Ravenscroft
Banned
Annie & I weren't particularly interested in marriage at all -- we wound up marrying for money, but that's another story.
So as members of PEP, which advocated polyfidelity & tended to sneer at us promiscuous types, we tolerated regular discussions of "legalizing poly marriage."
It's been 30+ years, & I still don't see the point of trying to legalize poly marriage.
Firstly, my bunch used to cal the concept regular marriage, just with more people. In other words, NOTHING earth-shaking, or ground-breaking, or even noticeably progressive -- the same old CRAP with a couple new lines & a few wording changes. There's an absolute refusal to examine extant marriage law, much less to straighten out the flaws inherent in an accreted patchwork of quasi-Xtian legislation from Federal law all the way down to village ordinances.
Why build a new foundation for a house that's on the verge of collapse? We had something that if not truly NEW, was certainly highly novel.
Then there's the "religion" thing -- look at how "gay marriage" is played up as an attack on JAAAAAAYZUSSS. As soon as you use the term "marriage," you've got bible-bangers picketing.
Another point: before you get married, you need to be single. Period. Taking up a new marriage contract when you've already got one in play is bigamy, punishable by law, & also concidered a sort of incipient tax fraud, so then you've got the Feds involved.
Marriage is a legally binding contract, enforced by government. In Minnesota, the one I signed was smaller than a half-sheet of typing paper. However, by signing it, you agree to the REAL contract, which (when you take all the localities into account) is hundreds of pages. It's like the TOS with your software: you tick the little box that says "I have read & agree to..." & if one of the clauses bites you on the ass, it's not only allowed, but you're admitting you DIDN'T actually read the contract like you'd claimed & therefore YOU are in violation.
Therefore, if you are in a standard dyadic marriage, you will first need to get divorced. That means establishing separate residences, spending a few thousand bucks to get the courts involved, setting up child support payments, liquidating assets (like selling the house), & possibly remaining apart for a court-established time period.
In other words, not simply a matter of moving the new hottie in & signing a form.
If it's easy to get out of, it's NOT marriage.
To use our business analogy: though marriage LOOKS like a short-form partnership agreement, it's actually just the signature block for a stack of paper setting up a greatly simplified corporation.
Speaking of which, I'm kinda slightly certain that "marriage" means you're living in one domicile. We figured this is another tax thing, most specifically income taxes, where the collectors aren't wild about anyone being able to freely shift their "primary residence" to wherever happens to momentarily have the best tax break. There won't be multi-domicile marriages.
And with marriage, there must necessarily be divorce. So, let's say that the triad starts to fray, & one is inclined to quit. Now recall that I said marriage is a "greatly simplified corporation." Part of that streamlining is that the corporation has exactly two states: extant, or dissolved. There is no such thing as "a partial marriage," so breaking up your married triad, quad, or commune means burning it to the ground. Go up a few paragraphs & reread how to get divorced. Enjoy dividing THOSE assets fairly.
So as members of PEP, which advocated polyfidelity & tended to sneer at us promiscuous types, we tolerated regular discussions of "legalizing poly marriage."
It's been 30+ years, & I still don't see the point of trying to legalize poly marriage.
Firstly, my bunch used to cal the concept regular marriage, just with more people. In other words, NOTHING earth-shaking, or ground-breaking, or even noticeably progressive -- the same old CRAP with a couple new lines & a few wording changes. There's an absolute refusal to examine extant marriage law, much less to straighten out the flaws inherent in an accreted patchwork of quasi-Xtian legislation from Federal law all the way down to village ordinances.
Why build a new foundation for a house that's on the verge of collapse? We had something that if not truly NEW, was certainly highly novel.
Then there's the "religion" thing -- look at how "gay marriage" is played up as an attack on JAAAAAAYZUSSS. As soon as you use the term "marriage," you've got bible-bangers picketing.
Another point: before you get married, you need to be single. Period. Taking up a new marriage contract when you've already got one in play is bigamy, punishable by law, & also concidered a sort of incipient tax fraud, so then you've got the Feds involved.
Marriage is a legally binding contract, enforced by government. In Minnesota, the one I signed was smaller than a half-sheet of typing paper. However, by signing it, you agree to the REAL contract, which (when you take all the localities into account) is hundreds of pages. It's like the TOS with your software: you tick the little box that says "I have read & agree to..." & if one of the clauses bites you on the ass, it's not only allowed, but you're admitting you DIDN'T actually read the contract like you'd claimed & therefore YOU are in violation.
Therefore, if you are in a standard dyadic marriage, you will first need to get divorced. That means establishing separate residences, spending a few thousand bucks to get the courts involved, setting up child support payments, liquidating assets (like selling the house), & possibly remaining apart for a court-established time period.
In other words, not simply a matter of moving the new hottie in & signing a form.
If it's easy to get out of, it's NOT marriage.
To use our business analogy: though marriage LOOKS like a short-form partnership agreement, it's actually just the signature block for a stack of paper setting up a greatly simplified corporation.
Speaking of which, I'm kinda slightly certain that "marriage" means you're living in one domicile. We figured this is another tax thing, most specifically income taxes, where the collectors aren't wild about anyone being able to freely shift their "primary residence" to wherever happens to momentarily have the best tax break. There won't be multi-domicile marriages.
And with marriage, there must necessarily be divorce. So, let's say that the triad starts to fray, & one is inclined to quit. Now recall that I said marriage is a "greatly simplified corporation." Part of that streamlining is that the corporation has exactly two states: extant, or dissolved. There is no such thing as "a partial marriage," so breaking up your married triad, quad, or commune means burning it to the ground. Go up a few paragraphs & reread how to get divorced. Enjoy dividing THOSE assets fairly.
Last edited:
