This thread looks at polygamy.  There are certain outlying groups that believe religiously that they should practice polygamy.  (Before anyone brings it up, these do not include Mormons.  Polygamy is punishable by excommunication.)
---

First issue (legal/constitutional):

However, the question is whether religious beliefs of polygamy should require a redefinition of the definition of marriage to include polygamous relationships.  Or are their first amendment constitutional rights (to freedom of religion) being violated?  And/or are they (like some believe in the gay marriage forum) being denied equal protection under the law?

With the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") in 1996 by President Clinton, a marriage was explicitly defined as a union of one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law.  Is this federal law a violation of constitutional law?

Keep in mind there are technically two issues here:
1) Polygamy is generally held to be illegal, meaning you can't openly practice it at all without it being a criminal act.

2) No states recognize polygamy as a recognizable marriage (i.e., the state does not find sufficient benefit in polygamy to warrant promoting its licensing as legitimate marriage).

---

Second issue (religious):

What religious issues are raised by the idea of polygamy?  Are there religious precedents or specific religious citations against it?

--

I assume by this you mean the LDS Church, at this current point in time, excommunicates those who practice material polygamy?

There are several subgroups of Latter-Day Saints who still do currently practice Polygamy.

I'd say (though I'm not a lawyer), nothing requires the government to allow a particularly type of marriage just because a religion practices it.  It maybe be a good idea to do so, but that's a different issue.  From what I understand, the supreme court has ruled that it's acceptable for the government to ban practices required by a religion, so long as it does so for purely secular reasons, and not to target that particular religion.  So, if the government's only reason for banning polygamous marriage was because they didn't like the FLDS church, then that'd be a 1st ammendment violation.  If they had a reason completely unrelated to the FLDS church for doing so, then it could be constitutional.  I haven't actually seen the justifications put forward by those who made polygamy illegal, so I can't actually say if they're a violation or not, but I wouldn't be particularly surprised either way, really.


From my (admittedly limited) understanding of the law, that would depend on whether or not they had a secular reason passing it, or whether it was passed in order to promote/discourage behavior of a certain group.  In other words, if they passed it in order to target a particular group and reduce their rights, that'd be unconstitutional, if it was for a purely secular purpose it could be.  My take on DOMA was that it was passed in order to stop gays from marrying, more than for any secular purpose.  Since it wasn't, I don't think, targeted specifically at stopping polygamists, they might have a hard time making a 1st amendment case out of it.  Though, since homosexuals were a specific target of the law, I think they would have an easier time making a case against it.



Depends on the religion, I suppose.  It was allowed (even required in some situations) by the OT jews, though it also seems that it was frowned upon in at least some of those situations.  The early mormon church practiced it, was chased out of a number of locations because of it, eventually agreed to abandon the practice as part of a deal to get Utah statehood, and now apparently considers it an excommicable offense.  The break-off FLDS church still practices it, which has lead to a few legal battles, but I think mostly the local governments turn a blind eye to it since they don't see much to be gained from prosecuting most of the people involved (when the police have gotten involved, it's usually been in cases of minors being married).  In Isalm I believe men are allowed to have up to 4 wives, though I think there are restrictions on that.

Out of curiosity, Heath, do you think polygamy is immoral?  Do you think it should be legal?

For my part, I think it's probably a bad idea for most people to be in a plural marriage, but probably not my business.  As long as all people involved are informed, consenting adults, I'm not opposed to letting them do it.  There are legal complications, since marriage grants the partner certain rights, and if those rights are given to multiple people, who may not agree, the law isn't clear, but as long as the marriage agreements they make address those complications, I'm don't have a problem with them being legal.

One issue I would raise is that even if plural marriages are allowed, I don't think they should be able to be used to get more than a normal marriage.  If you have six wives, say, they'd each get one sixth of your pension if you die, not each of them getting the full value.

To a degree, the "one man, one woman" rule in DOMA wouldn't necessarily preclude plural marriages, it would just mean that all involved aren't all married to each other.  Ie, three people couldn't have one marriage, but they might have two marriages between them, each between one man and one woman (and if gay marriage were allowed, they could all have individual marriages between one another, each marriage being between just two people).  I think polygamists actually get caught on the "you can't have more than one marriage" thing, not the "marriage is only between two people" thing.  Splitting hairs, perhaps, I'm not sure.

They are not subgroups of the Latter-Day Saints.  They are radical factions that are not associated with, and are condemned by, the church.

