Too complicated to make domestic relations laws for.

...and one I kind of favor.

but call them "domestic partnerships".

so all you want to do is change the name, not the provisions of such laws?

Actually, I agree with it.

In the minds of many people (not many of whom would be represented here on DU), marriage is principally a religious institution sanctioned by a church. These folks could not/cannot dichotomize the civil/legal institution from the religious aspect, and (accordingly) oppose same sex marriage on this ground. This led to the brief era of civil unions.

In what the poster proposes, government would get out of the "marriage" business, and allow persons (theoretically any number of persons with no regard to gender) to visit a clerk or notary and enter into a contractually sanctioned domestic partnership of any length they choose. If, once they've done that, they want to go to a church, mosque, synagogue, temple, amusement park, or disco to have a ceremony -- that's their choice. The "marriage" ceremony would have no legal significance.

...that the "legal" paperwork involved in buying a car or house more complicated than what is needed to get married?

Years ago I went to work for a DoD contractor that required a secret clearance. The security briefing, application and overall exercise lasted 90 minutes. That first day of work I showed up and sat in an HR conference room from 8:30 until 10 past 1PM. Four and half hours plus of signing, applying, getting parking passes, having ID pictures taken, fingerprints, various insurance and benefit forms, retirement... However, there are places where 20 minutes can get you "married".

It's probably the biggest commitment anyone ever makes but out of proportion to others.

In Florida, no blood test was required.

However, updating all of the benefits paperwork, leases, etc. is a PITA.

Divorce -- that's a whole 'nother discussion.

maybe in a couple hundred years, legally, each person will be financially a single entity.

How did you come up with all that I did not say and attribute it to me?

I'm only saying how complicated it would be for domestic relations law to involve more than two parties. Domestic relations disputes get nasty pretty quickly.

When I worked on car accident cases with two cars and two lawyers, it would take long enough but if three cars and three lawyers the time involved for the litigation goes up exponentially, not times number of lawyers-fold. I can only imagine how heated and drawn out it would get in domestic relations cases.

The property division would be a nightmare to even think up a system for, having to take account for when each marriage and separation took place, the number of people involved and how much each contributed. Add in the kids and visitation.

Some things are better to leave alone. Society can only handle so much. And there are enough complaints about what the government tries to do now.

for the bonus effect that it would make the heads explode for all the Conservative who spout off that marriage is between one man and one woman.

It could actually be practical from the standpoint of pooling resources. It is just another form of communal living.

There should be options for communal living for more than a family unit that survive the death of one of the principles.

Can you imagine the financial complications involved in such an arrangement?

Legalization of plural marriage would be a full employment act for attorneys. And that just isn't a good thing.

It would make more sense to just do away with the institution of marriage altogether. If the arrangement goes down the crapper, you're on your own.

Pension systems are already severely underfunded so you can only imagine what would occur to soundness if a pension had to be paid to many surviving beneficiaries.

The elimination of marriage laws would make child support almost impossible to enforce. The same with allowing plural marriages.

no way depends on marriage or marriage/divorce laws.

Tell that to the kids. It is much harder to establish CS with no marriage. Real world.

where I am intimately familiar with how CS gets established. One parent files for child support at DSS. That filing initiates a court case where that parent names the other parent as the child's other parent. The named other parent (married to the parent or not) then can answer saying yes they are the parent and the case proceeds as normal or the named parent says I am not or am not sure I am the parent. Then the named parent will be ordered to undergo paternity testing to establish paternity. If he is the other parent, then the case proceeds as normal.

The only exception is for an adoption. Then the adoption order establishes (legal) paternity.

How in that scenario is it any harder based on marriage or lack of marriage?

has a stable job when there is a marriage. You need a stable job in order to effectively get child support. Real world.

if they are single. I will assume that you are statistically correct. However, isn't they reverse also true in that LESS women work if they are married than single? Since father's are increasingly likely to get custody, is that also a problem? Should we be discouraging marriage so that father's can get child support when it is awarded to them?

But more to the point, is that not an economic problem and/or a CS enforcement problem rather than a 'marriage' problem? Correlation is not causality ......

situations where the mother is deemed unfit. If the mother is fit she gets the kids. Women used to work less when married than single but that is no longer true.

Yes, it is always going to be an economic problem. CS enforcement is and always will be a big problem when the father is not working or is working one place here for awhile, then one place there. Also when he is working marginal 'cash' jobs.

