{"id":17760,"date":"2021-03-18T18:13:45","date_gmt":"2021-03-19T01:13:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/politicalhat.com\/?p=17760"},"modified":"2021-03-18T18:13:45","modified_gmt":"2021-03-19T01:13:45","slug":"quick-takes-marriage-a-trois-polyamory-as-a-constitutional-right-polyamory-acceptance-polyamory-normalization","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/2021\/03\/18\/quick-takes-marriage-a-trois-polyamory-as-a-constitutional-right-polyamory-acceptance-polyamory-normalization\/","title":{"rendered":"Quick Takes \u2013 Marriage \u00e0 Trois: Polyamory As A Constitutional Right; Polyamory Acceptance; Polyamory Normalization"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Another &#8220;quick takes&#8221; on items where there is too little to say to make a complete article, but is still important enough to comment on.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The focus this time: Take that, duo-normative diarchy!<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;First, a little mood music:<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><iframe loading=\"lazy\" width=\"560\" height=\"315\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/1Aej9wmoQ7M\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Carrying on\u2026<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter size-full wp-image-5372\" src=\"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/03\/EaglewithFlag.gif\" alt=\"\" width=\"203\" height=\"176\" \/><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Is there any reasoning used against polyamerous marriage that wasn\u2019t used against same-sex marriage that was dismissed as \u201cirrational animus\u201d?<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.nationalreview.com\/2019\/10\/is-limiting-marriage-to-two-people-constitutional\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Not really<\/a>.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u201cThe majority in Obergefell did not find the fact that the West, for at least two millennia, held a stable conception of marriage \u2014 a union between one man and one woman, open to procreation and the rearing of children \u2014 compelling grounds to reject the claims of the plaintiffs. Obergefell clearly conceives of marriage as a \u2018right\u2019 \u2014 civil, legal, and moral \u2014 to be extended to consenting claimants, with only passing regard for the existing strictures of the institution. Anthony Kennedy\u2019s opinion uses a nebulous, inchoate definition of marriage predicated on poetic notions of \u2018dignity\u2019 and \u2018love\u2019 rather than the traditional, unbroken consensus of Western civilization. Why would the Court find the traditional restriction of marriage to a union between two persons a compelling reason to withhold the right to marry from three (or more) claimants?<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u201cIf \u2018love,\u2019 \u2018dignity,\u2019 and the pursuant tax advantages are the constitutive parts of marriage, on what grounds would Rauch or the courts withhold those \u2018rights\u2019 from polygamous unions?\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter size-full wp-image-5371\" src=\"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/03\/eag_line.gif\" alt=\"\" width=\"500\" height=\"37\" srcset=\"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/03\/eag_line.gif 500w, https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/03\/eag_line-300x22.gif 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 500px) 100vw, 500px\" \/><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><!--more-->&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;One of the main arguments against polyamerous marriages is that it wouldn\u2019t jive with current marriage laws and precedent that that assumes only two people participate. \u00a0 But if the fact that much of marriage and family law has been adjusted to fit the fact that said two people aren\u2019t even of the same sex, such as questions of parentage, then that argument starts to fall flat. And if the change in the laws can adapt and follow, then <a href=\"https:\/\/hotair.com\/archives\/jazz-shaw\/2019\/10\/30\/can-government-really-limit-marriage-two-people\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">what <em>moral<\/em> objection can there be<\/a>?<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u201cQuestions of tax benefits or burdens, inheritance and all of the other baggage that goes along with it can be handled contractually whether you are married or not. When pressed for a solution to the previous conundrum, I always suggested that the word \u2018marriage\u2019 be stripped from the tax codes entirely and from almost every other law as well. (I say \u2018almost\u2019 because the government should still maintain the ability to protect the underage, the mentally impaired and others who can\u2019t give meaningful consent from the possibility of marriage being used as a fig leaf to cover abuse.) But since our current government would never agree to all that, approving gay marriage was probably the only other choice, though far inferior to simply getting the government out of the business of marriage.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u201cBut if that\u2019s my position (and it\u2019s one I\u2019ve been satisfied with for quite some time now), how can I justify the portion of that speech where I specify \u2018two people to engage in a private ceremony?\u2019 As I said, the concept of a polyamorous relationship remains completely foreign and mystifying to me. I\u2019ve barely been able to struggle along seeing to the needs and\/or demands of one woman these past 25 years. The idea of doing that for two would leave me in a panic-induced coma.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u201cBut that\u2019s just me. Who am I to say that three people couldn\u2019t engage in such a private ceremony? More to the point, who is the government to say? I would fall back on the fundamental basis for how our governments should determine when a law is valid to pass. If we are to restrict the actions of free individual citizens, we should be able to answer one question. Is the action to be prohibited causing harm to or restricting the rights of other citizens? If the answer is yes it\u2019s fair game for being restricted under law. If the answer is no, well\u2026 you\u2019ve got a lot of explaining to do.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter size-full wp-image-5371\" src=\"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/03\/eag_line.gif\" alt=\"\" width=\"500\" height=\"37\" srcset=\"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/03\/eag_line.gif 500w, https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/03\/eag_line-300x22.gif 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 500px) 100vw, 500px\" \/><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;That normalization is exactly what the media is pushing, as is the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2020\/08\/04\/parenting\/polyamorous-parenting.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">struggle<\/a> against the oppressive nature of the duo-normative diarchy.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u201cPolicymakers in the United States are just beginning to expand their definitions of what makes a family, as the city of Somerville, Mass., passed an ordinance in June giving polyamorous groups rights that are typically only given to two-parent couples, like the ability to share health insurance. Somerville\u2019s City Council president said that he felt the ordinance was urgent because of the pandemic, as it would allow more residents health care coverage.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u201cBut this ordinance is an outlier. Though nonmonogamy seems to be on the rise \u2014 or at least society is more open about it than ever before \u2014 families consisting of three or more parents can face challenges that are in some ways different from, and similar to, those faced by divorced parents, single parents and L.G.B.T.Q. parents.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;TTFN.<\/p>\n<p><meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary\" \/><meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@PoliticHatBlog\" \/><meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@ThePoliticalHat\" \/><meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Marriage \u00e0 Trois: Polyamory As A Constitutional Right; Polyamory Acceptance; Polyamory Normalization\"\/><meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"The focus this time: Take that, duo-normative diarchy!\" \/><meta name=\"twitter:image\" content=\"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/03\/EaglewithFlag.gif\" \/><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Another &#8220;quick takes&#8221; on items where there is too little to say to make a complete article, but is still important enough to comment on. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The focus this time: Take that, duo-normative diarchy! &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;First, a little mood music: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Carrying on\u2026 &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/2021\/03\/18\/quick-takes-marriage-a-trois-polyamory-as-a-constitutional-right-polyamory-acceptance-polyamory-normalization\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":5372,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[17],"tags":[65,46,48],"class_list":["post-17760","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-progressives","tag-doom","tag-kyriarchy","tag-social-justice"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17760","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17760"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17760\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":17761,"href":"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17760\/revisions\/17761"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5372"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17760"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17760"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17760"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}