Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 12-31-2009, 07:28 AM
MonoVCPHG's Avatar
MonoVCPHG MonoVCPHG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In Redpepper's heart
Posts: 4,742
Default

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.
__________________

Playing the Game of Life with Monopoly rules.
Monogamy might just be in my genes

Poly Events All Over
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-31-2009, 07:36 AM
ImaginaryIllusion's Avatar
ImaginaryIllusion ImaginaryIllusion is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,930
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CielDuMatin View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenesque View Post
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.
__________________
“People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.” - Chinese Proverb

-Imaginary Illusion

How did I get here & Where am I going?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-31-2009, 08:08 AM
Ravenesque's Avatar
Ravenesque Ravenesque is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 297
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ImaginaryIllusion View Post
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~
__________________
Are you a polyamorist or non-monogamous individual between the ages 18-35? Are you located in New York State or the Northeast?
Join us at The Network, a social and socially aware network which connects young polys and progressive polys of all ages.



~Open up your mind and let me step inside.
Rest your weary head and let your heart decide. It's so easy.
When you know the rules.
It's so easy. All you have to do is fall in love.
Play the game.
Everybody play the game of love. Yeah...~
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-31-2009, 08:43 AM
MonoVCPHG's Avatar
MonoVCPHG MonoVCPHG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In Redpepper's heart
Posts: 4,742
Default

[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.
__________________

Playing the Game of Life with Monopoly rules.
Monogamy might just be in my genes

Poly Events All Over
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-31-2009, 07:09 PM
crisare's Avatar
crisare crisare is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 172
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenesque View Post
[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.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-31-2009, 07:19 PM
CielDuMatin's Avatar
CielDuMatin CielDuMatin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Upstate New York, USA
Posts: 1,456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crisare View Post
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.
__________________
Please check out The Birdcage - an open, friendly Polyamory forum for all parts of New York State
http://www.thebirdcage.org/

"Listen, or your tongue will make you deaf." - Native American Proverb
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-31-2009, 08:05 PM
crisare's Avatar
crisare crisare is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 172
Default

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-31-2009, 08:08 PM
CielDuMatin's Avatar
CielDuMatin CielDuMatin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Upstate New York, USA
Posts: 1,456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crisare View Post
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.
__________________
Please check out The Birdcage - an open, friendly Polyamory forum for all parts of New York State
http://www.thebirdcage.org/

"Listen, or your tongue will make you deaf." - Native American Proverb
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-31-2009, 10:51 PM
MonoVCPHG's Avatar
MonoVCPHG MonoVCPHG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In Redpepper's heart
Posts: 4,742
Default

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?
__________________

Playing the Game of Life with Monopoly rules.
Monogamy might just be in my genes

Poly Events All Over
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-01-2010, 03:43 AM
JonnyAce JonnyAce is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NY
Posts: 456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG View Post
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 by JonnyAce; 01-01-2010 at 03:49 AM. Reason: clarification
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
law, marriage

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:49 PM.