In ALL child custody cases, mother's received primary custody in 77% of the cases. Those figures are from the MD Judiciary AOC. So, in almost 1/4 of all cases fathers are getting custody in MD and in just over 1/2 of the cases they try to get primary custody, they do so.

the single vs. married workfore participation rate gap for women is 8 points. Married women still work less outside the home.

US state, 2) Do you think that is a good thing? 3) there is a very big difference between being 'fit' to be a parent and what is 'in the child's best interest'

Being fit to be a parent simply means that your children should not be taken from your care and placed in the foster care system. That is it. It does not mean that when other options exist that your children should automatically be placed with you as opposed to the other parent (or sometimes even, a non-parent).

but I have been around courts for a long time. Judges are biased towards giving mothers the child everything else being equal. The statistic you quoted about fathers getting custody about 50% of the time in contested cases is misleading. Any lawyer, who is ethical, would advise a father not to contest everything being equal. So the only ones who do contest are those where there is clearly something damaging, in the eyes of the court, about the mother. Even then only 50% win.

Do I think it is a good thing? Yes, generally, everything else being equal. There is a stronger biological tie with the mother. 'New Age' parents would flame me, and that is fine, but they are fighting nature.

One in four almost of all custody cases the father gets the kids in MD. That is moving in the right direction IMO.

Being in the system I do believe that for the foreseeable future, mothers will get custody more than fathers with the numbers slowly reaching parity. I do not buy the stronger biological bond argument as being innate, but rather on a case by case basis. I DO believe children can have stronger bonds with a parent (either mother or father) and that is based on the time spent (both quantity and quality) with that parent. As society moves for more female equality, it seems natural to me at least that fathers and mothers will also move more to equality in custody outcomes.

Is math your strong subject?

incorrectly.

See above post.

Please explain how any of the things you mentioned would be problematic.

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Lets say a straight woman marries one man and then another.

Are the men married to each other? If one of them wants a divorce, what percentage of the income from each person does the ex-spouse get in alimony from the woman and other man? What if a man wants a 2nd wife but the first wife doesn't want to agree to it? The first wife's income and rights would be affected and then the question of what say she gets in HER own marriage becomes a question. What about the Man? Or the woman he wants to marry? If one man wants to divorce the other man but not the woman will that work? How would property be divided up?

Imagaine:
Person A is married to persons B and C
Person B is married to persons A and D.
Person C is married to persons A and E.
Person D is married to persons B and F.
Person E is married to persons C and G.
Person F is married to persons D and H.

How are they ever going to get that to work? Or taxes? Or who owns what property? Joint bank accounts? Who gets whose SS? Who gets what part of their job benefits? What if Wife A is divorcing Husband B who tries to get around it by transferring all his assets to wife D?

Divorce and marriage laws would have to be completely reworked. There are over a 1000 rights and privileges associated with marriage and almost every one would have to be worked from the ground up. As things are with 2 people divorces are messy long affairs, now image that with 3, 4 , or 5 people.

Not to mention that almost every case of polygamy (not true group marriage but similar) involves abuse and exploitation? How do you prevent that?

Also, don't forget, we would have to settle all the disagreements that would come up in handling these issues. There are no dictators in this country.

Group marriage is a hornet's nest of legal, logistical and ethical issues. Fix all of those and you have my support, but otherwise I think supporting that would shatter our family courts.[/font]

[font face='papyrus' size=5 color= teal]Here is how I do it:[/font]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1018&pid=687750

and if anyone else is like me they don't put the effort in to read a single post that looks like that.

and it discourages reading it.

to give me a summary of what he said.

Is that okay?

No reason to reply to someone in a way they find off-putting.

Even with my reading glasses, it can be difficult/tiring to read posts formatted the "normal" way.

This is much less strenuous on my eyes

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]I really appreciate the compliment![/font]

Including the text. LOL

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]I really do want to support plural marriage, but I am scared that if done wrong it will create a huge mess.

I am studying to be an engineer and one thing my teachers have impressed upon me is that it is better to measure twice and get it right the first time than to waste material by not making sure every detail is taken care of.[/font]

That marriage and divorce are complicated, we already know. Would polygamous marriage be much more so, if partners can choose whether to participate, and when to leave? When every partner is married to every other partner?

Marriage would seem to offer many protections not available to victims of illicit and involuntary polyamory.

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Has always involved abuse and exploitation of women. Warren Jeffs and his cult being the premiere example. That combined with all these issues give me pause.

