Marriage and polyamory?

[Inaniel]

I understand the practical legal and financial reasons for marriage, but how it fits into a poly relationship is confusing. Of course marriage should not be a license to control another person. Why would a poly person want to marry other than for the legal and financial benefits? The overarching need for autonomy is in direct conflict with the many compromises required by marriage.

Marriage can only result in a net loss of personal autonomy. Meaning it cannot enhance personal autonomy and can only diminish it.

However, many polyamorous individuals use the primary-secondary model of relationship structure, wherein they financially entangle and share a living space with only one partner. In these cases, the types of autonomy that marriage limits are inconsequential because it does not affect their ability to maintain additional relationships.

For those of us who are financially entangled with more than one person, we must navigate that loss of autonomy in marriage and find solutions. There is also a segment of polyamorous people who place such a high value on the full spectrum of personal autonomy that they choose not to marry.

When discussing autonomy, context is important. For polyamorous individuals who have not encountered issues with a marriage contract in their relationships, it simply means they require autonomy in areas of life that marriage does not specifically restrict.

 

[Magdlyn]

There's an age-old conflict between personal independence/autonomy, and a life that is more socially connected and interdependent. It's often thought that the US stresses more independence, coming as the white people did to a country they conquered by guns and bringing strange diseases, leaving large swaths of land ripe for the picking. Single people or families could and did settle the country with not much more than a dream and a prayer and hard work. Of course, this could be (partly) a myth. Humans rarely thrive without social support at least somewhat backing them up.

Marriage is a way of formalizing a social support system. You get a spouse legally tied to you, and the state provides certain benefits to you as a couple, and then as a family with children. You also traditionally gain the support of each other's families. To me, this can be a very good, even great thing.

If you really dislike social entanglements, and commitment, and are maybe introverted and don't want to live with anyone (and can afford that), you can have a "solo poly" dating style. Of course, don't marry a partner, but also don't even nest/live with anyone.

 

[Inaniel]

If you really dislike social entanglements, and commitment, and are maybe introverted and don't want to live with anyone (and can afford that), you can have a "solo poly" dating style. Of course, don't marry a partner, but also don't even nest/live with anyone.

I think one caveat is if you purchase property and cohabit with multiple partners. In such an arrangement, a cohabitation agreement is often more effective than relying on marriage law to resolve disputes.

One benefit of creating a legal contract with your partners instead of marrying is that you can execute the contract upon dissolution of the relationship without involving a district court official or judge. If someone feels unfairly treated, they have the option to proceed to court and seek a legal interpretation and judgment.

In a marriage, dissolution requires a judgment, so any asset agreements must be interpreted and enforced by a judge. This means that, automatically, everyone defers their autonomy in the dissolution process to a third party.

 

[Ariakas]

I saw this YouTube video and thought of this thread. I am the guy on the viewers left. I enjoy a level of commit and stability without sacrificing freedom. His logic closely mirrors my values.

I don't see any issue with a union (call it whatever you want) and still maintaining autonomy and independence. It's a level of commit

I should also note I am not a relationship anarchist and can't even comprehend the insecurity that creates. Kudos to those that enjoy it. I don't judge them but if I engage I also know it's not likely going to be a relationship I can engage in at a deep level. Same with ldrs. Both offer the same level of chaos my life won't tolerate.

 

[Bobbi]

I think one caveat is if you purchase property and cohabit with multiple partners. In such an arrangement, a cohabitation agreement is often more effective than relying on marriage law to resolve disputes.

One benefit of creating a legal contract with your partners instead of marrying is that you can execute the contract upon dissolution of the relationship without involving a district court official or judge. If someone feels unfairly treated, they have the option to proceed to court and seek a legal interpretation and judgment.

In a marriage, dissolution requires a judgment, so any asset agreements must be interpreted and enforced by a judge. This means that, automatically, everyone defers their autonomy in the dissolution process to a third party.

This is why I fully support prenups. It's not about whether your partner loves you or not (the thought that's pervasive among many asked to sign one) it's about you deciding how the disillusion happens instead of the courts. I wish more people would consult an attorney before signing a marriage license as they should ANY legal contract, so they understand exactly what it means to sign it.

 

[Bobbi]

I saw this YouTube video and thought of this thread. I am the guy on the viewers left. I enjoy a level of commit and stability without sacrificing freedom. His logic closely mirrors my values.

