"Hence, it is in the best interests of the State to have two-person couples which have legal recognition, regardless of the gender of the individual."

How so? You've stated an opinion, but I don't see any backup for this opinion. Do you have any facts to back this up?

First - back up "states best interest to have stable 2-person relationships"
Second - back up "It is of less interest for their to be more than two people in a relationship"
Third - back up "gender does not matter"

I'm not saying I disagree or agree...but you have demonstrated no proof for you opinion.

How would it harm the state if I had a relationship with someone for a year, then a relationship with someone else for 3 years, then no relationship, then another one for x years, etc. All through this time, I have a job, I pay taxes on my income and property....what difference does it make to the state if I am "stable" or "unstable"?

Any financial harm to the state (which is the only "harm" you can do to the state") is because of the state's own invasive policies to begin with.

OK, on the OP's question...

I support polygamy as well as same sex marriages, but I can say that I see a distinct issue when it come to adoption. No matter what, only two of the members in the marriage should be allowed to adopt a kid. It would be too confusing to the kid to say "I have 3 dads and 10 moms". They can say "I have two dads" or "I have two moms" or "I have a dad and a mom" or even just reduce it down to one parent, but the brutality of other children and society in general makes it untenable for them to have to say "I have a lot of moms and dads". Plus, if there are other natural kids in the household, being the odd man out who doesn't know which adult to call "mom" or "dad" would be troublesome. But that is the only place where I think special circumstances come into play and even that can be handled by requiring the happy family to declare which two adults are the legal parents at adoption time.

Krellin,

You're right, I did make several statements without backing them up. Let me try to do so now:

To your first point: It's a bit difficult to argue that the State has an interest in stable relationships per se (though things like tax breaks suggest that such an interest may exist), but the State does have an interest in *recognizing* such relationships, for many of the same reasons that the State has an interest in recognizing familial relationships: property rights and inheritance, next-of-kin designations, legal visitation and spousal privilege rights, and so forth. These are important, not necessarily for the fiscal harm they impose or prevent directly, but for the ease-of-functioning of government. When a person dies, for example, without leaving a written will, it's important to know who is designated as next-of-kin -- that is, who is assumed to be meaningful in that person's life and the recipient of their possessions and outstanding obligations. A legally-recognized marriage is one way of designating that. Things like visitation rights for military families matter as well -- without being legally designated as related to a member of the military, you might not be allowed on a military base (for example). There are hundreds if not thousands of rights, privileges, and responsibilities that go along with being married, all of which are indications of the value the State places on recognition of a legally-recognized union.

As to stability itself, this is harder to argue, given that there are few (if any) legal provisions against rapidly marrying and divorcing. However, there is a reasonable implication one can draw from the types of benefits which are granted to legally-recognized unions: given that these benefits tend to revolve around property and familial connection, it can be assumed (but not proven) that such unions are intended to be relatively stable.

To your second point: Again, we must infer from the rights and responsibilities granted to legally-recognized unions. Such things as inheritance and spousal privilege against testifying, for example, quickly become unwieldy in unions of more than two people. Such a system could be open to far more abuse than our current marriage laws already are.

To your third point: The interests of the State regarding property and inheritance have no mention of gender for good reason -- gender is irrelevant. To the degree to which the State has an interest in the raising of children (which is a more tenuous case, but one which could be made by referencing, eg., Social Services and child protection/abuse laws), the evidence seems to indicate that children are best raised in loving, supportive, two-parent households -- but that the gender, sex, or sexual orientation of the individual parents seems to not have any meaningful impact. Thus there seems to be no reason for the State to have any interest in the gender or sex of two individuals in a legally-recognized union.

"How would it harm the state.... what difference does it make to the state if I am 'stable' or 'unstable'?" In your example, there really isn't an overriding state interest that should compel you to be in stable relationships, and there's no "harm" that I can see you doing to the state. I don't know where I implied that you were, but if I did, I revoke that implication.

"Any financial harm to the state (which is the only 'harm' you can do to the 'state') is because of the state's own invasive policies to begin with." I disagree here on two counts -- first, at least directly, you can harm the State in ways other than fiscal ones. Governments function to protect rights and provide services, and only one of those services is the regulation of financial interactions. Secondly, I would argue that there is not anything invasive about the rights and privileges granted through legally-recognized unions. It is just that -- legal recognition -- not anything invasive or prescribed. Individual couples come to the government for recognition, not the other way around.