I just think that if we don't proceed carefully, you are going to break the system and enable more abuses like we see with the FLDS or the middle east.

Get those issues ironed out and I am all for it.[/font]

You have to understand that any instances that aren't saturated with abuse and/or loaded with drama will never make the news. Add that to many participants not even admitting their situation due to it being 'technically' illegal.

Breeding groups? People like Jeff Warren wants to have a few hundred kids, but he can't support them all, so the state ends up supporting the overpopulation efforts of these religious nuts. No thank you.

and makes it easier for me to read.

On a more serious note, your points are valid and does bring how our court system would need to be restructured.

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]I want to be able to say that people should be able to marry who they want and as many people as they want, but I just think that if we don't get the details right we are just gonna make things far worse.[/font]

I know' because in ma the terrible mistake of arguing with my wife about it, and she is literally writing a book (or series of articles, or who knows what) on the history of polygamy in the US, the way it is currently practiced, how legalizing it would affect people and society, etc.

When she wakes up I'll ask her for the specifics.

There are technical issues the individual states would have to work out, but not so many as you'd think.

Not only that, but for all intents and purposes, polygamy IS legal: there hasn't been a polygamy prosecution in decades. Utah hasn't prosecuted since the 70s and most other states; fraudulent bigamy is prosecuted regularly, but is a far different crime.

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Religious marriages are completely legal, but civil marriage is another issue. Second or third spouses have no marriage rights.

If theses issues I raised can be ironed out easily then that is great. Lets get them taken care of, then I am all for plural marriage. But, from my point of view these are some pretty major issues, and I just would like to see them taken care of before rushing into something that could potentially break the system.

If done wrong I feel this could set back liberalizing marriage laws by years. Better to measure twice and cut once than to waste a bunch of material because we didn't analyzing things enough.[/font]

rights. There is no excuse for denying people the right to marry.

... until then, I'm not sure it's a big enough problem for me to care about.

You're correct. Often it's only the squeaky wheels that are even noticed. There is a long history of different topics being protested before any legislative relief was passed. It took a while for Roe v Wade. Same sex marriage is still not possible in some places. Utah recognized the Native Americans right to vote in 1956. It took the Civil War to end slavery.

IHMO plural marriage participants are less likely to protest than the average person due to that practice being illegal and the chance of the state taking custody of any children involved. Often rights are denied until enough protest has occurred.

except by people who not only support polygamy, but who think that people in such marriages are persecuted by the government.

What if A, B and C are initially all happily married, but then A wants to divorce B but stay married to C? How does that impact the link between B and C? What if A gets very sick, B wants to continue life support, but C wants to disconnect life support? And that's before we even start to think about any kids involved.

I don't care whatever polyamorous relationships people want to be involved in, it is not really any of my business. And of course folks can draw up contracts themselves covering any eventualities they like. But as far as legal "marriage" is concerned, I would just keep at at two consenting adults.

in my view.
Wingers find gay marriage complicated.

Child custody absolutely will be an issue.

People should have a right to polygamy if that's what they want.

You just change "man" and "woman" to "spouse" and "spouse."

It is otherwise exactly the same.

and inheritance consequences.

...all marriage tax benefits being nullified?
Inheritance could be split equally with a full share to adults and a half share to minors or however the LWAT may direct.

But only one relationship can be a legally cognizable union. System won't work otherwise.

No need to mess around with marital law for those who can't make up their mind.

why not.

As long as all parties consent, who would care...


Might even hold some conveniences

consenting adult.

However, marriage as a civic institution carries with it a number of legal and tax implications. Expanding that to include multiple individuals would be a hot mess, and one can envision scenarios where the board of directors of Exxon got "married" to each other so they could pass around billions of dollars tax-free, etc.

I don't care. Not my business.

But I feel the government should only pay for 1 partner.

And why should government be involved in it, at all? How did we ever get to the point where we allowed other people (government) to grant us permission to do anything?

Plural marriage would look like this, to me:

A contract (regarding property rights) between the parties who choose to marry. If I already have one husband, my marriage to husband #2 is contractually between husband #2 and me. If husband #1 doesn't like it he can divorce me. Property settlement between between #1 and I would be according to whatever that marriage contract was and contracts contain whatever the parties put in them. Child custody issues would be like they are now - sometimes amicable, sometimes contentious.

That said, and my being a MYOB and live and let live type, no way in hell would I enter into a plural marriage, lol.

