Polyamory Rights

MonoVCPHG

New member
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
 
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 :)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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. :)
 
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.
 
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~
 
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.
 
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
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.
 
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~
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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
 
Last edited:
Back
Top