Draug - you dilemma of a child being confused over who is the mom/dad/whatever (mom #2 ?) already exists in children who have divorced parents who split time between homes. The sociologists and smart people will tell you it's not a big deal, kids are remarkably adaptable, etc, won't they? So why should a child in a loving group home with two dads and three moms have any problem?

Alternately, up until recently I had a female neighbor with 4 kids by 3 dads. Dad # 3 (current husband) is still there, and Dads 1 and 2 visited a lot - partied with them and spent the night. The kids know which dad is theirs and pay attention to him. Dad #3 does minimal parenting of his not-mine-kids, who are old enough to ignore him.

IN general, the kids seem "well adjusted", get decent grades, participate in athletics, etc and are friendly to my daughters/my and I.

I'm not saying I "approve" of the demented household...but the kids are getting through life OK regardless.

Of course, I'd lay a bit of cash and decent odds that of the 3 girls, at least 2 of them get married and divorced multiple times, just like dear old Mom taught them....<sigh...>

@jmbostwick - All of your statements in support of your previous opinion are more opinions...

My opinion, which is against your opinion, says that any harm/benefit to "the state" by a stable/unstable relationship is *only* because the state has unnecessarily imposed itself in our lives. The state could minimize the harm/benefit by extricating itself from marriage altogether.

why should I get a tax break because I am married? How does that benefit the state? It could be said this punishes someone who was married, but who had a spouse die and can no longer, thought no fault of their own, claim such a benefit. It punishes those who, through no fault of their own, desire to get married but can't...it is blatantly "unfair" to provide a marriage benefit at all.

Regarding property rights, inheritence, etc....*none* of that should go through the states. When I die, there should be a legal document filed that says "give my stuff to X", who can be anyone I want, regardless of family relationships. Same goes with hospital visitation, etc.

When I'm 18, I have to sign up for selective service. Likewise, I should be given a card to fill out for my inheritance, etc. It's a name on a form for basic transfer. Do it at the Secretary of State when you renew your driver's license/state ID/register to vote....Then when you die, go to the hospital, etc, anyone can look up your inheritor in the state records. Boom...easy peasy.

Basically, all of your arguments are built on the premise that the Federal Government is an ATM machine meant to dole out cash and benefits to you and your spouse. THAT's the problem...

@krellin - But all those parents don't live in the same home. You are comparing apples and oranges, my friend. Imagine, if you will, if the divorcees remarried and then all moved in together. *That* is more akin to the group family where every adult is mom or dad.

"Secondly, I would argue that there is not anything invasive about the rights and privileges granted through legally-recognized unions. It is just that -- legal recognition -- not anything invasive or prescribed. Individual couples come to the government for recognition, not the other way around. "

Granting *privileges* means that the government is imposing itself in your life. It implies that there is something in society that is desirable and good, that you can only have if you do as the government demands...in this case, go through their marriage process - which in my previous post I have pointed out is an unfair system which in effect punishes those that choose not to, or can not, get married.

Individuals do not choose to come to the government to get marriage recognition. They usually go to their friends and church for that. They go to the government to register for their financial benefits that comes along with the social institution they choose to engage in.

If the Federal government ceased to exist tomorrow, individuals would still fall in love and "get married" within their given social group. People woudl consider them married once they declared it. Marriage is a social construct, not a government construct.

The Government has imposed themselves on marriage - as they do with everything else - to get at the money, to control behavior. "Do this which we deem good, and get this benefit...."

Also, krellin, widows *do* get the married tax rate. And actually, there is some argument that the married standard deduction, being less than two single deductions and less than head of household, results in a marriage penalty on taxes for two income households who make near equal money.

@Draug - I know my analogy was not 100% parallel....I'm simply saying that in our fucked up society, kids deal with all sorts of ridiculous family situations. Most kids adapt and move on to become productive adults, regardless of their fucked up household.

Therefore, I find it difficult to believe that a child raised in a "group marriage" would have any more issues than kids that live in households with a rotating fathership, etc.

For a more parallel situation, though, I will give you the example of a Foster child, who is raised in a group home my multiple adults, none of whom are the parents, and with other children from different families. Is it ideal? Hell no...do they grow up and join society? Yes. Are they any more fucked up than any other random kids? I doubt it...