However, there is a major exception. All of the partners involved MUST be of age and legally able to consent to the marriage (I've read several books by FLDS escapees and many women are underage when they're married off).

If everyone is 18+ and willing to consent, go ahead. Not for me but not my business.

If people want to live that way privately, fine.

And birthdays to remember?

Will all of the people involved in the overlapping unions have to sign a waiver of responsibility or right to sue?

I'm not sure what issues would come up as far state recognition and rights and benefits that come with it would be concerned but I don't have a problem with it.

It increases the likelihood of genetic illness in a human population that is already genetically brittle. I have seen a book devoted to genetic illness among diaspora Jews of the Mediterranean. In small communities, repeated inbreeding causes very serious issues that plague us yet today in this country. And in this state there is no aversion to breaking up marriages of convenience between cousins in order to keep vast family farms from becoming only small holdings. One local priest had to honestly tell his small community that they had to seek husbands and wives further afield because going back even a single generation, they are all related. It is not good and not healthy.

If every tenth man in a limited set society could have ten wives and each had children, any gen defect that man might carry will become more common in the population. And we all have defects.

If you are talking about actual inbreeding, we are already inbred. Humanity has grown from very small and tight communities where even against taboo, closely related people were married. We have been able to keep that from being a problem with the incest taboo. This is a universal law because when people would forget it, they would soon find the error in their behavior, so they thought such behavior cursed. Every father daughter consanguineous relationship has a fifty percent chance of producing an anomaly. Those are stiff odds to over come. Why would anyone try?

problem solved

You do realize that that sort of marriage has seldom been the case?

the scenario you described and one where a man has five wives, although not all at the same time (I have an uncle who's been married five times. Don't know how many children he has, but no doubt most of them have inherited some pretty questionable traits from him).


Also, what's the difference between a man having ten wives (and probably as many children) and a man who spreads his seed around without benefit of marriage?

Yeah, sure, we can deny people the right to marry en masse for the reason you give, but who's going to regulate people passing on unsuitable traits without benefit of marriage?

Among the Native Americans who were very aware of the incest taboo could trace their lineage back generation. Totem Poles are just such a genetic lineage.

Where people know their history some measures can be exercised against incest, or even close consanguineous relationships. Unregulated and with wide spread infidelity, there is no way of knowing. And I have personally heard of people who had close and even sexual relations with their half sister because of wild oats sowed in youth in small towns. Finding out who their sons were dating it was flip out time, and time to get everyone together for a talk about who knew who back when.

When a father has multiple wives; and only the rich and the powerful have wives, the genes of a hand full of men predominate. In the next generation, if the same condition maintains, those same sets of genes will again predominate as the general genetic diversity declines. If a hundred men are breeding in a thousand adult community, in a relative short period of time all families will be closely related. Considering that such communities are already closely related before that style of polygamy began, the concentration of the same genetic traits and problems will be intense.

Where one woman has multiple husbands, or sexual relationships, she will have a child with only one at a time. Her breeding is limited, and the breeding of a man is not. One man could conceivably be the father of thousands where one mother is at most likely to parent 10 children. That idea of Papa was a rolling stone. Where ever he laid his hat was his home is an unseen threat to genetic diversity.

You might find it help full to draw this out as a graph. In normally diverse populations genetic traits tend to cancel each other out. If you say of visible traits on children, that they will usually be those of the mother or the father; still, a small fraction of the grandparent's traits will go straight through to the child. Essentially, the parents give to the child what they are, with each contributing half. What two grand parent have given to one parent is half each. Considered as individual traits, what makes itself unmixed from a grandparent to grandchild is incredibly small. With inbreeding all of that changes rapidly, and each generation becomes a carbon copy of the one before it, genetic weakness and all.

I have a weak grasp on this subject, and have never read much on it or studied it. I am sure that you could surpass my knowledge with only a little study; but you know now what I know.

around the world is interesting. Same for COUSIN MARRIAGES like John Adams, TJ, Andrew Jackson, Poe, Einstein, Werner von Braun, Darwin, HG Wells, Rudy Guliani and others.
Wiki has information on COUPLED COUSINS and customs around the world. I was unaware that first cousin marriage is only banned in 30 US states, and that Maine permits it if the couple agrees to genetic counseling. The US has the only bans on cousin marriage in the western world. Amazing.

It is was not considered abnormal for them, and these Jewish people were widely scattered and were extreme minority populations where they existed at all.

