Samoa Setting a Bad Example With Law Changes?

Laws should work against abusive, predatory behavior and stop interfering in the relationship rights of consenting adults. Looks like Samoa, which is tinkering with "sex crime" laws, still has a long way to go. This report was at rnzi.com... [POSSIBLE TRIGGERS]

The Attorney General, Aumua Ming Leung Wai, says the Crimes Act 2013 is an updated version of the crimes ordinance, which is over 50 years old and was missing a lot of new offences.

He says voyeurism is a new offence created under the act, and new cyber-crime offence provisions have been included as well as prohibiting the distribution of indecent material using mobile phones.

This report is vague. I'm assuming by voyeurism, they are referring to stalkers, or situation where someone expects privacy but is being watched. What qualifies as the criminal distribution of indecent material using mobile phones? I think bigoted statements are indecent. But is this law attempting to ban, say, images of nudes sent by one adult to another through mutual agreement? If so, that is ridiculous.

“For rape, it has always been life imprisonment as the maximum, so that has remained,

Good.

incest for example used to be seven years, but come the first of May this year it will increase to 20 years maximum imprisonment term,"

Wait a minute. There's already a good rape law that can result in life imprisonment. So the implication is that this is referring to consensual incest, or consanguinamory, which shouldn't be illegal in the first place, or do they mean rape by a close relative is somehow less egregious than rape by someone else?

Simplify. Remove "incest" from the law books. Have strong rape/molestation laws. Have sentence enhancements for rape/molestation by a guardian. Predatory behavior like that is a different thing than consensual sex.

Drop laws and other forms of discrimination against sex between consenting adults.

Read more »

Posted in: consanguineous,incest,law

Showtime's The Borgias Season 3 Episode 3

Don't read this entry yet if you don't want spoilers.

Curt Wagner at redeyechicago.com reports on where the series is going and interviews Francois Arnaud, who plays Cesare. Thanks to Wagner and Arnaud for how this was handled...

After fighting with Alfonso (Sebastian De Souza) at their wedding reception, Lucrezia (Holliday Grainger) crawled into bed with Cesare, who was shocked but didn't exactly protest his sister's boldness.

"Only a Borgia it seems, can truly love a Borgia," Lucrezia said. "Why deny yourself a pleasure for which we're already accused?"

With her reputation already slandered by rumors that the two are lovers, Lucrezia seeks comfort in the arms of her only safe harbor.

Whether or not it really happened between them, it happens with others today, as it has all throughout history.

For Arnaud, the sibling sex was a natural progression for the characters, who can't even trust their father.

"It felt like it was meant to happen. Of course they do have sexual feelings for one another, but it mostly comes from a deep, deep love," he said.

I've heard that many times.

I guess what I'm getting at is did you talk about the delicacy of it, and how viewers might react to incest. You know, "Don't look like you're just jumping bones."

There are so many emotions involved in that sexual act that it couldn't have been just jumping each other's bones. [Laughs.] There's a lot more involved and it's a lot of mixed emotions. When it happens there's pain, there's relief, there's the feeling that it was inevitable. There's also fear for the future and it all happens at once. And that's what love can be.

Consanguinamory is usually intense, and since there is currently so much prejudice towards the consanguinamorous, there are difficulties some other relationships don't face. There will be people who watch this who will identify strongly with the characters, because they are going through the same thing.

Will this be a problem for them throughout the season? Well it haunt him?

I can say that it's a major theme of the whole season to the very end. They have a very kind of Lady Macbeth relationship toward the end of the season.

What would you say to those viewers who might stop watching because incest is not best?

Is incest worse than murder? [Laughs.] People can be so prudish. This is so funny actually. It's like the MPAA ratings; I'm always surprised that like if someone walks out of the shower in the nude it can't be seen by 17-year-olds, but then 13-year-olds are allowed to go see people blowing up other people's heads for three hours. Amazing. I don't know what people are so afraid of.

Good points.

Are you watching? What do you think?

Read more »

Posted in: allies,brother-sister,consanguineous,love,media,prejudice,siblings

Showtime's The Borgias Season 3 Episode 3

Don't read this entry yet if you don't want spoilers.

