Re: [UUPoly-L] Poly Reality

["David Hall" <airsafe1@comcast.net>]

I listened tonight (on Sirius while driving home from a Blue Moon party) to
a replay of a lecture on Group behavior. This was on Canadian Broadcasting,
not some party line US station. It was one of the Massey lecture series CBC
broadcasts.

The bottom line was that most people tend to follow the group dynamics and
do what our "group" does and think what they think. Think Milgram's studies
on following authorities, or the Nazi defense "I was just following orders".

Doris Lessing (?) talked about how we don't teach our kids to think for
themselves in the public schools, because the government (leaders of our
group, regardless of the color of our t-shirts and bumper stickers) uses
this knowledge to control us. No powerful group leaders will teach their
group how to disregard their leaders, this would be giving up their power,
which they worked hard to get. Power means money and benefits, including not
having to follow the same rules they force on others. (Can you think of any
monogamous Presidents? Maybe Carter, but he lusted in his heart! <g> )

At this point in our society, the government has established a lot of
control on who can marry, and what that means in terms of benefits, etc. We
have all watched as they fought to keep that control, slowly and painfully
agreeing to let a few more people obtain the benefits of marriage, as they
define it. They are not changing the laws and benefits of marriage, only
letting a few more people share in some of it if they agree to monogamy.

Do we really think they will give up this power over our lives without a
fight. Is this a fight we want to expend our energy on, when the next wars
will be fought over energy, water and food. Global climate change will do
more to change our lives than any relaxation of marital laws, and much
sooner. We might be forced to live in larger households by the need to
economize due to overpopulation. But we won't be arguing over benefits other
than getting energy and food and water.

Poly marriage is an interesting discussion, but I plan to spend more of my
energy on planning for a more realistic future than one that contains legal
polyamory. The list of problems Kelly provided was a very realistic one, and
not likely to be addressed by any administration, red or blue, that has to
face the global problems they have created.

I am glad groups and organizations exist to help us get together and learn
from each other how to live together in larger communities within the legal
environment as it exists. 

This is a bright and friendly and loving group. 

Dave Hall

-----Original Message-----
From: uupoly-l-bounces+airsafe1=comcast.net@uupa.org
[mailto:uupoly-l-bounces+airsafe1=comcast.net@uupa.org] On Behalf Of P O
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 10:01 PM
To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] Poly Reality

Kelly,
   
  Well, my first thought is that women in polygamous marriages are in a
similar situation to prostitutes.  In other words, many of the problems they
face are dues to the fact that their lifestyle is illegal.  If a prostitute
is beaten by a customer or pimp, or short changed by either, she has no
legal recourse.  If she goes to the police, she will likely end up in jail.
Many women in polygamous marriages face the same issue, they can't seek
legal aid, since they risk jail and having their children taken away by the
state as well.  Aid to that, that many of the abusive polygamous systems use
religion as a basis for justifying both the relationship and the abuse, and
they are left with little outside support.
   
  However, I don't see that as commonplace among those that self-identify as
polyamorous.  I actually see the two groups as distinctly different, though
likely the law wouldn't.  
   
  Anyway, I feel these are all very excellent points as to the types of
issues that will arise with allowing multi-partner marriages.  I will agree
with you that this society is not yet ready for this idea, as there is a lot
of issues to resolve.  Of course, I see a number of very simple solutions to
many of these issues, but they all involve steps that are in many ways even
more radical then legal poly would be.  Personally, I think that our society
needs to finally grow up.  
   
  I had a conversation about this with my girlfriend a week or so ago.
Mainly it came down to her insistence that things like greed are just human
nature and you'll never get away from it as long as you have people
involved.  I put that in the same catagory as saying jealousy is just human
nature.  In fact, I see both as learned responses based on scarcity
thinking.  If you approach life from a viewpoint of abundance (which the
self-described 'wealthiest country in the world' certainly should be able
to), such scarcity thinking should be able to be overcome.  But let me give
some direct answers, instead of just vague generalities.
   
  How would I see dealing with health insurance issues?  Get rid of the
health insurance industry by creating a national health care system such as
those used in less affluent countries like The Netherlands or Canada.  One
would think that with the resources of something like the United States,
that should be easy.  Well, not easy, but certainly possible.
   
  How to deal with taxes?  Well start by simplifying the tax codes by
removing deductions and credits.  That way, you just pay a set tax based on
your income.  This much smilper system has the added benefit of removing
much of the tax prep industry and most of the need for the IRS.  Yes, this
would be quite a burden on those at the lower end of the payscale, but you
can compensate for that by staging back the amount of tax paid at each
bracket over a period of several years.  Of course, I'd rathee eliminate an
income tax completely, but I realize that's a bit too radical.  Still it
will require triming back an awful lot of the government expenses, but
that's fine.  The health plan above will replace the current package given
to elected officials which currently costs the tax payers quite a bit.  tha
along with many of the other perks given to elected officals could save
millions each year.
   
