Same sex marriage - 4 years in Massachusetts

[angela146]

It's been four years since Massachusetts legalized same sex marriages. I've been waiting/hoping for the next step: triads. I know it's unrealistic to expect it to happen any time soon, but one can hope.

A few years ago, there was a woman - a dear friend - whom we could have married if it were possible. We ended up losing her.

Now, there's the potential of another.

We didn't seek her. We didn't seek a partner of any kind. We were drawn to each other as good friends are. That's our way, friends first, then lovers, then more than lovers - just as it was between my husband and me fourteen years ago.

We're at the event horizon - that stage of becoming inseparable. If we let it happen, all three of us will eventually get hurt. We've been there, she hasn't. We need to warn her where this path leads. It leads to "almost".

The "almost" is what kills me. We could live together as almost a family. We could be almost public about our relationship. We could live separately and be almost safe from being outed, but not quite as close as we would want to be.

She could be "almost" a wife in several different ways - and "almost" really hurts.

The bitter irony of the fundamentalist Christians - the ones most opposed to our desired way of life - is that they just don't get it. In the Bible, a man could have two wives or even more. That's all we want.

I'm not looking for solutions. You're just the only ones I can talk to.

Thanks for listening.

 

[Stella_Omega]

You have my sympathy, we've been there too...

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

This is going to sound weird, but there really isn't another way to phrase it that I can think of--consider it just pure curiosity:

Why does it matter if three people get married? Like, is there a point, where we're not talking about marriage--even remotely--anymore based on the number of people involved?

We can say, surely, that number of people in love is arbitrary (I personally don't feel that way, I'm sure many don't either)... but it isn't wholly arbitrary, is it? I mean, should we consider 1500 people a situation that warrants marriage if they want it? Don't we lose something in the translation?

I mean, religiously, yes we would I'm sure. Culturally? Surely, it would be obscenely outside the bounds of what we think normal. But even civilly/legally? Wouldn't it be a broken complication of bureaucracy?

And if the notion is "oh, the government shouldn't care who is marrying who or why", then why get legally married at all? Can't three or 1500 people co-habitat? Can't contracts deal with possessions and wills?

I guess I just don't get it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

"if gays can get married, what's stopping me from marrying my dog?"
"If three people can get married, what's stopping me from marrying my dog?"

It's the classic question. Joe's version, "1500 people", is merely a variant.

 

[Belegon]

This is going to sound weird, but there really isn't another way to phrase it that I can think of--consider it just pure curiosity:

Why does it matter if three people get married? Like, is there a point, where we're not talking about marriage--even remotely--anymore based on the number of people involved?

We can say, surely, that number of people in love is arbitrary (I personally don't feel that way, I'm sure many don't either)... but it isn't wholly arbitrary, is it? I mean, should we consider 1500 people a situation that warrants marriage if they want it? Don't we lose something in the translation?

I mean, religiously, yes we would I'm sure. Culturally? Surely, it would be obscenely outside the bounds of what we think normal. But even civilly/legally? Wouldn't it be a broken complication of bureaucracy?

And if the notion is "oh, the government shouldn't care who is marrying who or why", then why get legally married at all? Can't three or 1500 people co-habitat? Can't contracts deal with possessions and wills?

I guess I just don't get it.

Contracts and civil unions can only deal with some of it...

What about medical decisions? If Angela and Hubby get in a car wreck, and they have been living in a triad with X for ten years...

what happens when the hospital asks if she's related?

1500 people is so far from the point Angela is a making as to be nothing short of misdirection.

Now, I'm assuming Joe W is not engaging in Rove-ian tactics and seriously is stating that he doesn't see an answer...

(Yeah, I know. I usually poke at him. But that's not the intention here, so much as to say that discussing the viability of a triad is not the same, just like Stella is saying.)

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

"if gays can get married, what's stopping me from marrying my dog?"
"If three people can get married, what's stopping me from marrying my dog?"

It's the classic question. Joe's version, "1500 people", is merely a variant.

I don't think animals can give legal consent to contracts. Your analogy is kinda offensive and ill-fitting, then.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Contracts and civil unions can only deal with some of it...

What about medical decisions? If Angela and Hubby get in a car wreck, and they have been living in a triad with X for ten years...

what happens when the hospital asks if she's related?

1500 people is so far from the point Angela is a making as to be nothing short of misdirection.