Did you ever see the Movie Gone with the Wind. Scarlet O'Hara has a thing for Ashley, Oh Ashley. He is getting married to his cousin, and the comment is made about his family that: they are always marrying their cousins. Ooh, that must be nice; but a good way to keep property from being broken up into small holdings. I have heard in Europe of even large cities having only six degrees of separation. That is certainly a lot compared to the Amish around here who are either Yoders or Millers. I have heard of some of them born with six fingers to the hand and webbed toes. Just think of how much faster you could swim or type.

I mentioned really show the widespread practice of endogamy still alive and well all around the world. Yes I recall Scarlett and Ashley. Victoria and Albert were 1st cousins, like many other royals. I know so many people from the ME, Palestine, Pakistan and India who have diabetes in their families; it's so common and they're pretty casual about it. Might be some close relative marriages me thinks. I've heard of Amish issues more recently. Ann Boleyn supposedly had extra little fingers- 6 fingers on each hand. Yuck, dunno if useful.

Syphilis may have played a part in these conditions. Don't know; not my department; but a lot of still births and problems with conception.

Edward who d. age 16 with gruesome symptoms like black swollen feet, caused by who knows what. I don't know genetics, DNA much at all, an 'xy female'- how rare is that? Churchill's father Randolph was syphilitic, so was Theo van Gogh and possibly his brother Vincent. They were both only in their 30s when they died, not far apart.

clearly affect Edward. When contacted in utero, children develop a line across their teeth horizontally where the teeth simply break off, leaving stubs.

XY females are Rare; and believe it or not, I found myself in bed with one once; and it did not end well. That is like the Black Dalia girl, and there is a famous actress still working so I won't say who. It was passed from a doctor to some one I talked with on line. Sure she doesn't want the world to know. The girl I was with looked for all the world like a normal feminine girl. If she took hormones she could actually have sex, and otherwise it was terribly painful to her, so we slept, and then she took a cab.

Yes; and I am a big fan of Van Gogh. I have actually seen the Starry Night which no camera in this world can capture. Like all of his painting, and I have seen many, he spread the paint on thickly and carved into it with the handle of his brush. It gives each picture that 3d quality from where ever you stand in the gallery. That vision thing was one of the symptoms of syphilis, sensitivity to light which affected Nietzsche as well. Others speculated that Van Gogh may have eaten his paints which no doubt contained a lot of terpines just as cannabis. Fantastic art; but so is much of the impressionist art.

for the question, or the answer, to be so complicated.

Frankly, I don't see it as being complicated at all.


As I understand it, some people don't want multiple marriage because of the possibility that one man (for example) with genetic defects passing those defects on to any children he may have with any of his "legal" wives.

But nobody seems to have the same problem (as far as I could tell) with men who may have genetic defects passing them on to children he could have with multiple women who are not his wives.


I actually have little to no knowledge on the subject of genetics, etc. I only see what I see and wonder why one scenario presents a problem where the other one doesn't.

and fairly, before we can allow them.


Divorces are messy enough when only two people are involved. Tying the responsibilities, assets, and privileges of 3 or more people... oy. Child custody alone would be a nightmare.


First off, for spouse #3 on up, obviously the preceding spouses must all agree to the marriage, right?

If Abby is married to Bill, but also wants to marry Carrie, then doesn't Bill need to agree as well? And if Carrie falls in love with Deborah, doesn't Abby and Bill have to agree as well?


And if they don't, you could get a situation where Abby is married to Bill and Carrie, but Bill and Carrie are not married. Bill does not get to determine whether he wants to share his responsibilities and assets with Carrie? If Bill divorces Abby because Abby married Carrie, how do the assets get divvied up?

Figure this stuff out, and we'll talk.

And there you go!

Make it legal, but also make it necessary for people to work out the sticky details beforehand.


I like that idea

As long as it's "unimaginable", then we don't work out the process.


Get the lawyers involved, figure out a basis for debate and show us possibilities for the various combinations of how things can go.

We have to integrate this solution with 227 years of Federal precedent and up to 227 years of State precedent for 50 states.

It would certainly have been welcome because it would have made things safer for all involved legally/contractually.

But frankly, the general population isn't ready for it by any means.

Sounds like a nightmare to me, but I don't think using the law to control other people and throw them in jail is the answer.

I think most people have a hard enough time making an intimate relationship work with one other partner.

Two? More?

Makes me shudder just to think about it.

Still, if other consenting adults want to try it, not my business IMHO.