Curt Wagner at redeyechicago.com reports on where the series is going and interviews Francois Arnaud, who plays Cesare. Thanks to Wagner and Arnaud for how this was handled...

After fighting with Alfonso (Sebastian De Souza) at their wedding reception, Lucrezia (Holliday Grainger) crawled into bed with Cesare, who was shocked but didn't exactly protest his sister's boldness.

"Only a Borgia it seems, can truly love a Borgia," Lucrezia said. "Why deny yourself a pleasure for which we're already accused?"

With her reputation already slandered by rumors that the two are lovers, Lucrezia seeks comfort in the arms of her only safe harbor.

Whether or not it really happened between them, it happens with others today, as it has all throughout history.

For Arnaud, the sibling sex was a natural progression for the characters, who can't even trust their father.

"It felt like it was meant to happen. Of course they do have sexual feelings for one another, but it mostly comes from a deep, deep love," he said.

I've heard that many times.

I guess what I'm getting at is did you talk about the delicacy of it, and how viewers might react to incest. You know, "Don't look like you're just jumping bones."

There are so many emotions involved in that sexual act that it couldn't have been just jumping each other's bones. [Laughs.] There's a lot more involved and it's a lot of mixed emotions. When it happens there's pain, there's relief, there's the feeling that it was inevitable. There's also fear for the future and it all happens at once. And that's what love can be.

Consanguinamory is usually intense, and since there is currently so much prejudice towards the consanguinamorous, there are difficulties some other relationships don't face. There will be people who watch this who will identify strongly with the characters, because they are going through the same thing.

Will this be a problem for them throughout the season? Well it haunt him?

I can say that it's a major theme of the whole season to the very end. They have a very kind of Lady Macbeth relationship toward the end of the season.

What would you say to those viewers who might stop watching because incest is not best?

Is incest worse than murder? [Laughs.] People can be so prudish. This is so funny actually. It's like the MPAA ratings; I'm always surprised that like if someone walks out of the shower in the nude it can't be seen by 17-year-olds, but then 13-year-olds are allowed to go see people blowing up other people's heads for three hours. Amazing. I don't know what people are so afraid of.

Good points.

Are you watching? What do you think?

Read more »

Posted in: allies,brother-sister,consanguineous,love,media,prejudice,siblings

Case in Georgia Highlights Arbitrary Restrictions

The age of consent in the US state of Georgia is 16. A girl who is 16 can legally consent to group sex with complete strangers, or sex with a 50-year-old man who has been her next-door-neighbor all of her life, or a 30-year-old cage fighting champion. But she can't consent to have sex with a certain someone she knows. Amanda Thomas reports at douglascountysentinel.com...

A Mableton man is facing an incest charge after the 17-year-old victim apparently gave birth to his child.

Richard Andrew Cosden, 44, appeared in Douglas County court Wednesday charged with 12 counts of incest. According to Assistant District Attorney Anna Vaughn, the victim's mother became suspicious that Cosden could possibly the the child's father.

"She did take a toothbrush of the defendant and swabbed the mouth of the baby," Vaughn said. "She got a DNA test and that is conclusive that the defendant is in fact the father of the 17-year-old's child.

Again, the age of consent is 16, and notice he was charged with "incest," not rape or assault. Also notice that the "victim's mother" apparently didn't get confirmation from the alleged victim, and instead confirmed her suspicions through secretly using the DNA test.

In an interview that has already taken place, he has admitted to having sexual intercourse with the 17-year-old victim in this case at least 12 times. He only admits it from the age of 16 beyond. However, there is indications that there may be something that has happened prior to that."

Then he should be charged with that crime, rather than smeared with innuendo.

The defendant has an 11-year-old with the woman who turned him in.

Some of the comments left were interesting, but of course we have no way of knowing if the comments are accurate...

mommy2012wrote... 

The 17 YEAR OLD IS his step daughter not bio. And as i have been told she has admitted to family/friends it WAS 100% consentUAL 

Not making excuses but the story here isn't the hole thing and also has stuff in it that is not true!

popo2 wrote...

A minor can not give consent.... better yet he's a step dad who took advantage of a kid he's sick I pray he gets rapped n jail everyday, for it, u sick mofo.... nothing he says is goin to make this situation ok period she's was a kid. If ur making excuses for him ur as messed up as he is bc this isn't normal it's freaking sick.....