  Then we might have to scale back from trying to outspend the entire rest
of the world in military budget (See the CIA World Fact Book for spending
comparisons).  Even then there will be hard choices to make, but not
insurmountable.
   
  As for the the rest of your issues, my solutions get a bit radical in
comparison.
   
  Basically, I see that our whole society needs to be re-engineered from the
bottom up (top-down social re-engineering never really works well) in order
to incorporate poly in a legal definition of family.  Of course, I think it
would be a much saner and healthier society, so I'm all for it.  I hope my
great-grandkids get to see the beginings of it.  But you're right, now is
the time to start laying the groundwork.  The Women's Rights Movement has
been going on since at least the 1700s and see how much further they still
have to go.  I figure poly is going to take a while too.

  Pat
  
uupoly-l-request@uupa.org wrote:
    

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 14:47:41 -0500
From: "Kelly Cookson" 
Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] Poly reality
To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

> > I'm just trying to understand why polygamy is perceived as being 
> > more exploitative than monogamy -- and why protections built into 
> > current monogamy couldn't be extended to polygamy.

>>>That was my thought as well. Most (all?) of the abuses that can occur 
>>>in a polygamous marriage can occur in a monogamous marriage and are 
>>>already covered by current laws, are they not?

>>>What new abuses are possible in a polygamous marriage that aren't 
>>>covered under our existing laws?

Right now, if a man decides to marry a woman and set up a family in San
Diego, and then decides to marry another woman and set up a family in New
York city. Neither family knows about the other. This is illegal. It can
cause emotional damage, legal complications, and possibly financial damage. 
If we legalize multi-partner marriage, the man can claim he is just
practicing polygamy, since it would be legal to have more than one wife. 
This would require some new protection. Maybe a law saying you couldn't take
on additional husbands or wives without at least notifying the other
husbands and wives in advance. That's not something we have on the books.

Right now, if a man divorces his wife and leaves his kids, he might well get
stuck with alimony payments and child support. But, if polygamy is legal, he
a new option. He can simply marry another wife and go live with her. Because
he's not divorced, he's not required to pay alimony or child support. The
first wife could divorce him, but then he could claim he never wanted the
divorce and he could retaliate by trying to get sole custody of the children
(take the first wife's children away from her). He would have a better shot
at doing so, since living in a home with two parents might be perceived as
better than letting the children stay with the single parent. Should we pass
a law saying that indiovudal income should be divided fairly among spouses? 
Or do we need divorce laws to handle situations involving multiple husbands
and wives? Either way, we don't have the laws on the books.

Suppose a man cheats on his wife for many years. She discovers the affair
and threatens to divorce him, leaving him with nothing. Before the divorce
takes place, the man can marry the othe woman, claim his affair was just a
courting period, and tell the court he doesn't want the divorce and is being
treated unfairly. How can we prevent cheaters from getting last minute legal
coverage? That's not a simple extension of existing laws.

But it's not just abuses. There are SO many other changes, too! Family law,
divorce law, tax law, business law...a lot will have to change to accomodate
multi-partner marriages.

My partner marries someone. I don't marry the person. (Or is that even a
legal possibility?) That person signs up for a whole bunch of new credit
cards and runs up $200,000 in debt. Am I legally protected from the debt of
the spouse of my spouse? We don't know. We don't have laws covering this.

I'm an employer. I hire a guy who says he has 1 wife and 1 child. A month
later, he has married two more wives (he was just waiting until he had a
job). He now has 3 wives and 7 children. I tell him he will only get
employee benefits (dental, medical, and so forth) for the first wife and any
children genetically related to her. Can he sue me for benefits for the rest
of his family? Can I charge him a different family rate for insurance than I
charge the other employees who have only one wife? We don't know. No laws
cover this sitiuation.

I'm married to a woman and have a child with her. She marries another woman
without my approval. The woman has 3 children from previous marriages. I
change my will to specifically say my inheritance should pass only to my own
child. But after I die, the other children contest the will claiming they
are legally my children, too, and so deserve part of my inheritance. Do
they? Is my child just screwed down 1/4 of her or his inheritance? Or does
inheritance in multipartner marriages follow genetic lines? We don't know. 
There are no laws covering this on the books.

Who can I claim on my tax forms? Shouldn't we have new forms for families
with multiple married partners? And tax laws will have to modified to
determine who gets what tax shelters or tax benefits on these forms.

We can create laws to cover all kinds of anticipated situations. But it's
not just a matter of extending existing laws. It will require new laws that
specify the problems and propose remedies (or sentences).

When I see the package of bills that reasonably attempts to protect the
participants from abuses and to resolve a host of anticipated problems in
family and business law, then I might support the legalization of
multi-partner marriage. Until then, I don't support it.

:-)
Kelly

_______________________________________________
The UUPoly-L mailing list has public archives.
Please keep that in mind when deciding how much to reveal about yourself.
UUPoly-L mailing list
UUPoly-L@uupa.org
http://www.uupa.org/mailman/listinfo/uupoly-l