That said, they (unfortunately) have adopted a similar (if confusing) name: the "Fundamental" LDS church.  Don't mistake that for them being a subgroup, just because they absconded with our scripture and made their own church.  In fact, protestants are much more "subgroups" of Catholicism than they are of the LDS church.

I said "Mormon" because those who associate polygamy with Mormonism will also likely be the ones who may believe that the polygamist sects are somehow interrelated.

Many forms of paganism consider plural marriages acceptable, *very* few would consider it a requirement. I am tempted to say none but we are diverse enough group that there is probably some sect out there which does.
Generally one of two approaches are taken by those involved- either a civil commitment contract between the parties or simply to live with the marriage and not register it with the state. Since it is not an official marriage in either case the state really doesn't do anything about it. Considering the myriad forms of polygamous relationships possible in a gender equal spirituality (as opposed to litteral polygamy which just means many wives) most of us feel the current legal situation is fairly acceptable since each situation requires a degree of customization of the relationship in any case. Some of the 'famillies' involved actually qualify for group health insurance...

The only difference is that you're emotionally opposed to their differences in interpretation.

Were I catholic, I could make the same argument that Episcopalians are not christian; they're not associated with the church, and are condemned by it, they absconded from the scripture and made their own church.

Nevertheless, the Episcopalians are Christian, aren't they.



Those people are either quickly informed of such, or they have no interest in the distinctions between denominations because they're bigoted.
This message was last edited by the GM at 17:26, Wed 18 Aug 2010.

The problem is that the difference in societal values now is making the equal rights argument trump and therefore require the government to allow any kind of marriage that can be linked to a right.

Also, this goes to the question in the gay marriage claims:  Is it about "marriage" or the "acts/practices" in marriage?  If the gay marriage argument is successful, I don't see any way around the same result with polygamy.  In fact, polygamy has an even better leg to stand on because it is based on a fundamental right of the constitution (freedom of religion).  The gay rights issue is not based on that, but instead on the 14th amendment.  So there is less scrutiny with gay marriage (i.e., only a rational reason, not a compelling reason to disallow the marriage).


Yes, that would not be a "compelling reason" to ban them from marriage per their religious beliefs.

But is it a compelling reason to ban them for other reasons?

(BTW, I'm playing devil's advocate here.  I don't advocate legalizing polygamous marriage.  I'm just saying this is likely the next fight.)


I haven't read the court cases but they came out in the mid to late 1800s.


I think where your misunderstanding here is you are looking at the violation against promoting a religion (i.e., separation of church and state).  I am looking at preventing someone from practicing their religion (i.e., freedom of religion).  These are different standards.  The secular argument applies only to the first; the equal protection, etc. applies to the second.


That last statement isn't accurate.  The church always believed that it was one man and one woman, but with a carved out exception where it was required by God in certain circumstances.  For example, if a war kills available men, then perhaps in that case it would be an acceptable evil to allow polygamy so women are not deprived of their right to have a husband in this lifetime.  It was always a case of the exception to a rule.  When practiced, it was only sanctioned for those who proved themselves worthy (like those who demonstrated they were not sexually depraved and were loving and caring fathers and husbands who would be able to handle that hardship).

It was disbanded after revelation, not as part of statehood, and that was based on a revelation that, were it to continue, the church and its leaders would be utterly destroyed.  But also, the need for it was not there.  They had fled persecution and set up their thriving society in Utah.

But there were really two issues: 1-continuation of entering into polygamy, and 2-divorce of polygamous relationships.  The church was less interested in the first issue, but the problem is where the government demanded that the relationships be dissolved under penalty of jail time.  Do you divorce your wife because the government makes you?  Do you tear those children away from a loving home?  Can the government tear asunder what God has brought together?  Those were the key issues.


It CAN be immoral; is it always immoral?  No.  Is it contrary to the normative moral values of our society?  Yes.

Due to the last, I would not legalize "polygamous marriage," but I would also not criminalize those who practice it privately...so long as they are not resorting to child abuse and other abuses (but those are separate crimes anyway).

Rather, I would do as they do in most states for homosexual couples:  grant a "domestic partner" relationship to the multiple spouses with certain rights, but do not extend the rights to the extent of marriage, although the first wife would be recognized legally as the "wife."  There are bumps in that which would need to be ironed out, but that's the path I'd take.