Mine wasn't a questioning of Angela's point. I state the question I'm addressing clearly in the post.

Now, I'm assuming Joe W is not engaging in Rove-ian tactics and seriously is stating that he doesn't see an answer...

(Yeah, I know. I usually poke at him. But that's not the intention here, so much as to say that discussing the viability of a triad is not the same, just like Stella is saying.)

I don't actually see the "why" of it. When dealing with "several people" and "marriage"--an increase in the former seems to weaken the point of the latter, and an increase in the utility of the latter seems to demand a reduction in the former.

1500 people would, then, be seemingly bad for household management, custody, children, taxes, etc. Limiting it to 3 people might be arbitrary to a group of four wanting marriage. At what point do you say "I guess we're not talking about what we understand marriage to be there for"?

Don't get it.

 

[Belegon]

Mine wasn't a questioning of Angela's point. I state the question I'm addressing clearly in the post.


I don't actually see the "why" of it. When dealing with "several people" and "marriage"--an increase in the former seems to weaken the point of the latter, and an increase in the utility of the latter seems to demand a reduction in the former.

1500 people would, then, be seemingly bad for household management, custody, children, taxes, etc. Limiting it to 3 people might be arbitrary to a group of four wanting marriage. At what point do you say "I guess we're not talking about what we understand marriage to be there for"?

Don't get it.

How are you defining marriage Joe? Religiously? Politically? or in real world issues like visitation, health care, inheritance and such?

Religiously, we don't agree... and I don't mean you and I. I mean the "traditional" Christian marriage ideal and the way the majority of the world has viewed marriage for the majority of time.

Politically? The "gay marriage" issue was a political tool to drive people to get out and vote... oh, and push the button for your local Republican candidate and W at the same time. And it worked. The results have been devastating for the nation. You can call that last sentence opinion if you want, but I believe it is one that will be validated by history.

And while I agree that the question of three vs. four or five or six is legitimate... that is not even close to the logistical considerations of 1500 people. Thus, I call your throwing that number out there "misdirection".

The idea that a polyamorous relationship is "wrong" is a construct of religion and victorian influenced morality.

I agree that the question "where do we stop?" is valid in smaller figures. But we are not talking "slippery slope" stuff here, not really. Think about how hard it is to manage a simple two person relationship. Adding a third person increases all the difficulties... arguments over money, chores, ideology...

The "problem" you are defining could almost be described as self-correcting.

There are situations where polyamorous relationships are needing to be addressed. We should be, as a culture, outgrowing some of the silliness of thinking that society should enforce it's dictates on individuals morality. But the logistics of everyday living are a stumbling block in achieving that... as is the fact that some people have a goal of not allowing individuals to define their own relationships.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

How are you defining marriage Joe? Religiously? Politically? or in real world issues like visitation, health care, inheritance and such?

I'm not. Marriage is, presently, religious and political and practical and subsets of some of those.

Religiously, we don't agree... and I don't mean you and I. I mean the "traditional" Christian marriage ideal and the way the majority of the world has viewed marriage for the majority of time.

True, but I don't guess we're looking at this too historically--I don't think anyone's advocating a return to "women for breeding, as property" senses of marriage (historically the most common over time?). I think we're locked into the last, say, fifty years and Western society.

Politically? The "gay marriage" issue was a political tool to drive people to get out and vote... oh, and push the button for your local Republican candidate and W at the same time. And it worked. The results have been devastating for the nation. You can call that last sentence opinion if you want, but I believe it is one that will be validated by history.

I do. I don't think of all the things this nation has been "devestated" by in the last seven years, that it counts as one of them. Maybe "disappointed by".

And while I agree that the question of three vs. four or five or six is legitimate... that is not even close to the logistical considerations of 1500 people. Thus, I call your throwing that number out there "misdirection".

Not at all, it was fully intentional and directed. If I said "I don't see how four people can be married", I'd have gotten a "because its possible and makes sense"... which would have led to a slow and arduous process of trying to establish that there are some numbers that are so out there that there does appear to be a limit to most of our sensibilities about it. "All numbers are valid" should be addressed with one that is unambiguously not (by all seeming).

The idea that a polyamorous relationship is "wrong" is a construct of religion and victorian influenced morality.

I agree that the question "where do we stop?" is valid in smaller figures. But we are not talking "slippery slope" stuff here, not really. Think about how hard it is to manage a simple two person relationship. Adding a third person increases all the difficulties... arguments over money, chores, ideology...