I don't see any issue with a union (call it whatever you want) and still maintaining autonomy and independence. It's a level of commit

I should also note I am not a relationship anarchist and can't even comprehend the insecurity that creates. Kudos to those that enjoy it. I don't judge them but if I engage I also know it's not likely going to be a relationship I can engage in at a deep level. Same with ldrs. Both offer the same level of chaos my life won't tolerate.

I too fit with Connor's ideology. I would say Brittany is Relationship Anarchist. It's a bit too extreme for me. I know relationships will change, and most don't last forever, but I would hate KNOWING that my partner WILL move on without a second thought, as opposed to it being possible that it could happen. Semantics, I know, but for me those semantics make a huge difference. I want a life partnership (marriage to some) to be just that. A commitment for life, where the priority is working through things with the goal of staying together. Only when things are irreconcilable do we move on. That being said, I'm open to a multiple primary model only if there's time and space in the relationship for that to happen.

 

[Ariakas]

I too fit with Connors ideology. I would say Brittany is Relationship Anarchist. It's a bit too extreme for me. I know relationships will change and most don't last forever but I would hate KNOWING that my partner WILL move on without a second thought as opposed to it being possible that it could happen. Symantics, I know but for me those symantics make a huge difference. I want a life partnership (marriage to some) to be just that. A commitment for life where the priority is working through things with the goal of staying together. Only when things are irreconcilable do we move on. That being said, I'm open to a multiple primary model only if there's time and space in the relationship for that to happen.

You nailed my perspective exactly. I have 2 life partners and a level of commit is desired. Other folks I have engaged with, not so much. I have no issues with representing either of my partners in a marriage like relationship

Building that trust as my 2 partners find folks, to not displace me, has been some of my struggle. Work in progress.

RA leaves ... relationships in a chaotic state my synaptic system doesn't like. At all.

 

[Evie]

I watched a bit of it while I'm getting ready for work... enough to finally hear they are talking about a need Vs a desire to get to know someone new who you are drawn to.

I'm her. I *need* to be able to explore any new connections when I come across them. I may not (probably won't) escalate that connection fully into relationship/partnership status, but I absolutely need to get to know that person and let the connection be expressed as fully as it is naturally desirable to do so in alignment with my other core values (e.g. I haven't spent a lifetime popping out babies to a bunch of different partners under the guise of exploring connections).

 

[Bobbi]

I watched a bit of it while I'm getting ready for work... enough to finally hear they are talking about a need Vs a desire to get to know someone new who you are drawn to.

I'm her. I *need* to be able to explore any new connections when I come across them. I may not (probably won't) escalate that connection fully into relationship/partnership status, but I absolutely need to get to know that person and let the connection be expressed as fully as it is naturally desirable to do so in alignment with my other core values (e.g. I haven't spent a lifetime popping out babies to a bunch of different partners under the guise of exploring connections).

Yes, that distinction was key, and that's why I'm poly. However, I WANT to be able to explore that. I hated that I couldn't in monogamy. But my want will not supersede the importance of my life partnership. Hence it's not a need.

 

[Ariakas]

Yes, that distinction was key. And that's why I'm poly, however, I WANT to be able to explore that. I hated that I couldn't in monogamy. But my want will not supercede the importance of my life partnership. Hence it's not a need.

need vs desire is how I split the diff too

 

[Evie]

But my want will not supercede the importance of my life partnership.

What would superseding the importance of life partnerships look like to you? Is this a time and money is finite thing, or something else?

 

[Inaniel]

This is why I fully support prenups. It's not about whether your partner loves you or not (the thought that's pervasive among many asked to sign one) it's about you deciding how the disillusion happens instead of the courts. I wish more people would consult an attorney before signing a marriage license as they should ANY legal contract, so they understand exactly what it means to sign it.

As someone who has been married, terminated a marriage contract while continuing to be in the relationship, co-parented, and shared property investments with multiple partners, I've navigated some unique issues as a kitchen table poly family dealing with asset ownership.

When our trio (my two cohabitation partners, and I) purchased a house, we decided that the mortgage payments would be income-based, directly correlating to each person’s ownership ratio. However, marriage law dictates that asset ownership ratios are established by a legal rubric in my state. When we sought legal counsel, we were informed that we could create the contract and petition a judge to honor it. However, upon dissolution of the marriage contract, a judge would need to assess whether the contract was "fair" and whether it aligned with current marriage law statutes.

