"The state is still treating everyone the same: every adult gets one legal marriage to a member of the opposite sex. There is no discrimination in that"
Which is another way of saying: there's actually ONE very good reason to prevent plural or serial marriages. That one single good reason is "What a fucking pain in the ass it is to change all the paperwork everywhere in all the laws that implicitly assumes a two-person partnership".
Apart from that, there's no good reason to prevent three people from filing taxes together and getting hospital visitation rights on each other if you're allowing two people to do it. And that reason is mostly an acknowledgement that the work should be done, not an excuse to not do it.
The fact that these guys were douchebags and this violation of their rights is a good thing for society as a whole does not change that there are other people negatively impacted by the same law, where the violation of *their* rights protects nobody and produces nothing.
I'm not poly, but I think the argument is stupid. Plural marriage, unlike gay marriage, *does* have a real hangup in the implementation step, but that does't make it not doable.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-11-23 10:39 pm (UTC)"The state is still treating everyone the same: every adult gets one legal marriage to a member of the opposite sex. There is no discrimination in that"
Which is another way of saying: there's actually ONE very good reason to prevent plural or serial marriages. That one single good reason is "What a fucking pain in the ass it is to change all the paperwork everywhere in all the laws that implicitly assumes a two-person partnership".
Apart from that, there's no good reason to prevent three people from filing taxes together and getting hospital visitation rights on each other if you're allowing two people to do it. And that reason is mostly an acknowledgement that the work should be done, not an excuse to not do it.
The fact that these guys were douchebags and this violation of their rights is a good thing for society as a whole does not change that there are other people negatively impacted by the same law, where the violation of *their* rights protects nobody and produces nothing.
I'm not poly, but I think the argument is stupid. Plural marriage, unlike gay marriage, *does* have a real hangup in the implementation step, but that does't make it not doable.