Huckabee Makes a Reasonable Statement

[Andara Bledin]

Too bad he's trying to be sarcastic and hyperbolic.

On his morning program after Friday's decision, he said:

If we’re determined to change the definition of marriage to accommodate how people feel and what they wish to do because of their mutual consent, then we should immediately release those incarcerated for practicing polygamy or bigamy. And, frankly, let’s make all consensual adult behaviors legal, whether prostitution, assisted suicide, or even drinking 16 ounce sodas in New York City.

I don't know about the rest of you, but that all sounds eminently reasonable to me. Legalize it, regulate it, and tax it.

Of course, he then goes on to spout a bunch of ignorant misinformation as if men marrying other men was some sort of recent development.

Article at Think Progress

[Greenday]

Here's what I have to sway about marriage: as long as everyone knows about it, is able to consent, and DOES consent, then let them do it since it only affects them and no one else.

[s_stabeler]

Here's what I have to sway about marriage: as long as everyone knows about it, is able to consent, and DOES consent, then let them do it since it only affects them and no one else.

I agree. if EVERYONE involves consents, WTF is the issue? ( with one change: in a marrriage with more than 2 people, make it so just one person can get divorced w/o dissolving the entire marriage)

[HYHYBT]

There are other potential complications when more than two are involved, but so long as they're worked out in law in advance... well, evidence shows two is hard enough, and sense would dictate that adding more would make the chances of success drop, but if you think you can make it work, go ahead and try.

But the difference between group marriage and polygamy is important. Legally, at least, marriage needs to be a balanced, reciprocal arrangement. One man with many wives, who are not likewise married to each other, isn't. And the mess you'd have if those wives, likewise, each had other husbands who were not married to the first... I don't even know what the term for such an arrangement would be (a marriage chain?) but it would get unworkable fast.

[MadMike]

That's why I've always called this guy "Fuckabee!"

[s_stabeler]

There are other potential complications when more than two are involved, but so long as they're worked out in law in advance... well, evidence shows two is hard enough, and sense would dictate that adding more would make the chances of success drop, but if you think you can make it work, go ahead and try.

But the difference between group marriage and polygamy is important. Legally, at least, marriage needs to be a balanced, reciprocal arrangement. One man with many wives, who are not likewise married to each other, isn't. And the mess you'd have if those wives, likewise, each had other husbands who were not married to the first... I don't even know what the term for such an arrangement would be (a marriage chain?) but it would get unworkable fast.

I'm not actually sure that it would happen in practise: people generally get jealous seeing their partner with somebody else as it is, so I suspect group marriages would be more common that bigamy.

[siead_lietrathua]

poly chiming in on the group marriage thing.

many people are already living in group marriages. they just aren't legally recognized ones. (think the religious ceremony, skipping the paperwork). i think legally recognized poly marriages would work the same as these non-legal ones do. people are joined to their individual partners, and work out the details through contracts similar to prenuptial agreements, as well as each partner having their own will/ living will settling their assets between their partners.

to the one-person-many-spouses thing, not everyone has to be romantically involved. it even has it's own term of metamour (my partner's partner), and as long as ya'll get along, there shouldn't be a problem.

to the jealousy thing: sure it exists, but jealousy is as much built on internal insecurity as on any action your partner does. should i get jealous if my husband hugs an extreamly hot ex? no. his love of her does nothing to diminish his love of me, and i think she is an amazing girl anyway.
don't get me wrong, i totally get jealous when i don't get to see my boyfriend for weeks because he is off on vacation with his family. but that has nothing to do with his relationship with his wife, and more the "i wanna go to disney toooo" thing. :P

[Gravekeeper]

You have to be wired a certain way for polygamy. Otherwise it would be fraught with emotional peril.

As for legalizing it, sorry but no, and I'm not speaking in an "ew, icky" sense. From a purely legal standpoint it would be a complete and total cluster fuck. The ways of abusing the system with it are awe inspiring. ( Group green card marriages, etc ).

[Andara Bledin]

As for legalizing it, sorry but no, and I'm not speaking in an "ew, icky" sense. From a purely legal standpoint it would be a complete and total cluster fuck. The ways of abusing the system with it are awe inspiring. ( Group green card marriages, etc ).

Honestly, none of the issues don't already exist or cannot be dealt with using tools that already exist.

A contract is a contract, and a marriage contract really isn't particularly complex. The most difficult angle would be with tax law, and that's probably easier to sort out than corporate taxes, so again, not nearly as big an issue as one might think.

[Nekojin]

As Andara says, we deal with more complicated arrangements in corporate law all the time already. Just because it might be complicated is no reason to prevent people from doing it.

As for "green card group marriages" - I already think that green card marriages are bullshit anyway.

[siead_lietrathua]

From a purely legal standpoint it would be a complete and total cluster fuck.

but people are already doing it, just without the marriage certificates. polyamory is perfectly legal in canada as long as there is only one legal marrige per couple. (so, 5 people in a house, max 2 legal weddings). as i said before, with using wills/ other contracts people can happily live in multi-partner households. sure, you have to be "wired" for it, but you also have to be "wired" in any other part of your sexuality.

edit:

thinking about it, i can't see how it would be any more of a clusterfuck for one guy with 3 wives VS one guy with one wife and 2 ex-wives when it comes to division of assets. :/

[lordlundar]

From a purely legal standpoint it would be a complete and total cluster fuck.

How does the old joke go? "Polygamy and monogamy are both a case of one wife too many."?