In general terms about prenups, I was advised by an attorney that a prenup is a personal contract, and personal contracts cannot override the law. Therefore, a prenup can only be written within the confines of existing marriage law and will always be subject to judicial interpretation upon dissolution of the marriage. Additionally, a prenup will be examined against current marriage law, not the law as it was when the prenup was signed. So, if marriage law changes in a way that conflicts with the prenup, the prenup may become invalid. For this reason, my attorney recommended refreshing any prenup or postnup regularly. And there's even more that I wont go into...

Long story short, we said fuck the bullshit and decided to dissolve the marriage contract and write our own contract as free agents. (free from marriage statutes that is)

Something else came to mind, and this is not directed at anyone in particular:

It’s understandably confusing how people who identify as poly view marriage (I was confused by it myself, for several years). And I think the community is partly to blame for using the concept of "autonomy" so broadly. Polyamory only seeks to empower sexual autonomy, which is just one aspect of someone’s existence.

Because of the "autonomy gospel," people are more inclined to argue that "marriage isn't in conflict with personal autonomy" in a broad sense, instead of admitting that most of us don’t want or need autonomy in every single aspect of our lives. It’s as if admitting to making any compromises on autonomy, or not requiring full autonomy, will make us seem less-than. And in fact, the term "compromise" more now than ever is becoming a dirty word because, you know, "autonomy"...

I am a father, I live with two partners, shared property assets, and a new puppy... I am far from being a fully autonomous individual. But I have autonomy where I want it and where I need it. Marriage was not the best option in terms of where I needed to exercise autonomy in my life. However, marriage may be compatible with the areas of life where other poly people need to exercise autonomy.

With that said. As of right now, all 50 states in the U.S. allow no-fault divorce. Marriage and sexual autonomy are not inherently in conflict because a judge won’t consider your sexual escapades in a judicial judgment. However, marriage law changes over time, meaning the contract changes without you ever being asked to agree to the new terms and conditions. Marriage is political! In the sense that no-fault divorce could come under political attack, and laws could change in ways where marriage law does have more to say about sexual autonomy. There's is no final answer, because marriage is an evolving construct.

Food for thought.

 

[Bobbi]

What would superseding the importance of life partnerships look like to you? Is this a time and money is finite thing, or something else?

Anything that negatively impacts my relationship with LP. I wouldn't know it until it happened. It could be time, which is least likely in my case, as I have lots of time. But he doesn't, so if both partners were only available on the same days, I wouldn't take days away from LP for a new partner.

It could be overlooking behavior from a new partner that's hurtful to NP. I tend to think we both have strong standards about the people we date and this type of thing wouldn't be an issue, but I cannot assume it would never happen.

 

[Bobbi]

if marriage law changes in a way that conflicts with the prenup, the prenup may become invalid. For this reason, my attorney recommended refreshing any prenup or postnup regularly.

Good to know and I'm sure I'd be told if I ever chose to get legally married....which I won't. I don't need peace of mind from marriage. I believe and trust my partners commitment to me without a legal document enforcing it.

write our own contract as free agents.

I have certain legal documents as well to cover needed things. Things that can be ended by destroying the documents and informing everyone. No need for a long, expensive, legal fight.
And property can be done as you say...% ownership. This can be a pain in the end because forcing a sale or coming up with buyout money is a hassle, it's still more doable than divorce.

how people who identify as poly view marriage

I don't think that is a poly vs monogamy view. Yes, there are general assumptions that mono people have about marriage, where I think poly people actually talk about those things and agree on them before getting married. BUT I think each person views marriage through their own lens. My views about marriage have not changed from when I was mono and had no clue that poly might be in my future.

 

[Evie]

It could be overlooking behavior from new partner that's hurtful to NP.

For me, I'd consider this a core values caveat, not a want vs need one. I would not continue to need to get to know someone who is not respectful of my other relationships. The need is up front, the continuation is not so certain.

 

[Bobbi]

For me, I'd consider this a core values caveat, not a want vs need one. I would not continue to need to get to know someone who is not respectful of my other relationships. The need is up front, the continuation is not so certain.

Of course! I was trying to think of common things I see people doing who come here for advice. I wouldn't have a partner that doesn't respect me, my partners or my relationships.

I'm amazed at how people put up with bad behavior because they FEEL certain feelings for a person