The "problem" you are defining could almost be described as self-correcting.

There are situations where polyamorous relationships are needing to be addressed. We should be, as a culture, outgrowing some of the silliness of thinking that society should enforce it's dictates on individuals morality. But the logistics of everyday living are a stumbling block in achieving that... as is the fact that some people have a goal of not allowing individuals to define their own relationships.

That's fine... but it doesn't really address the problem. We seem to be thinking "let people do because it'll work itself out"--but doesn't there come a point where we should just strip all governmental concern out of it because its too complex? I mean, fifty people getting married and adopting kids isn't self-correcting. Its most likely to be legally-corrected. There would have to be an encyclopedia of laws about it or a series of solid contracts before it--in which case I don't see why federal or state authority is a good idea.

I dunno.

It seems way too out there (functionally).

 

[Belegon]

We seem to be thinking "let people do because it'll work itself out"--but doesn't there come a point where we should just strip all governmental concern out of it because its too complex? I mean, fifty people getting married and adopting kids isn't self-correcting. Its most likely to be legally-corrected. There would have to be an encyclopedia of laws about it or a series of solid contracts before it--in which case I don't see why federal or state authority is a good idea.

I dunno.

It seems way too out there (functionally).

Getting the government out of the business of defining marriage is EXACTLY what I want...

...but like you said, there is logistical work to be done to accomplish that...

Said my piece. You and I don't agree on some of the specifics. Big surprise.

Angela, in my "perfect" world, a triad would be a valid marital construct. But I fear we need to grow up a bit as a culture before that can be accomplished. All I have left to give is sympathy and >>>HUSG<<<<

 

[Cyberpawz]

Why not just bring back Polygamy? Hell problem solved.

 

[rgraham666]

My main objection to polyamory is personal and probably not true, but I still feel it in my gut.

Polyamory will make it much harder for the socially inept and very poor such as myself to find a partner. I like to maintain a little hope that might happen someday. And in a polyamorous society I believe that will be less likely.

 

[Belegon]

My main objection to polyamory is personal and probably not true, but I still feel it in my gut.

Polyamory will make it much harder for the socially inept and very poor such as myself to find a partner. I like to maintain a little hope that might happen someday. And in a polyamorous society I believe that will be less likely.

I disagree with you on multiple levels.

... not the least of which is that your "social ineptness" is shrinking daily, sir. And if you are not required to bear ALL the burden of one woman's expectations and can instead specialize in the areas you are best at, it could very well increase your chances.

Rob, I wouldn't choose you to help me move a refrigerator, I admit it. But to have intelligent conversation for hours at a time? Yes.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I don't think animals can give legal consent to contracts. Your analogy is kinda offensive and ill-fitting, then.

You take a limited request to a ridiculous extreme. It's exactly the same. It's kinda offensive and ill-fitting, in fact.

 

[Stella_Omega]

My main objection to polyamory is personal and probably not true, but I still feel it in my gut.

Polyamory will make it much harder for the socially inept and very poor such as myself to find a partner. I like to maintain a little hope that might happen someday. And in a polyamorous society I believe that will be less likely.

You've said that before, Rob, and from my observation it actually works the other way just as often. A socially inept person can be 'carried' by two more 'graceful' partners for much longer than that person would have lasted in a one-to-one relationship. There is less demand on him or her, not more. And "three can live as cheaply as two."

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

You take a limited request to a ridiculous extreme. It's exactly the same. It's kinda offensive and ill-fitting, in fact.

Yeah, but I explain how I got there and what the underpinnings of it are. I believe there's a difference. You don't have to, of course, but there we are.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yeah, but I explain how I got there and what the underpinnings of it are. I believe there's a difference. You don't have to, of course, but there we are.

So? Those "marry a dog" guys have their underpinnings too. Neither of you think that rational people can be swayed by anything less than a stick of dynamite. Which says a lot about your objections, IMO.

 

[keeblercrumb]

It's been four years since Massachusetts legalized same sex marriages. I've been waiting/hoping for the next step: triads. I know it's unrealistic to expect it to happen any time soon, but one can hope.

A few years ago, there was a woman - a dear friend - whom we could have married if it were possible. We ended up losing her.

Now, there's the potential of another.

