Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > Meetings and Events

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 08-12-2017, 04:33 PM
Ravenscroft Ravenscroft is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: NW Minnesota
Posts: 1,724
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CTF View Post
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."
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-12-2017, 04:56 PM
Magdlyn's Avatar
Magdlyn Magdlyn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Metro West Massachusetts
Posts: 6,691
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdt26417 View Post
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.
__________________
Love withers under constraint; its very essence is liberty. It is compatible neither with envy, jealousy or fear. It is there most pure, perfect and unlimited when its votaries live in confidence, equality and unreserve. -- Shelley

Mags (poly, F, 63), dating... again!
Pixi (poly, F, 41) my darling nesting partner since January 2009
Master, (mono, M, 37), Pixi's Dom/bf since April 2013
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-12-2017, 11:00 PM
JaneQSmythe JaneQSmythe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Pennsyl-tucky
Posts: 1,952
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CTF View Post

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.
__________________
JaneQ(Me): poly bi female, in an "open-but-not-looking" V-plus with -
MrS: hetero polyflexible male, live-in husband (25+ yrs)
Dude: hetero poly male, live-in boyfriend (7+ yrs) and MrS's BFF
SLeW: platonic hetero girlfriend and BFF
MrClean: hetero mono male, almost ex-lover-friend, ex-FWBs to SLeW, friends with MrS; live-in with Katniss
+ "others" = FBs, FWBs, lover-friends, platonic G/BFs, boytoys, etc.


My poly blogs here:
The Journey of JaneQSmythe
The Notebook of JaneQSmythe
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-13-2017, 05:07 AM
CTF CTF is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: California
Posts: 403
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneQSmythe View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-13-2017, 05:25 AM
AlwaysGrowing AlwaysGrowing is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 874
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CTF View Post
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!
__________________
Me: AG - 28yo, finding herself
Hubby: My awesome husband. Together for over a decade.
Boy: Boyfriend. Known for about 6 years - involved off and on the whole time.
Little Girl: My and Hubby's daughter. 2.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-13-2017, 06:16 AM
Ravenscroft Ravenscroft is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: NW Minnesota
Posts: 1,724
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-13-2017, 07:50 AM
JaneQSmythe JaneQSmythe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Pennsyl-tucky
Posts: 1,952
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CTF View Post
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). 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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CTF View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CTF View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CTF View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CTF View Post
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."

Quote:
Originally Posted by CTF View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CTF View Post
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.
__________________
JaneQ(Me): poly bi female, in an "open-but-not-looking" V-plus with -
MrS: hetero polyflexible male, live-in husband (25+ yrs)
Dude: hetero poly male, live-in boyfriend (7+ yrs) and MrS's BFF
SLeW: platonic hetero girlfriend and BFF
MrClean: hetero mono male, almost ex-lover-friend, ex-FWBs to SLeW, friends with MrS; live-in with Katniss
+ "others" = FBs, FWBs, lover-friends, platonic G/BFs, boytoys, etc.


My poly blogs here:
The Journey of JaneQSmythe
The Notebook of JaneQSmythe

Last edited by JaneQSmythe; 08-13-2017 at 08:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-13-2017, 05:09 PM
CTF CTF is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: California
Posts: 403
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneQSmythe View Post
I'm not saying get rid of the government! (at least in this thread). 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.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-13-2017, 06:48 PM
Ravenscroft Ravenscroft is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: NW Minnesota
Posts: 1,724
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CTF View Post
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?

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.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-14-2017, 12:04 AM
CTF CTF is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: California
Posts: 403
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenscroft View Post
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?

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.
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

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 05:27 AM.