Polyamory Rights

[MonoVCPHG]

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.

[ImaginaryIllusion]

Originally Posted by CielDuMatin

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.

Originally Posted by Ravenesque

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.

[Ravenesque]

Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG

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?

Originally Posted by ImaginaryIllusion

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~

[MonoVCPHG]

[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.

[crisare]

Originally Posted by Ravenesque

[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.

[CielDuMatin]

Originally Posted by crisare

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.

[crisare]

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.

[CielDuMatin]

Originally Posted by crisare

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.

[MonoVCPHG]

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?

[JonnyAce]

Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG

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