I'd rather grow up with my 2 dads and 3 moms (assuming they are all loving one another), than in a government foster care facility, where I will be shuffled in an out of homes on occasion.

"Alternately, up until recently I had a female neighbor with 4 kids by 3 dads. Dad # 3 (current husband) is still there, and Dads 1 and 2 visited a lot - partied with them and spent the night. The kids know which dad is theirs and pay attention to him. Dad #3 does minimal parenting of his not-mine-kids, who are old enough to ignore him."

Exactly the point! The kids know which dad is there's! The adopted kid needs to know which dad is his. See how you just argued my case for me? That was a YJ move on your part, my friend. Classic YJ. Even if the case of divorces, the kids know who their biological/legal parent is.

@Draug - I was unaware of the widow-is-still-married deduction. Also, the "marriage penalty" in taxes was fixed years ago, under Clinton, I thought?

Regardless - there should be no benefit/privilege period, in my opinion. If two people live together, raise a child together, are wonderful people, contribute to the community, etc, but for whatever reason choose not to get married, they should not be benefited or punished.

The idea of "married filing jointly" ought to simply be to make filing taxes easier (for both filer and government to review). Beyond that, I should pay the exact same tax rate as anyone else at my income level, regardless of status.

@Draug,
"And actually, there is some argument that the married standard deduction, being less than two single deductions and less than head of household, results in a marriage penalty on taxes for two income households who make near equal money."

I've never understood this argument. The individual 2013 standard deduction was $6,100, and for a married couple it's $12,200, exactly double. I don't get where there's a so-called "marriage penalty".

@Draug - So the kid knows which dad is his -- how is that an argument against a group marriage?

@Draug - BTW - comparing me to YJ? That's a **low** blow! If I were YJ, I'd slander you name and run off like a bitch to create a "hey draug" thread. Speaking of YJ the Bitch...I'm still waiting for his reply to my addressing him in another thread. Such a fucking coward...

I guess it has been so many years since I have actually done my own taxes. I have an accountant (well H.R. Block actually) do them and I just sign on the dotted line (along with a guarantee from Block that they stand behind any audit should one come up). It used to be that the married deduction was about 1K less than two single deductions. When Peg worked, we always did two versions to see which get us the best deal, married filing joint and two married filing separates. So I just double checke dit and you are correct.

Krellin, take note, Look at a 1040 and you will see standard deduction of "Married filing jointly or Qualifying Widow" on the left hand column.

@Krellin - Please read and stop being J. I said this was easily handled by making adoptive households declare a legal pair of parents. I'm not against it at all. They just need to pick a pair the kid will call his mom and dad and everyone else can be step mom or dad, just like in a divorce.

There's the Head of Household deduction, which is like $8900 or something. Maybe that plays into the perception of a penalty somehow. I don't know what the requirements are for HoH.

All I know is that if there are any CPAs on the site who could explain it to me, they're probably too busy this time of year to take the time.

Krellin,

"All of your statements in support of your previous opinion are more opinions" -- This is disingenuous. I have stated several facts in my posts. It is a fact, for instance, that the interests of the State regarding property and inheritance have no mention of gender.

"Regarding property rights, inheritence, etc....*none* of that should go through the states....Then when you die, go to the hospital, etc, anyone can look up your inheritor in the state records. Boom...easy peasy." -- Sure! This is already all doable with our current laws. For many (but not all) of the benefits mentioned, you could file each piece of paperwork separately, and construct for yourself a situation you find ideal. However, for many people, the person they want to receive each of these benefits is the same person, and it makes sense to have in place a "one-stop shop", a shortcut for taking all applicable rights, responsibilities, and privileges of next-of-kinship and placing them with one person, a shortcut that represents the intersection between the lives of these two people, a sort of... union... recognized by the State.... in other words? A legally-recognized union. The State is (and all individuals are) benefited by having this prearranged set of rules which are easily adopted and applied to a particular relationship, AND (if desired) the ability to pick-and-choose one's desired rules a la cart -- that's the system we have in place currently. The issue with that system, and the reason that the "gay marriage" movement has such a strong case, is that you can not currently construct an a la cart union which provides *every* right, responsibility, and privilege which currently comes with a legally-recognized union. Thus, we have inequality between heterosexual unions and homosexual unions, and that inequality is what is being challenged in courts.