But, i wanted to be clear that the government should NOT extend any further tax exmemptions of deductions for multiple spouses, and should a man have plural wives, both (or more) of whom have children, only the children from the original marriage should count as exmpetions to the AGI for tax purposes.

If it's important enough for someone to live with those tax factors, more power to them. If they think they can create some tax scheme where they no longer the pay their fair share because of their personal choices, then i say we find a way to prevent that.

support, they make less than $3950 and they live with you, you can claim them as a dependent. Same with the kids that live with you from her/him, even if they are not biologically yours.

There may be many reasons to be against this (even some tax related ones - especially estate taxes) but the dependent exemption does not depend on being married.

Tax exemptions for children are totally unrelated to marriage. Why would you want to take away already existing exemptions?

spouses and their children would then be eligible for welfare and social security benefits etc..

Anyhow you get what I am saying. They need to be able to afford these extra spouses and children. When a couple adopt a child from another country they are investigated to see that they are going to be able to afford that child.

about that. Been many years since I paid taxes. Too poor.

What I was referring to was that case in Texas where some of the women in the family were collecting welfare. I am not real sure what was happening but I had heard it was one of the reasons the county went after them and they took so many of the children away. My niece was a social worker at that time and thought it was crazy to take all the kids.

...if you're paid weekly and earn $1000/week, your federal withholding tax (per week) for single is $138.88 and $95.97 for married, a bit under $43 benefit.

I'd be interested to see the difference in dollars paid, welfare to the mothers v. stipends to foster the same children.

much at all.

The examples we've seen in this country have been the opposite.

I find this an interesting thing for you to post after a month away from General Discussion.

...and concern. At your service, as always.

I'm more of a GD reader than a poster and I generally learn a bit reading here being a newish Democrat.

What brings it up?

...which I'll answer but I have a question of my own for you, as well.

Aside from all the traditions about a husband and wife making a commitment, buying a house and raising a family, I wonder why we find it okay that the rest of society underwrites this arrangement to the benefit of the partners. Advances have been made in our society where interracial and same sex marriage is accepted but this multiple partner scheme is not just excluded but illegal. There are groups that practice this as part of a religion. Mormon fundamentalist husbands often have multiple wives. A few of those families have reality TV shows and I imagine they are only the tip of an iceberg.
Due to current laws many of these groups live in secret. Rights are unprotected and abusive relationships run rampant. (e.g. Warren Jeffs) Plural marriage, at this time, seems to me, exists in a social underground and the fact that abusive situations are hidden and that the motivation for those hides are made out of fear of government reprisal, IMHO, promotes the abuses and the suppression of rights.

My question to you: Why are you interested in the motivation for this OP? Are you suggesting my interest is somehow invalid or undemocratic?

there are cases where you pay more in taxes if you're married and situations where you pay less if you're married.

obviously you want the cases where you pay less eliminated.

apart from that, how does society "underwrite" marriage?

How about the difference in cost of health insurance?

making $33,000 a year would both qualify for significant subsidies to their health care premiums (for someone 55+ this could be over 50% of the premium or about $4000 per year, each). For singles, the cutoff for subsidies is about 45k per year

Those two people get married but make exactly the same amount? Both lose the subsidies meaning they lose $4000ish each or $8000 total of their $66,000 income.

Another example of the marriage penalty is the additional medicare tax of 3.2% on income over $200,000 for singles, but only $250,000 for married filing joint.

The only way being married really helps you in taxes is when one spouse does not work or makes VERY little (like under &7500 per year).

...for not really answering the question.

I don't want the benefits for marriage eliminated. I want the penalties for being single eliminated.

so there can't be any benefits without recognition.

Words fail me right now but I know the answer to your question.

It is dmaned hard enough to make sure women are not being abused in these relationshps now. I would not support that.

I would support a communal marriage where any number of men and women could be cowives and cohusbands if each memeber was equal.

While I'm not completely insensitive to that argument, here is my problem: three LDS women want to marry one man (a la the show "Big Love&quot ; for the sake of discussion, everyone is entering the relationship willingly, and all parties are of the age of consent; if the women are willing participants, is it the role of government to tell them they should not do that?

But there have been way too many cases where that was not true.

advantage of. If they are the age of majority (assume 18) and if they freely consent (maybe in front of a judge?) then they can enter into whatever they want as for as partnerships go in my view.

You don't strip all individuals of agency because of the bad acts of another. That is the very definition of paternalism.