We didn't seek her. We didn't seek a partner of any kind. We were drawn to each other as good friends are. That's our way, friends first, then lovers, then more than lovers - just as it was between my husband and me fourteen years ago.

We're at the event horizon - that stage of becoming inseparable. If we let it happen, all three of us will eventually get hurt. We've been there, she hasn't. We need to warn her where this path leads. It leads to "almost".

The "almost" is what kills me. We could live together as almost a family. We could be almost public about our relationship. We could live separately and be almost safe from being outed, but not quite as close as we would want to be.

She could be "almost" a wife in several different ways - and "almost" really hurts.

The bitter irony of the fundamentalist Christians - the ones most opposed to our desired way of life - is that they just don't get it. In the Bible, a man could have two wives or even more. That's all we want.

I'm not looking for solutions. You're just the only ones I can talk to.

Thanks for listening.

Angela.... Part of the above discussion centers on the various legal as well as emotional ramifications of the triad (or more)....

But while I understand your pain of the situation not being accepted (perhaps a better word for most of the population in our culture.... is "expected") I am not clear on just what aspect of the "lack of marriage" you feel is most significant to prospects of a long term relationship... which you clearly desire to have.

For those of us who see traditional two way marriages a daunting and difficult thing to maintain, the prospect of a triad would just seem to increase those stresses and problems geometrically! But you seem comfortable with that risk.... and are seemingly ascribing the ending of your previous triad to external influences unrelated to your personal dynamics...

In your previous "unsuccessful" triad, was it the legal aspect (the "hospital" example above) or the cultural not accepted/expected thing which you believe contributed most to the dissolution?

-KC

 

[Stella_Omega]

Actually, let me put it another way--You both are positive that it's somehow wrong, but you can't come up with a reasonable objection.

So, you offer up something insultingly far-fetched as dogs or thousands in a marriage, and demand that everyone pretend that makes sense.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Power of attorney, BELEGON.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

STELLA

Then why have any legal conventions?

Like, who in hell is harmed if you go naked in public?

If I wanna roast a goat in my front yard, what's it to you?

The crazy bitch next door mows her yard at 9 o'clock at night. She does. So why do people get upset with her?

 

[impressive]

Getting the government out of the business of defining marriage is EXACTLY what I want...

Ditto.

Abolish the government relationship-sanctioning & deal with all the civil issues (custody, inheritance, etc.) through affidavits or other legal tools. Then people can structure their relationships as they see fit without having the "right" way dictated by tax incentives and next-of-kin concerns.

The government's "excuse" of family stability for child rearing is waaaaaaaaaaay antiquated.

Those wanting equality in the eyes of the government should not be lobbying FOR "gay marriage" but AGAINST government incentives for ANY single type of union.

for Angela. I hope you find your peace.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Aint gonna happen.

People need the drama that government involvement provides. That's because most people are dishonest and self-serving and assheads.

Government was created to control the strife and conflicts between people when agreements were broken and someone got fucked.

 

[keeblercrumb]

STELLA

Then why have any legal conventions?

Like, who in hell is harmed if you go naked in public?

If I wanna roast a goat in my front yard, what's it to you?

The crazy bitch next door mows her yard at 9 o'clock at night. She does. So why do people get upset with her?

I don't want to disappoint you Jimbo, but I think she has you on Ignore... It is not always easy to discern a point from your posts.... this one more than most, but let me guess...

You are suggesting that we should "outlaw" triad marriages because we should have some "legal conventions" so why not this one??

I personally have no problem with you going naked.... but then I am 12,000 miles away.

Hummm.. I likewise have no problem with the goat roast but you might want to observe local fire ordinances and zoning regulations before doing so... Other than that, I do not think this is one of those issues anybody really is concerned about it per se. Goat roast away.

Perhaps if you mowed her lawn for her the crazy bitch would not do so at 9:00 pm which I assume is your bedtime. Again... I suspect lawn mowing, per se, is not an issue.

The problem Angela and others have is that act itself (triad marrying) is illegal... even tho it doesn't effect you or anyone else to any significant degree.

Okay? Did I get that right?
-KC

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

KEEBLER

You didnt address the point. Why have any legal conventions at all?

My popularity with STELLA, or anyone, is irrelevant.

Zoning laws are legal conventions.

Noise abatement laws are legal conventions.

It seems to me that every society has a right to construct whatever conventions it wants.