let everyone enter into legal contracts with whomever they want. The census/drivers licenses/etc can tell us who is cohabiting. Legal name change documentation would can tell people researching their family who changed their name to merge families. There are already legal set ups for EVERYTHING marriage accomplishes. The legal entity of marriage just hands certain people those rights while other people have to go through each separate process for it. Make everyone do the work, in my opinion!
 
If nobody's worried about what Government has to say about "marriage," then WHY BOTHER... umm... worrying about what government has to say abount marriage?

Go out & do WTF ever. Right...? Get handfasted or bonded or whatever. Don't sweat the paperwork. The rest is all detail & inconsequential, apparently.

Too often, various people who squawk about "poly marriage" are not -- other than the neat-looking label -- on the same page at all.

Get the Church out of it, or get Government out of it. Choose.

You CANNOT have it BOTH ways.
 
That doesn't make any sense. You want to get government out of marriage, and yet, suggest everyone draw up prenups & powers of attorney? Who do you think enforces those in the event of a dispute? The government.

I'm not saying get rid of the government! (at least in this thread:D). I'm saying remove the "special case" of marriage law. Treat financial and legal concerns like ANY OTHER contract (contract law that ALREADY exists - no need to reinvent the wheel).

Say I want to buy a house with a business partner - we don't need to get married to do it, you can own property with anyone you want (or multiple people). The contract specifies what the responsibilities and obligations are for each person and what happens if they fail to keep up their end.

You (and as many people as you want) can set up a trust fund for any number of people and, again, existing law lets you designate how that money is invested, withdrawn, distributed, etc.

Now sure, if government had nothing to do with marriage, then people could call their relationships marriage all they want. The odd thing is, they can do that anyway right now without having to change a thing.

Precisely! Get rid of "marriage law" and "marriage" becomes a cultural/religious institution, NOT a legal one. Why did we fight so hard for gay marriage? People could call someone their spouse, anyway. We did it to afford gay couples the same PRIVILEGES as hetero couples. Take away the privilege and there is no reason for the government to care who considers themselves married or not.


Oh, and "contract law" cannot, by definition, exist without the government. I'm sorry but, I'm having a tough time understanding what you're specific argument is even about. If you seek legal poly marriage similar to monogamous marriage, it's impossible without government sanction. Otherwise there's no real argument to change anything.

Again, I am not proposing to get rid of the government, just the "special case" of marriage/divorce law. It's not that I want "legal poly marriage", I want to do away with the the concept of "legal marriage" completely. Leaving people free to shape their lives the way they see fit and have the government treat each and every person equally under the law. Not give special privileges to some people because they are "married" and penalize those who aren't.

As for the insurance, currently, it's seen as a benefit that companies provide to employees. Which they extend to their spouses & children. Sure, change to universal healthcare (which I'm not opposed to), you have a point. But, that's an entirely different argument altogether.

Actually, that IS exactly part of my argument. My employer doesn't pay for my auto insurance - even though I use my car to get to work. They pay for life insurance as a benefit (never really understood why), but I can buy more. Why is health insurance a special case?

Yes, healthcare reform is part of what it would take to make things work - but I feel we need that anyway, regardless of the poly aspect.

Give each worker an "insurance stipend" and let them choose what they spend it on. I want minimum car insurance, limited term life insurance, maximal disability insurance, maximal liability insurance, minimal property insurance, and health insurance for myself and certain members of my "household". Poly guy with 2 wives and kids wants a different mix based on his needs and what his other family members select - doesn't matter. Under the current system, some people have "benefits" they can't use (because their spouse also has employer-provided health insurance) and the guy with a wife who is a SAHM and has 15 kids gets more "benefits" than the single guy.

Until that changes, companies will fight multiple marriages in order to keep from being forced to provide insurance for several spouses. Maybe your energy should be focused more on changing healthcare law first. My point is based solely on how poly marriage would impact the current structure.