Actually, you're wrong on this.  The FLDS claim that the LDS church is the one that has gone astray, and they do not claim anything to do with it either.  So the two religions both agree that they are completely separate, just as Catholics and protestants.

And saying they are not "christian" is different.  That is a label.  I am saying they are not part of the LDS church and espouse entirely different beliefs based on the same scriptures.  That is a demonstrable fact, not a label, and one that is undisputed.  They want no part of the LDS church and believe the LDS church has essentially abandoned its principles and priesthood, etc., etc.

I've never tried it myself, but I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be legal (except for all the legal confusion that follows), as long as all parties are consenting. Really, it actually kind of upsets me, that if for example I were to have a live-in mistress who ISN'T causing any legal confusion, and we're all consenting adults, that I could face 10 years in federal prison. Whether polygamy stays illegal or not, the punishment far outstrips the crime.

(Of course, if parties are NOT consenting then it becomes a different case, but I would consider that adultery, marriage under false pretenses and legal misrepresentation.)

Gay rights were linked to religious freedom in Lawrence v texas, so they are in fact connected. The biggest thing preventing legal polygamous marriage status is that neither polygamists nor the government want to get invlved in the sheer complexity of dealing with that issue on a national basis. Certainly it could be legalized in for example Utah so that FLDS marriages could be legally recognized because those follow a common form (1 man with several wives), but once you've met a woman whose is in a triad with a man and another woman the husband of which has another wife outside the tria and she has another husband outside as well (all of which being in the way they view the relationship, not any legal filings) you realize that the government simply is not equiped to deal with all of the possibilities.
and yes, that is an actual example.

Well yeah they would, wouldn't they.



I agree.  They may not be part of the LDS Church, but they are still subgroups of Latter Day Saints, Mormons.

They couldn't be anything other than that, since they're part of the Latter Day Saint movement.

Our misconception lies in the fact that "Latter Day Saint" does not mean "Member of the Church of Latter Day Saints of Jesus Christ", nor am I saying they're a subgroup of that church, but of the movement.

To clarify, the LDS Church is also a subgroup of the Latter Day Saint movement. So are Strangites, Bickertonites, etc.

Man though, it sure would help if you guys didn't all name your churches after some form of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" or another. Some take out a couple of the words, some add a hyphen, but it's not like they just say "We're the Strangite Church" like one would say "We're the Nazarene Church" or anything. Like, right on the sign outside.
This message was last edited by the GM at 18:32, Wed 18 Aug 2010.

Marriage implies a degree of loyalty and exclusivity. A person cannot have conflicting loyalties.

Therefore, define it as such -
A family is one person, or multiple people who are all married to each other.

A marriage is between one individual and one family.

The marriage requires everyone in the family consents, and everyone in the individual's family consents. This is done verbally and in writing, once in private in front of a clerk or government official, and once in public in front of all relevant parties and a government official or officiator, and only after proving identity.

'Marriage' comes in three stripes:
Primary 'Marriage' union - this is what we'd consider a 'conventional' marriage. Marriage benefits are conferred between the two, including the power to make life-or-death decisions, right to pension payouts, full inheritance of property and whatnot. Primary marriages are reciprocal, and each person can only be primary married to one person (so no chains of primary marriages).

Secondary union - this is a non-directional, reciprocal legal arrangement similar to a parent/adult child relationship. Insurance benefits and pensions do not extend. However, they still have visitation rights, and should a child form of that union, the father still owes paternity money, and has paternal rights. In the case of death, spouses from secondary marriages only get a payout after both spouses of the primary marriage die, and those payouts are divided up equally between all members of secondary marriages and children. Secondary marriages may be between two individuals, or an individual and a family, and a person may have multiple secondary marriages.

Tertiary union - this is a non-directional, reciprocal legal arrangement, between two individuals or a family and an individual. It extends to both parties the expectation of sex, and cements rights and responsibilities in the case of children (so every member of the family accepts responsibility and also the rights of parenthood should one member get pregnant. Yes, this means a woman could be stuck paying paternity payments.) Otherwise it confers no special benefits. This is more like a 'let it be known I am shacking up with you' arrangement than a real marriage.


I think that covers most possibilities (and makes judgments about particular ones, specifically that marriage is a form of loyalty, and that includes giving the other party the right to deny you the power to marry a third individual).

So what about triads or situations in which one person wants to allow either spouse make life or death decisions for them on the basis of availability? This deliniation is, compared to real life examples I know, simplistic to say the least.

