I can see where this is unlikely in a society where men hold all the wealth and power. While I believe that, in our society, most wealth and power remains with men, the emergence of "cougars" may indicate that multiple husbands for women is not such a stretch these days.

All bathrooms will be outfitted with yellow carpeting.

I think in a culture of modern women such as we live in today, the risk of voluntary polygamy suddenly taking a significant hold in society is low. If polygamy were made legal today, I don't see much changing.

The real risk, in my mind, is abusing the polygamist "marriage contract" for corporate business means. Say a group of men want to form a company, but they want, for example, not to have to testify against each other if the company is ever sued, just as a wife has the right not to have to testify against her husband. So they all polygamist gay marry each other on paper.

I think you could successfully allow for gay marriage, while still outlawing polygamy on the argument that it would promote conspiracy and fraud.

Gay polygamy! The old boy network on steroids.

Interesting! That hadn't occurred to me.

Well, abolish the right of a spouse to not testify against their spouse(s). That is an old fashioned and sexist rule anyway.

Sexist how? It's a two-way street.

It is now, but when it was introduced it was with the idea that the man would be doing everything and the woman merely an assistant at best.

Found this on Facebook. One of the arguments against polygamy is that some families ended up on public assistance. In a modern economy, it's not as easy to have a homebound labor pool as it is on a farm.

http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot...13942464_n.jpg

I'm not sure how that is relevant to spousal priviledge. It's about who can be called to testify, and by whom; not about the extent of their involvement in the crime.

It's there to avoid putting someone in the position of having to choose between condemning their spouse and perjuring themselves.

Another state steps up in the district of the 9th Federal Court of Appeals

Reuters
Nicole Neroulias
2/8/12
Gay marriage wins final legislative approval in Washington state

HM ...

Okay. drop the sexist. Maybe even the outdated.

I think it is wrong. Why is there no parental priviledge? Sibling? Avuncular? Why should someone get away with a crime just because the main witness is their spouse?

I won't argue that. Probably something to do with "the sanctity of marriage".

Though my guess is there's a de facto family priviledge to some extent, as the danger of perjury, and the potential bad taste left in jurors mouths from forcing a parent to testify, may discourage prosecutors from doing so in many cases.

The spousal privilege only applies if both the defendant and their spouse want to keep the secret. If a wife wants to testify against her husband, she can, and there is nothing the husband can do to prevent it. Compare that to the privilege between an attorney and their client. The attorney can virtually never testify against their client, even if they want to.

meaning they can't be *compelled* to testify against their spouse.

It's now official in Washington State... Next is New Jersey :rolleyes:

MSNBC
2/13/12

Are heteros allowed to have civil unions too? When they brought in civil unions in France, something like a third of hetero couples went the civil union path and cut the church out altogether.

I'm pretty sure civil unions for hetero couples have been common in the US just as they have been in Australia, for quite a long time. At least since the 60's.

The issue is that civil unions generally don't afford ALL the benefits of marriage and legally is in a separate category. On top of that, and on top of the longstanding (and constitutional!) problem with "separate but equal", the federal Defense Of Marriage Act prevents civil unions OR gay marriages from "counting" at the federal level. I assume that civil unions are available to everyone regardless of gender, but there is no advantage to civil unions over marriage, and quite a host of drawbacks. I'm sure it's not common, but it happens.

I believe whether the benefits are the same depends upon the state.
In VT, for example, they are the same. However those Civil Unions in VT may or may not be recognized in other states.

ETA ... thats not entirely true... read this. I can't paste it because its a pdf.

Civil Unions in this country are for same-sex couples only.
To start with I thought we were progressive in introducing them at all. And certainly the gay press seemed to have that opinion.

After a few years now I am of the opinion that separate but equal doesn't cut it.
Civil Unions for all, with the choice of a church wedding for those who require the blessing of God.
There are churches in this country who would bless a same sex union.
I don't believe in forcing those with problems to do so - religion should be a private matter. But the unions should be equal.

