Welcome to Gaia! ::

♂

20/m/fairytale romance land

It would be a huge pain in the rear figuring out what's whose in a divorce between 3 or more people, and one really smart guy I know says he can't try and figure a way around it without getting a headache.

This is a thread to discuss different ways we might get around the bullshit, or just discuss the legality of polygamy all around.

Here's one that, I dunno WHY, I never figured out before. I feel like an idiot, considering my situation.

Immigration.

If two people are married in the US (I know US immigration law best, so we'll use that for my example), then they can't marry someone else. Let's say that Jack and Jill go to Germany and meet Sabine. They both fall for her and think she's amazing. They spend the next couple of years flying back and forth between Germany and the US and they REALLY want Sabine to come live with them. They have school age kids who don't speak any German (and their German is limited), so all three people agree that it should be Sabine that moves to the US. Their kids are cool with this too.

We run into an issue. Unless Sabine is part of an industry that would allow her to have long-term employment in the US or she's a world-class artist or athlete of some kind, Sabine can't live with them for long. Getting a work permit becomes INCREDIBLY difficult. Even if she is part of an industry that would allow her long-term employment in the US, if she loses her job, she has to go back to Germany.

What are their options? Well, they can either keep on as they are and never all live together. Jack and Jill can divorce. Jack can then sponsor Sabine as a fiancé (or go to Germany and marry her and sponsor her as a spouse).

Sounds simple, right? WRONG. Jack has to be able to prove that his relationship with Sabine is genuine. Which, from the perspective of the USCIS means that his relationship with Jill is 100% over and he has to be able to DOCUMENT this. That means that he and Jill can't live together. They have to END their relationship for Sabine to come. So they STILL can't live all live together until Sabine has her full citizenship so that USCIS has nothing to do with them--which takes more than 5 years after immigrating, not counting the initial immigration process which takes 1-2 years. That means AT LEAST 6 years that Jack and Jill have to shuttle their children back and forth. 6 years of pretending not to care about each other in case someone reports them to USCIS.

Shitty, huh?

Well, the argument will come, there must be a limit on the number of wives (or husbands) someone can import! Or the US will be over-run with dirty foreigners!!!

There already is. (I hear the gasps) A US citizen can sponsor a maximum of 3 spouse-based visas in a lifetime. (Obviously, children who come with a spouse are not part of this lifetime limit--we're talking fiancé(e)s and spouses here) If, for some reason, said US citizen wants to sponsor any more, they must go through a lengthy and expensive appeal process. This is designed to prevent and minimize immigration fraud. The only difference between the current lifetime limit and one under a system allowing polymatrimony is that, currently, a US citizen must be divorced from all prior spouses before applying for a new visa.

So tell me. How would it ******** up the current system, again?

@FrostieSlush: "(My word for polygamy and polyandry combined, if anyone has a better suggestion I'm open to it.)" Polygamy is the practice of having more than one spouse at a time. It's frequently confused with polygyny which is the practice of having more than one wife at a time. Both Polyandry and polygyny fall under the larger umbrella of polygamy, so that term still works smile

@Thread:
In really the most mundane and legal way of looking at it a marriage certificate is nothing but a legally binding contract. I think that there *should* be these contracts between polyamorous partners. Because for example in the case of a married couple opening up to polyamory and gaining a third partner, that partner has no rights to the communal property (such as the house, car ect) regardless of the contribution that partner may make because they are not a part of any kind of contractual deal with the others.

I would think that it would be relatively easy to enter into an agreement much like what is currently entered into for rights, benefits and ect between couples but expand to include another person. While I'm no legal expert, it wouldn't be too hard as long as the basic bases are being covered. After all three people can enter into a business contract with little issue, so why not three people entering into marital contract? This goes along with the idea of prenups as Frostie suggests.

@Mameoyashi

I agree that marriage is a legal contract. That's been my viewpoint since I found out my fiancé and I needed to get married to live together.

It's a much less dissolvable contract than a will, too. Why do I say this?

Well, I have a bit of a tale.

I have a friend who had an Aunt who was a lesbian. Her Grandmother is a homophobe and is VERY VERY rich (Grandmother has put ALL the children and all the grandchildren except Aunt through university and has even bribed universities to take children and grandchildren who were below the entry requirements). Aunt and her Partner had been together 25 years. They owned a house together. They had pets. They shared everything. Aunt and Partner had done the right thing. They had made up their wills so that Aunt was Partner's sole beneficiary and Partner was Aunt's sole beneficiary. They were each other's power of attorney and they even had living wills and everything.

Aunt got breast cancer. Aunt got worse and worse and worse. Aunt started signing everything over to Partner. Aunt ended up in the ICU.

Grandmother saw a chance to get revenge. She had her (very very expensive) lawyer go over Aunt's power of attorney and living will. There was one line that was somehow unclear. The lawyer was able to have the power of attorney and living will overturned. Aunt was declared incompetent due to the advanced nature of her disease and the fact that Partner was somehow "brainwashing" Aunt. Grandmother was now in charge of Aunt's treatment. Aunt wanted to go home and be off chemo and just live out her final days in peace. Grandmother said no.

Partner was banned by Grandmother from Aunt's hospital room. Aunt died alone.

Partner went home, only to discover that Aunt's will had been overturned because Grandmother had managed to convince the judge that Partner was brainwashing Aunt when the will was made. Partner had to sell her home to pay Aunt's estate to Grandmother.

If they had been married, Grandmother would most likely not have been able to overturn everything and get herself declared Aunt's next of kin. Now, while this relates to the gay marriage debate, I believe that it also relates to the poly debate. Some of our families don't agree with polyamory and a circumstance like my friend's Aunt could happen to someone in a poly relationship.

That is absolutely horrible Morgan! This is another reason why I believe polyamorous couples should be able to have more legal protection (just as homosexual couples are fighting for).

While I understand the hesitation of marriage because of the spiritual connotations, it still is something that can be legally quantified as a contract. As such we should be able to create whatever the hell contract we want to, and have the commitment ceremony seperate. If a church official doesn't want to perform a ceremony for a couple, or a triad or a quad or whatever, then I don't think they should be forced to. However the ceremony shouldn't be the entire focus of the matter, as anyone should be able to go to the justice of the peace and get the contract ratified. (When in sound mind and body especailly to prevent crap like what that grandmother did :/ )

I wouldn't be so sure. Though those who are LGBTQ and those allies are for the most part open minded, I have talked to many a member of the community that believes while marriage is fine between any two people regardless of race, gender, ect, it should still be between two people.

So while some (perhaps even a lot) people wanting to marry same-sex couples will be open to the idea of polygamy, it is a stretch to believe that all comfortable with same-sex marriage would be okay with multiple partner marriages.