Again, the age of consent in Georgia is 16. Don't like it? Raise it.

And again, if he's a predator, charge him with rape or assault. But if this was consensual sex, how about a little more consistency in the law?

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,breaking up homes,children,family reaction,father-daughter,Georgia,incest,law,prosecution

The B in LGBT

Assumptions are made about bisexuals that might not be true for any individual bisexual, and there are even gays, lesbians, and allies of gays and lesbians who deny bisexuality is even a real thing. But it is. And bisexuals are not all the same.

Jillian Page wrote at montrealgazette.com about the diversity of bisexuals, and about polyamory.

It can be difficult sometimes being a bisexual polyamorous person (at heart) in a committed relationship with a monogamous person.

Yes, it can.

I’ve been reading yet another good article on the UsBiGirls site, this one about the different types of bisexuality.

More on that article below.

Basically, love transcends gender for me. It’s about the inner spiritual connection. Not that I don’t love sex — I am not ready to join a convent yet. I do love sex with both genders.

The article says there are millions of bisexuals in the world who do not “out” themselves. I’m wondering if that’s because so many of them don’t really have the opportunity to practice bisexuality, just as there are polyamorous-at-heart people who don’t have the opportunity to live it.

Yes, that could very well be.


That article at usbigirls.com is worth a read.

A significant percentage of people experience sexual and emotional attractions and feelings towards people of both genders, at varying times throughout their lives. Thus bisexuality is an all-encompassing term. Many find the term too vague and all-inclusive, lacking the definition to describe their particular sexuality, and prefer the labels pansexual, non-preferential, sexually fluid, ambi-sexual, or queer.

Alfred Kinsey's sexual orientation scale allows for a continuum of zero to six. Heterosexuals score at zero and homosexuals score at six. That leaves the entire inside range of his scale in the bisexuality realm.

Some people prefer to simply avoid labels and say they are in love with, or attracted to, or happy being with this person and, sometimes, this person and this person as well. They say it isn't about the gender, it is about the person.

Bisexual people are a very diverse group. Psychologist J.R. Little has identified at least 13 types of bisexuality in his extensive research on the subject. If you identify as bisexual, perhaps one of these will sound familiar to your particular sexual orientation.

I'd like to list of all them here, but you should click through to read the entire list and explanation. Here's a taste...

5. Emotional - This type is primarily either gay or straight, but has intimate emotional relationships with the other gender.

6. Integrated - This bisexual has more than one primary relationship at the same time with both genders. An example would be a polyamorous woman, living with her husband and another woman, with both relationships taking a primary position with a long term commitment.

While some form of bisexuality (or heteroflexibility or homoflexibility) are common in polyamorous people, there are bisexuals who are monogamous. Whether someone is bisexual or not, she or he should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults. That's why this blog is here.

Read more »

Posted in: bisexual,LGBT,myths

The B in LGBT

Assumptions are made about bisexuals that might not be true for any individual bisexual, and there are even gays, lesbians, and allies of gays and lesbians who deny bisexuality is even a real thing. But it is. And bisexuals are not all the same.

Jillian Page wrote at montrealgazette.com about the diversity of bisexuals, and about polyamory.

It can be difficult sometimes being a bisexual polyamorous person (at heart) in a committed relationship with a monogamous person.

Yes, it can.

I’ve been reading yet another good article on the UsBiGirls site, this one about the different types of bisexuality.

More on that article below.

Basically, love transcends gender for me. It’s about the inner spiritual connection. Not that I don’t love sex — I am not ready to join a convent yet. I do love sex with both genders.

The article says there are millions of bisexuals in the world who do not “out” themselves. I’m wondering if that’s because so many of them don’t really have the opportunity to practice bisexuality, just as there are polyamorous-at-heart people who don’t have the opportunity to live it.

Yes, that could very well be.


That article at usbigirls.com is worth a read.

A significant percentage of people experience sexual and emotional attractions and feelings towards people of both genders, at varying times throughout their lives. Thus bisexuality is an all-encompassing term. Many find the term too vague and all-inclusive, lacking the definition to describe their particular sexuality, and prefer the labels pansexual, non-preferential, sexually fluid, ambi-sexual, or queer.