And my point is that it's a lot easier to argue for a change, such as healthcare reform, that benefits other discriminated against populations than to argue for a change, such as "legalizing poly marriage" that benefits only a few."

And as for designating certain partners to have more say than others... well, I can tell you that that's going to make for some interesting conversations around the poly dinner table. Especially among those who don't believe in primaries. "In the event I'm incapacitated, Lisa will make all of the decisions, and if Sarah disagrees? Too bad".

Currently, you can designate whomever you want as your healthcare power of attorney charged with executing your living will. Just as you can with a regular will. The law only designates the default person if you don't select one yourself. I would want MrS, not Dude, to be mine - not because he is more important, but he understands my desires and happens to agree with them. He would ALSO be Dude's healthcare POA, even though he is only his friend and I am his girlfriend, because I don't quite understand Dude's desires, do not agree with them, and would have a much harder time.

I am healthcare POA for my parents (and a few other people, not related to me), not my sisters, because I understand their desires, and am a better position to interpret them than my sisters because I work in healthcare. It doesn't mean my sisters are less important, but that, for that particular task, I am the most qualified for the job.

Sorry, but I'M not buying the notion that it's anyway feasible without drastic first steps to the current landscape. Once those change, then it might make sense.

Not disagreeing with you there. I don't think that the vast majority of married people in this country are willing to give up their (unearned) privileges under current law to make things better/more fair for single people or unconventional relationships. Even generally well-meaning people are not willing to support something that takes something away from themselves, even if it benefits society as a whole.


*******DISCLAIMER************

Under current law I, personally, benefit from "marriage privilege" - my husband gets health insurance, I can file my taxes "married filing jointly", my husband would get our assets in the case of my death without having to pay a lawyer to draw up a contract or pay exorbitant inheritance taxes.
 
Last edited:
I'm not saying get rid of the government! (at least in this thread:D). I'm saying remove the "special case" of marriage law. Treat financial and legal concerns like ANY OTHER contract (contract law that ALREADY exists - no need to reinvent the wheel).

Say I want to buy a house with a business partner - we don't need to get married to do it, you can own property with anyone you want (or multiple people). The contract specifies what the responsibilities and obligations are for each person and what happens if they fail to keep up their end.

You (and as many people as you want) can set up a trust fund for any number of people and, again, existing law lets you designate how that money is invested, withdrawn, distributed, etc.



Precisely! Get rid of "marriage law" and "marriage" becomes a cultural/religious institution, NOT a legal one. Why did we fight so hard for gay marriage? People could call someone their spouse, anyway. We did it to afford gay couples the same PRIVILEGES as hetero couples. Take away the privilege and there is no reason for the government to care who considers themselves married or not.




Again, I am not proposing to get rid of the government, just the "special case" of marriage/divorce law. It's not that I want "legal poly marriage", I want to do away with the the concept of "legal marriage" completely. Leaving people free to shape their lives the way they see fit and have the government treat each and every person equally under the law. Not give special privileges to some people because they are "married" and penalize those who aren't.



Actually, that IS exactly part of my argument. My employer doesn't pay for my auto insurance - even though I use my car to get to work. They pay for life insurance as a benefit (never really understood why), but I can buy more. Why is health insurance a special case?

Yes, healthcare reform is part of what it would take to make things work - but I feel we need that anyway, regardless of the poly aspect.

Give each worker an "insurance stipend" and let them choose what they spend it on. I want minimum car insurance, limited term life insurance, maximal disability insurance, maximal liability insurance, minimal property insurance, and health insurance for myself and certain members of my "household". Poly guy with 2 wives and kids wants a different mix based on his needs and what his other family members select - doesn't matter. Under the current system, some people have "benefits" they can't use (because their spouse also has employer-provided health insurance) and the guy with a wife who is a SAHM and has 15 kids gets more "benefits" than the single guy.