Personally I think (and most polygamous groups also believe) that if you are entering into something as complex as a polygamous relationship you need to sit down and work out the details yourself.

Expectations of other parties are of course a more complex concept but ussualy this is handled through some form of administrative shuffling or discussion- for example listing the person in your group with teh worst current insurnce as your domestic partner (because they are one if not the only one) on the insurance paperwork when you get a job. Polygamy in a modern setting (as opposed to an ancient one where wives were a higher order of property) takes a lot of work and that is something that everyone involved needs to understand.

The term is polyamory.  Polygamy is belief in multiple-partner marriage.  Polyamory literally means: "Multiple love"-- that you can have more than one romantic partner at a time.  As Heath pointed out, many polygamous groups are considered to be fringe cults at best.

Now that we've got the semantics settled, there are many polyamorous families in the states, many of which get along without any major problems.  Maintaining a multiple-partner relationship means multiple times the opportunity for interpersonal drama, but arrangements can be made.  So, there's nothing inherently evil or unnatural about multiple romantic partners.

If you want to know more, you can watch a short video:http://www.newsweek.com/id/226348?GT1=43002  Unfortunately, it mixes up Tiger Woods into it, confusing cherishing with cheating.

That's what those who oppose gay marriage say, but I've not heard anyone actually argue for that stance.  Plenty of people will tell you "if we allow gay marriage, then we have to let people marry horses!" but nobody that I know of is arguing for that position, or saying that any and every type of marriage that anyone wants needs to be allowed.  It's a strawman argument used to turn people against gay marriage, not something that's actually being promoted.


Perhaps, but again, my understanding is that saying "my religion requires that I do X" is not a free pass to making the government allow X.  The government CAN ban things that religions require, and it's not a first amendment violation to do so, IF they have a purely secular reason for doing so, and are not doing it to single out that group.  Whether the government could make such a case for polygamy, I don't know, since I really haven't heard the arguments for either side, but I would say it's not as simple as just saying "it's a religious issue so we win!"


Don't know, I'd need to hear the other reasons, I guess.


From my understanding, the secular standard applied to laws that affected the freedom of religion part.  I think this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...nt_Division_v._Smith
is the relevant case.  In which:






But if it's not the ideal, wouldn't practicing it undermine the ideal, promote less-than-ideal situations, yada yada yada?

Also, I note that you use the phrase "their right to have a husband in this lifetime."  [emphasis added] Did you really mean that there is a right to have a husband, or should it have said privilege or something else?  I ask because I've heard from anti-gay marriage side many, many times that marriage is not a right at all.


Actually, from what I read, the president/prophet at the time had changed the policy in 1889, in reaction to an 1887 act of congress that allowed the government to seize LDS property.  His 'revelation' was said to occur in 1890.  Also, a condition of Utah being granted statehood was that a ban on polygamy be written into the state constitution.  So in short, government pressure came first, then the change in practice, then the supposed revelation, then successful application for statehood with a state ban on polygamy.  Even if he did receive a revelation telling him the church would be destroyed if he didn't put an end to it, it would seem that the force threatening to destroy the church was the US government, so either way they caved to pressure from the government.

Also, I'm with sciencemile on the idea that the FLDS church is still "Mormon" even if it's entirely separate from the LDS church.  Yes, the two are separate, and people who try to confuse people about that are being dishonest, but at the same time saying "mormons don't practice polygmay" is like saying "christians don't believe the book of mormon."  Mormons are keen to be considered as just another sect of christianity, and I think its equally fair to say that the FLDS church and the LDS church are different sects of Mormonism (granted, two with vastly different numbers of followers).


And what is your take on them?  Is a loving marriage, but which is only a "necessary evil," something that should be protected?  Are children raised in a less than ideal marital situation better off if their parents are married or if they're not?


If society didn't disapprove, should it be legal?  Does it matter that, in your view, it's not the best situation, or just that society approves it or not?

FYI there are polyamorous groups, polygamist groups, polyandrous groups (multiple husbands) and groups that refer to themselves as simply 'poly something', in addition to the misapplication of polygamous as a generic term instead of meaning multiple wives. The polyamorous rhetoric does not negate teh existance of the others. In particular some groups dislike the term because polyamorous can denote what they consider a non-commited love situation between multiple people instead of either group commitment or webs of individual polyfidelitous commitments.