Alfred Kinsey's sexual orientation scale allows for a continuum of zero to six. Heterosexuals score at zero and homosexuals score at six. That leaves the entire inside range of his scale in the bisexuality realm.

Some people prefer to simply avoid labels and say they are in love with, or attracted to, or happy being with this person and, sometimes, this person and this person as well. They say it isn't about the gender, it is about the person.

Bisexual people are a very diverse group. Psychologist J.R. Little has identified at least 13 types of bisexuality in his extensive research on the subject. If you identify as bisexual, perhaps one of these will sound familiar to your particular sexual orientation.

I'd like to list of all them here, but you should click through to read the entire list and explanation. Here's a taste...

5. Emotional - This type is primarily either gay or straight, but has intimate emotional relationships with the other gender.

6. Integrated - This bisexual has more than one primary relationship at the same time with both genders. An example would be a polyamorous woman, living with her husband and another woman, with both relationships taking a primary position with a long term commitment.

While some form of bisexuality (or heteroflexibility or homoflexibility) are common in polyamorous people, there are bisexuals who are monogamous. Whether someone is bisexual or not, she or he should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults. That's why this blog is here.

Read more »

Posted in: bisexual,LGBT,myths

Zimbabwe Still Prosecuting Consenting Adults

I found this report at newsdzezimbabwe.co.uk and I had a difficult time believing it...

Cousins Patrick Zingwena, 24, and Josephine Muonde, 19, whose love for each other led to a sexual relationship have escaped jail and will have to perform 140 hours of community service.

They are consenting adults. Why should anyone care if they are cousins? First cousins can legally marry in many countries around the word, and such marriages are common. In about half of US states, the bigotry against marriage equality does extend to banning marriage between first cousins, but other states are more reasonable.

The two cousins, who were found naked in bed by another relative, were found guilty of having sexual intercourse within a prohibited degree of relationship by magistrate Tsatsawani Ndaba.

So another relative, probably jealous, ratted them out and Tsatsawani Ndaba went through with this farce of a prosecution.

Ndaba had sentenced the two to eight months in prison but suspended four months on condition of good behaviour while the incestuous relatives will have to refocus their sexual energies doing community service for the remaining four months.

Prosecutor Ernest Zhanda told the court that sometime last year, the two cousins were staying with their uncle Jefias in Kuwadzana when he was told that the two frequently shared the same bed.

So what???

The two admitted that they were in love and were having sexual intercourse regularly.

What's wrong with that?

The report then goes on to something with less priority...

Meanwhile, a Harare man who set his wife ablaze after pouring gallons of paraffin on her body was yesterday granted a $50 bail.

Sidwell Nyambirai, 38, was remanded out of custody to May 22 by magistrate Don Ndirowei.

It is alleged that on April 9 this year, Nyambirai set his wife on fire after having a domestic altercation with her.

The woman is said to have been rushed to Harare Hospital’s Intensive care unit where she died 10 days later.

Murder-by-arson takes second billing to consensual sex? 

Attention journalists: Domestic violence leading to murder is real crime. Consensual sex shouldn't be.

Attention lawmakers and law enforcement: Stop the absurdity of prosecuting and otherwise discriminating against adult for consensual sex.

Read more »

Posted in: Africa,consanguineous,courts,cousins,family reaction,incest,lack of equality harms,media,persecution,prosecution,Zimbabwe

Bloggers Test Anti-SLAPP Law in Defamation Suit

Shirley Sherrod

There is a case pending in Washington, D.C. that involves the intersection of blogging and defamation and tests D.C.'s brand new anti-SLAPP law.  SLAPP stands for "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation" -these injunctive laws are designed to provide defamation defendants immediate substantive protections against meritless libel suits -suits filed solely to silence a particular voice.

We all recall when former federal employee Shirley Sherrod had a video of her public comments edited and blog-posted by the recently-deceased conservative blogger, Andrew Breitbart.  The [deceptively] edited video made Sherrod, then a USDA official, look like she was making publicly racist comments about a white farmer seeking USDA assistance to save his farm from foreclosure.

