Polyamory Rights

[crisare]

Originally Posted by JonnyAce

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 There are many laws/policies that are really outdated that need to be looked at and changed anyway.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 )

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by DrunkenPorcupine

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]

Originally Posted by DrunkenPorcupine

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.