Which goes back to what I was saying before, the whole thing just gets incredibly complicated if you try to legislate for everybody.

As to horses most peopl I know of think it's okay to marry your horse if the horse is over the age of 18 and consenting. To date that situation has not occured to my knowledge.

I believe that children have that life-or-death decision power in most cases, so your triad would be best served by a pair of secondary unions, or a primary union + power of attorney. However, it is best, legally speaking, to have a single decision maker, to avoid situations where one spouse says yes and the other says no, and now you're trapped in legal limbo.



You're arguing about emotional and spiritual bonds. The actual legal transfer of powers, rights and responsibilities *MUST BE* simple and easy to follow. What I created is a simple mathematical setup which avoids conflicting parties having equal claim by enforcing a hiearchy. However, the rules are simple enough to permit just about any group relationship, while forbidding the most extreme legal abuses or tangles (such as covering 20 people under one person's employer-provided health insurance).



Fair enough. Then we should require that all groups sit down and pay the required $500 legal fees to establish a proper legal union. Does that sound more fair? Two-person marriages get married for $50, polygamous unions pay $500, because the law does not properly account for them.



This is also already addressed under my model. Simply choose that person as your 'primary union'.

Yes, if the lawyers have to do more work it will cost more. And I don't see your system simplifying anything. Instead you will have people caught up in which type of marriage is which and why they have to choose one primary when they love both people equally and maybe they want one to be financially responsible and the other to be medically responsible etc. etc. etc.
This is a non standard situation, it requires a non-standard approach. If I want a hybid vehicle that runs on cooking oil and is shaped like a fish it will cost more than a mass produced family car. That's life. In situations where there may be a standard cookie cutter concept of multiple marriages there may be laws for that (for example we could introduce a shariah marriage for those following Muslim guidelines of polygamy, since that is *a* standard) but the fact is that not all poly relationships will fit any given mold, and it is better to deal with how things are than trying to cobble together a legos version of marriage.

But they already have that option, even with any system currently available. If I want special legal conditions with my marriage, I can sit down a lawyer and we can pay extra to hash it out. However, most people will be happy with just the 'standard case'. It seems unfair to me to require that every polygamous marriage automatically has to go through the more complex, more stressful, more expensive 'special case' process, rather than just make a simple system anyone can use.

And like I said where cookie cutter formulas exist- FLDS, Shariah law, and other established traditions it certainly can be made easier- either by passing laws or by specialization of a law firm that can offer cookie cutter domestic living contracts. You might even be able to buy them online. Trying to pass legislation for a 'Generic Universal Moldable Matrriage' (GUMM) is going to wind up with a sticky situation.

Some of teh more generic multi-partner relationships (triads and V's for example) might equally be legislated in a cookie cutter and even gender neutral manner, but it needs to be done with the understanding that it is not going to be a catch all.

In terms fo 'fundamental geography' you have 'clusters' where everyone is married to everyone, and 'hinges' where two people are married to the same person, or in some cases a person who is a member of a group is also married to someone outside that group. If you deal with each of those possibilities so they can work for any number of people and can inter-relate then i suppose you might have a way to manage different forms of polygamy, but any concept of ranking partners needs to be wholly optional without limitations as to how many partners can share a rank.

Yes it is easier to have one person in charge of critical decisions, but not everyone arranges their life based on ease or clarity.

Lawrence v. Texas is actually quite different.  In that case, the defendants were being prosecuted on anti-sodomy laws.  It was found that the sodomy laws were based on religious "evils."  Based on that, religion was involved to see if the religious beliefs of the society could override their freedom to sexual privacy, and it could not.

Here, we are talking about something entirely different.  The religion preaches that polygamy is a higher religious order than monogamy.  The issue is whether the state's ban (both criminal and for licensing) violates their right to practice their religion freely.

In the Lawrence case, the religious practices of the accused were irrelevant.

From a legal perspective I disagree with this, only because letting everyone have the 'same rank' breaks things (at least if that rank is 'spouse' as we think of it). It would not be just or legal for one person to marry twenty people, then all twenty of them have full medical coverage under that one person's employer. It wouldn't be prudent to give all of those people equal medical power of attorney either, because then you end up with situations like Schiavo, where an individual is trapped in legal limbo while people fight over what they want to do with her. It's also very bad for cases like children. Having twenty people have equal claim in children could cause that child serious harm. If they all agree how to raise the child, then it's not an issue whether there's one official 'parent' or 20, but if they're fighting over custody it is.