In fact, Sherrod's un-edited statement showed she was telling a story from her past to illustrate the possibility of racial reconciliation.  The truth came out too late, however, to save Sherrod's job at the USDA.  And when it finally did come out, Sherrod rejected the Obama Administration's public apology-laced offer of re-employment.

Instead, she sued Breitbart and his assistant in the District of Colombia Superior Court for defamation; the defendants removed the case to federal court.  Sherrod claimed that the video intentionally and deceptively altered her public comments, causing her loss of employment and stress that has now affected her health.

The defendant-bloggers claimed they were merely expressing a political opinion through posting the edited video and filed a motion to dismiss the suit on anti-SLAPP grounds.  The motion was denied by the trial judge and oral arguments on the appeal were heard by the United States District Court for the District of Colombia last month.

A decision in the case is expected soon.

We here at the Law Blogger await this decision to see how the D.C. anti-SLAPP legislation fares in one of the first, and certainly most high profile, cases to test the law governing free speech through blogging, and its limits, in our nation's capital.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: Andrew Breitbart,blogging,First Amendment,free speech,Shirley Sherrod,SLAPP,United States Circuit Court of Appeals

Group Calls on New Zealand to Keep Evolving

New Zealand just adopted the limited same-gender freedom to marry, but as this article at stuff.co.nz by Kristy McMurray shows, there's more progress to be made.

A group is calling for the Government to consider legalising multi-partner marriages.

The group set up a Facebook page just before the Marriage Amendment Bill passed through Parliament last week, legalising gay marriage.

A statement on the page described multi-partner - or polyamorous - marriage as "responsible, adult, committed non-monogamy," and said all committed loving relationships between adults regardless of number should be respected and given legal acknowledgement.

I wasn't able to find the group. Usually, I'm pretty good at that. However, people could ask to join the Facebook group I Support Full Marriage Equality.

There is no good reason to deny that we must keep evolving until an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, monogamy or polyamory, race, or religion is free to marry any and all consenting adults. The limited same-gender freedom to marry is a great and historic step, but is NOT full marriage equality, because equality "just for some" is not equality. Let's stand up for EVERY ADULT'S right to marry the person(s) they love. Get on the right side of history!

Read more »

Posted in: allies,freedom to marry,New Zealand,polyamory,polygamy,solidarity

Group Calls on New Zealand to Keep Evolving

New Zealand just adopted the limited same-gender freedom to marry, but as this article at stuff.co.nz by Kristy McMurray shows, there's more progress to be made.

A group is calling for the Government to consider legalising multi-partner marriages.

The group set up a Facebook page just before the Marriage Amendment Bill passed through Parliament last week, legalising gay marriage.

A statement on the page described multi-partner - or polyamorous - marriage as "responsible, adult, committed non-monogamy," and said all committed loving relationships between adults regardless of number should be respected and given legal acknowledgement.

I wasn't able to find the group. Usually, I'm pretty good at that. However, people could ask to join the Facebook group I Support Full Marriage Equality.

There is no good reason to deny that we must keep evolving until an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, monogamy or polyamory, race, or religion is free to marry any and all consenting adults. The limited same-gender freedom to marry is a great and historic step, but is NOT full marriage equality, because equality "just for some" is not equality. Let's stand up for EVERY ADULT'S right to marry the person(s) they love. Get on the right side of history!

Read more »

Posted in: allies,freedom to marry,New Zealand,polyamory,polygamy,solidarity

300th Blog Post - Thank You Readers

We here at the Law Blogger [the attorneys of Clarkston Legal, also known as Karlstrom Cooney] would like to thank our loyal readers and those that follow this blog.

This is our 300th post.  Three hundred: a perfect game in bowling; an excellent batting average in the bigs; the length of Noah's Arc, in cubits, and one of this blogger's favorite movies.

We started this blog with our first post back on March 30, 2009, on the topic of a lesbian couple litigating their right to adopt a child here in Michigan.

In the four years that we've been up and running with the Oakland Press, there have been almost 160,000 page views and we've received 438 published comments.  Minor league stats in the overall blogosphere, but hopefully relevant to our local readers.