"If the Federal government ceased to exist tomorrow, individuals would still fall in love and "get married" within their given social group. People woudl consider them married once they declared it. Marriage is a social construct, not a government construct." -- This confusion exists because the word "marriage" is used in two very different contexts, and it's why I try to consistently refer to "marriage" as a religious/social ceremony, and "legally-recognized unions" as the governmental, civil union. Religious marriage is a social construct, but that's not what I've been discussing. I've been trying to constrain my discussion solely to the type of union in which the government has a say, that is, legally-recognized unions.

Getting rid of the government's recognition of "marriage" -- that is, getting rid of legally-recognized unions entirely -- is certainly an approach that is logically consistent. However, given that such unions DO exist at present, the act of changing them to encompass all two-person unions does not necessitate changing them to encompass unions of more than two individuals.

Hecks - There was a time when married had a smaller standard deduction than two singles, the thought being that "two could live almost as cheap as one" but this has since obviously been corrected. HoH is for single parents with kids typically, IIRC. And even that is a punishment of sorts. The idea though is good im that it increases the standard deduction for the single parent over single status.

A little research found this little nugget on the IRS web site.

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Tax-Withholding-Tables

In short, it wasn't Clinton who ended the tax penalty, but G.W. Bush. the 43rd President of the US. It points out that the standard deduction to married couples was raised to eliminate the marriage penalty.

@socrates - choose any subject, gun control, abortion, gay marriage, etc, etc and you will generally arrive at a compromise that suits no ones ideology completely and could seem bizarre if stretched to logical conclusions. To illustrate this few who support abortion would even consider abortion the day before delivery. Likewise few who oppose abortion would denying abortions in every circumstance. I haven't heard one pro gun lobby person argue to allow individuals to carry rocket launchers onto planes and to keep polonium at home, likewise those concerned about escalating violence don't all call for lactic knifes.

What this illustrates is that people can hold sensible opinions without having to give up their opinions because their underlying belief system is ridiculed when stretched to the limit.

"It points out that the standard deduction to married couples was raised to eliminate the marriage penalty."

As someone who was single when this happened, I'm outraged! As someone who is married now, I think it's the greatest thing that ever happened.

LOL! Love it, hecks!

Thanks hecks....that is exactly the point of why the government needs to just get the fuck out of marriage.

And deductions are just so fucked up anyway. All deductions are are the government black-mailing you in to behavior *they* think is good...impsing government morality on your life. "We think religion is good" saith the government, and *bam*, tax deduction for religious donations. "We think college is good" and *bam* tax deduction for college. We think....*bam*....*bam*....and the good little sheep think they are recieving a financial gift from the all-mighty government.

IN truth...they took too much money away from you, and are only returning the money they shouldn't not have taken *if* you are a good little sheep and *if* you are smart enough to take the deduction.

A Flat fucking tax is the *only* fair tax....No marriage deduction, no deductions period.

@Draug - "The idea though is good im that it increases the standard deduction for the single parent over single status." I am 100% behind this idea. Anyone who is the primary caretaker for a child should get a larger deduction. Never really thought about it before, however.

Orrrrr.....the government can stop overtaxing me to begin with, and then I don't need to beg to get my money back because I made the personal choice to pro-create...

I'm all for the flat tax with a standard "per person" and "per household" deduction. That or a conversion to a federal sales tax ala VAT so that necessities are not taxed but true luxuries are taxed more. Monthly bus/rail pass? Not taxed. New car under a certain value or used car? Moderate tax. Brand new luxury or sports car? Premium tax. Apartment dweller? Not taxed monthly. Home purchase? Taxed based on median home value of US Census region (i.e. Greater Cinci or Greater LA, not "Beverly Hills"). Above the typical home value by more than 20%? Premium tax, elsewise moderate tax. Pop/Soda? Taxed. Ground beef? Not taxed. Steak priced at $4 to $8 per pound (sirloins and maybe ribeyes)? Moderate tax. Premium steak like filet mignon? Premium tax. TV sets taxed with large screens and certain other premium sets premium taxed. But a low end microwave would not be, a medium level would be, and an over the stove hyper premium type would be premium taxed.

It truly does hit everyone fairly regardless of where the income comes from.

"A Flat fucking tax is the *only* fair tax." -- you're kidding, right?

"A flat fucking tax is the *only* fair tax."

A flat tax on fucking? So now Krellin wants to put a tax on sexual intercourse? Talk about government overreach! USA out of my pants!