Hetero civil unions exist in the US, and are called marriages.

Agreed.

This is my personal solution, too. The government shouldn't be in the business of validating religious ceremony. The civil contract legally uniting two adults, whether you call it a "civil union" or a "marriage", should be an ENTIRELY secular affair from the point of view of the government, and I think the way to do that is to not ("re")define marriage as between a man and a woman OR as between anyone, but to change the law so that the government recognizes ONLY civil unions that are the same as what are now recognized by the name of marriage.

Let the "religious" have the WORD "Marriage" for their religious ceremonies and let the legal term with all benefits and whatever be "Civil Union" keeping the two separate.

Next!
We have much larger issues to deal with.

What's the adjective you would put next to the box on forms instead of "married?"
Civil unionized? Civilized?

Civilly unioned?

Then when you break up you are uncivilly ununioned. Nah, that sounds too much like onion.

uncivilly de-unioned?

non-civilly disenunioned?

Single
Engaged
In a Civil Union
Divorced
Widowed

I don't see the issue.

un-union = un-unionized = ionized

You can't hide your ionize...

Why should you have to declare yourself divorced anyway?
For all legal and tax purposes you are single once a divorce is finalised.
Why should you have to admit to a failed union?

And no, I'm not being facetious.
I'm divorced myself and have always considered it a peculiar question.

I've actually wondered that too.

And engaged doesn't count.

Nor does pre-engaged, or engaged to be pre-engaged.

You're either in a union or you're not.

But...what about widowed?

Why can't losing your civil partner be called widowed?

I think Shawnee is asking - why is it necessary?
For Civil Union or Married.

Because it is a sacred institution, and gay widows would destroy traditional widowhood.

Spanx

Whoa Whoa Whoa. First you secularist declare war on Christmas and now marriage?!? hehe

Quite the opposite!
I'd prefer to see only regular church-goers get a blessing for their union in church. And all those who go just for a pretty location stop pretending.

The Church of England is pretty tolerant of people who attend three times in their life - Christening, Wedding and Funeral. I say good on them. But open it to all couples. So that gay church-goers have the same right of blessing as hetero unbelievers who will never come back.

ETA - I don't mean to contradict my previous statement.
I would not want any church, synagogue or mosque to be forced into a blessing. I believe progress in tolerance is inevitable and people will vote with their feet.

Seriously. Can you imagine the widow walks on tops of old houses? They'd be converted to catwalks! They'd be FABULOUS. :p:

@Ibram...Sundae got what I meant. She was asking about having to report divorced instead of single, and I was making the tangential point of why widowed instead of single.

For some government programs, widowed does matter, because you are given certain benefits that would have gone to your dead spouse instead. But I've seen many forms that go so far as to offer a checkbox for "Separated." WTF business is it of theirs what bed a person sleeps in, if their marriage contract is still in effect?

Associated Press
By ANGELA DELLI SANTI

NJ Assembly passes gay marriage bill
NJ is different and interesting because the State's Supreme Court has already reviewed
the State's Civil Union Law, and has: The article also describes strategies of the various parties.

I have rearranged the sequence of paragraphs below to (hopefully) make this post more readable.

msnbc.com
Miranda Leitsinger
7/13/12

Same-sex couple fights to stop deportation, gay marriage ban

The following is an editorial by Linda Greenhouse,
the NY Times reporter who covers the US Supreme Court.
Usually, her articles are straight reporting, with little to no "editorializing"
For a long time, I have followed her reporting and have respect for her knowledge and expertise.
But here is an article that is strictly her opinions.

I believe it is well worth reading in it's entirety because she speaks to
the Voting Rights Act and voter suppression, to equal rights for gay/lesbians,
and California's Proposition 8 vs the Obama Dept of Justice's
refusal to defend DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act.

NY Times
LINDA GREENHOUSE
11/14/12

Changing Times