Hence, I'd say that some marital rights must *necessarily* be between ONLY two people, or not at all - and I accounted for this in my model. Medical insurance, for example, shouldn't be spread to an entire group of adults. You can extend it to one person, or no people. If you wish to have everyone be 'equal rank', use the 'Secondary Union' up there. Now everyone is equal. If you want to have the same 'rights and privileges of monogamous couples', use the 'Primary Union' for one person, and the Secondary Union for the rest. Now you do.

I think if you look at it you'll find that, mathematically, it's very flexible. Primary Union is limited to two people because it confers powers and responsibilities that may only be shared among two people.

Secondary Union is unlimited except by consent because it's foregoing the special 'two people' powers, but solidifies all of the powers and responsibilities that you would categorize as being part of being a family (including visitation rights, major health decisions, inheritence, etc.)

Tertiary Union is unlimited except by consent, but is basically just saying 'we're shacking up temporarily, and we want to make sure that there's no legal fallout for us or any children', by establishing a standardized set of powers and, more importantly, limitations (built-in prenups and such) designed to provide the maximum legal protections for all parties.


Using this, you can still form all of the shapes and networks you want. However, you can't spread your medical insurance meant for 2 people out to 20 people, and there's a first line of defense against huge legal battles.

It's major failing would be that it's not dynamic. If I marry Ann (using Primary), then marry Betty (necessarily using Secondary) and, after a few years, Ann joins another family and so really Betty should be my Primary, well, guess what, I consented to Ann being my primary spouse, and the only way I'm getting out of that is by divorce and upgrading Betty, with all the legal complications that come with that. But I don't think my system is any worse than any other system in that regard (if you go through the lawyer for $500, you STILL need to go back to the lawyer for another $500, and if you don't have any legal protections at all you're not losing anything, but that's because you had nothing to lose in the first place).

1) limiting medical rights by employment to one spouse is fine, but you don't have to make them decide when they get married which spouse that will be. In a 2 person relationship Either I can work and my spouse gets benefits or the other way arround or we both work and take the best benefits. There is no reason a 3+person marriage cannot be flexible as to who gets which insurance.
2)  a familly by marriage should be eligable for group insurance, in which case they are all equal.
3) Not all decisions have to go to the same person, nor do they have to be equally reciprocal. Maybe 1 person in the familly makes all the medical decisions (maybe the person with the most medical knowledge) while someone else makes fincancial decisions. Also if one person makes all medical decisions for the familly your recipricol relationship pairings don't work since they could then only make decisions for one other person.
4) Just because *you* think the decisions should be made by a single individual dosn't mean that every familly agrees. yes you have Terry Shaivo type situations. That's life. In fact in the Terry Shaivo situation there *was* one person with that decision, and they made it, and everyone else disagreed. Let people decide for themselves who has the power of life and death over themselves.

I considered this, but my plan is no worse than the current setup. I think I did note that one problem is that it is not strictly dynamic, but I think you'll have a difficult time making ANY legal arrangement that is that dynamic (at least without paying beaucoup money). Every legal decision (including transfer of rights) needs to be formally consented to and recorded. I don't think you can get around that - at least not without just giving up those privileges (which is basically what they do right now). I am curious how you think you can get around that, because even your idea of 'get a lawyer' isn't any better.



I've never heard of group insurance used like that. If you're referring to insurance through your employer, no, I think expanding it to twenty 'spouses' would be abuse, and needs to be disallowed. If you're talking about another program, I've never heard of it.



If you want special arrangements, you need to establish power of attorney and that costs extra. Just like if I want my wife to be able to make medical decisions for me, but not financial, I would need to talk to an attorney. That doesn't change. In my plan though, polygamists have the exact same 'rights' as monogamists. Your plan puts them at a significant disadvantage.



Like the lawyer on the forums pointed out, doing otherwise makes it complex and far less likely to get accepted. So if the lawyer says it isn't really feasible, I'll take his word for it.

Edit - however, that's not a huge problem to fix. Do we think that legal decisions should be made by the group? Then alter it - move that to the second tier. Now it's fixed. You can choose who you give that power to and who you don't, and you can end up with maybe five people in the family having that power and five who don't, if that's what you want. Not a huge headache to modify.
This message was last edited by the GM at 10:15, Fri 20 Aug 2010.