And my point is that it's a lot easier to argue for a change, such as healthcare reform, that benefits other discriminated against populations than to argue for a change, such as "legalizing poly marriage" that benefits only a few."



Currently, you can designate whomever you want as your healthcare power of attorney charged with executing your living will. Just as you can with a regular will. The law only designates the default person if you don't select one yourself. I would want MrS, not Dude, to be mine - not because he is more important, but he understands my desires and happens to agree with them. He would ALSO be Dude's healthcare POA, even though he is only his friend and I am his girlfriend, because I don't quite understand Dude's desires, do not agree with them, and would have a much harder time.

I am healthcare POA for my parents (and a few other people, not related to me), not my sisters, because I understand their desires, and am a better position to interpret them than my sisters because I work in healthcare. It doesn't mean my sisters are less important, but that, for that particular task, I am the most qualified for the job.



Not disagreeing with you there. I don't think that the vast majority of married people in this country are willing to give up their (unearned) privileges under current law to make things better/more fair for single people or unconventional relationships. Even generally well-meaning people are not willing to support something that takes something away from themselves, even if it benefits society as a whole.


*******DISCLAIMER************

Under current law I, personally, benefit from "marriage privilege" - my husband gets health insurance, I can file my taxes "married filing jointly", my husband would get our assets in the case of my death without having to pay a lawyer to draw up a contract or pay exorbitant inheritance taxes.

Look, I understand where you're coming from. The thing is, my point was in response to the op who appears to be seeking poly marriages that mirror monogamous marriages. Sure, you can remove a lot of the "privileges" that marriage has, such as default spousal rights, but ironically, having those rights were precisely what gay marriage proponents were trying to gain. The people saying that gay folks should just file power of attorney papers, and be extra descriptive in will, etc... were on the anti-gay marriage side. Yes, you can eliminate it all and make EVERYONE file all this legal paperwork. But again, you're just going to clog up the court system with petty paperwork. And while attorneys will love all the extra business, so much of it is unnecessary. Why even get married if you still have to jump through endless hoops and spend thousands of dollars to establish something that's already in place?

Unless the entire system is changed, there's nothing feasible about enacting poly marriage. I know people like to compare it to gay marriage, but they're really not similar at all. I get what you're saying, but there are too many "ifs" to deal with first.
 
The people saying that gay folks should just file power of attorney papers, and be extra descriptive in will, etc... were on the anti-gay marriage side.
Totally false. I was saying that since the early 1980s, precisely because I had this weird pessimistic notion that if "gay marriage" was ever gonna come around, it was gonna take a really stupid-long time.

Wow -- silly me, eh? :rolleyes:

Meantime, there didn't seem to be any sane reason to avoid reaching for those benefits.

IME, the people who told me I was somehow undermining American Society by encouraging this were almost always gay-haters. You might want to distance yourself a little. :D
 
Totally false. I was saying that since the early 1980s, precisely because I had this weird pessimistic notion that if "gay marriage" was ever gonna come around, it was gonna take a really stupid-long time.

Wow -- silly me, eh? :rolleyes:

Meantime, there didn't seem to be any sane reason to avoid reaching for those benefits.

IME, the people who told me I was somehow undermining American Society by encouraging this were almost always gay-haters. You might want to distance yourself a little. :D

Not exactly. While I see your point, it's undeniable that there were droves of gay marriage opponents who tried to suggest that very concept. When proponents argued that legalizing gay marriage would allow them to make decisions for their partners just as heterosexual couples currently could, the solution from opponents was, "well, just file power of attorney" dismissing the need to allow them to get married. The point being that gay couples would continue to go through extra steps to accomplish the same rights and protections that hetero couples get for simply uttering the phrase "I do".

The problem was, there was no coherent argument that allowing gay marriage had a negative impact on anyone. Even down to matters like health insurance.

I don't need to distance myself from anything. I'm not saying that your suggestion to file all that paperwork was a bad idea, just pointing out that it makes an insane argument to support poly marriage.
 
Back
Top