In these years we have attempted to post interesting law-related information that our readers find useful and informative.  Some of the more important topics we've covered in our posts include:

• cell phone use and texting while driving, especially where teenagers are concerned;
• the "Superdrunk" driving law;
• same-sex marriage cases from their initial filings through the recent oral arguments at SCOTUS;
• privacy laws in the Big Data era;
• Second Amendment cases at SCOTUS;
• Obamacare at SCOTUS and now that the new laws are scheduled to take effect in the workplace;
• divorce and family law developments, especially child custody matters;
• the juvenile lifer laws recently decided by SCOTUS;
• significant developments in the criminal law; and
• occasionally, high-profile cases and local personalities that have intersected with the legal system or criminal justice system.

Before we begin work on our next 300 posts, we would like to also thank the Oakland Press and its editorial staff for their support and encouragement over the years.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: 300,child custody,divorce,family law,juvenile lifer law,lawyer,Oakland Press,SCOTUS,Second Amendment

Rhode Island Should Make a Bold Move For Equality

Rachel Weiner reports at washingtonpost.com on developments in Rhode Island...

In Rhode Island, an entire delegation to the state Senate backs gay marriage - and it’s the Republicans.

Rhode Island Public Radio reports that all five Republican members of the state’s upper chamber will support a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in the state.

The state House voted in favor of gay marriage earlier this year; it’s now before the  Senate Judiciary Committee and could see a vote in the full Senate by the end of the week. 

Other states within the US are progressing, too, including Illinois, Nevada, and Delaware. In other countries, New Zealand just adopted the limited same-gender freedom to marry, France is coming online, and there is progress elsewhere as well.

Rhode Island is in a unique position for US states as far as adopting full marriage equality as it has no laws against consanguinamory. This means that there are currently consanguinamorous households existing in the Rhode Island without violating any laws. The citizens of Rhode Island in such relationships should also have their right to marry, if that is what they want to do.

The lawmakers of Rhode Island should adopt a law that reflects this policy...

An adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution, harassment, or discrimination.

There are many reasons why they should do this.

1. There are adults in Rhode Island, and in some cases their children, suffering right now because of discriminatory laws preventing them from marrying. If we really care about children, equality, stability, security, and valuing family, we will let people decide for themselves what kind of relationships they will have, including marriage, if they want to marry.

2. As US Supreme Court precedent states, marriage is a fundamental civil right.

3. As US Supreme Court precedent states, when the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, the usual deference to the legislature is inappropriate, and the Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.

4. Freedom of association for consenting adults is a basic Constitutional right. Just as there is no good reason to ban interracial relationships or marriage, there is no good reason to ban same-gender relationships or marriages, polyamorous relationships or polygamous marriages, or consanguinamorous relationships or consanguineous marriages. There is no good reason to limit marriage to narrowly exogamous heterosexual couples.

5. Freedom of religion is a basic Constitutional right. One group’s religion should not deny the rights of other consenting adults to be together or marry. Conversely, some religions recognize or promote marriages currently banned under laws in most or all fifty states, depending on the marriages.

6. Such legislation will provide what the Constitution requires: equal protection, rather than a piecemeal approach of this freedom to marry or that form of civil union. Equality just for some, or in some aspects but not others, is notequality. The Constitutional principles of equal protection, freedom of association, freedom of religion, and the right to privacy, along with basic fairness, rational reflection, and compassion, necessitate that the the state ensure the rights of all adults.

7. The momentum within the US, neighboring countries, and the modern world is for marriage equality. Full marriage equality is inevitable, as even many opponents of equality admit. So it is pointless to drag the fight out.

8. Recognizing relationships rights, including full marriage equality, for all adults is good for business, as many businesses have publicly stated. Their employees will no longer be treated as second-class citizens.

Nobody should be denied the freedom to marry other consenting adults.

There are people who love each other, who have been living as spouses, even have children together, who are denied their rights, who need and want full marriage equality.

Let’s get on the right side of history sooner rather than later, and put the hate, bigotry, and bullying behind us. Rhode Island should protect the rights of all adults in the state.

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,consanguineous,freedom to marry,law,LGBT,marriage equality,polyamory,Rhode Island

Rhode Island Should Make a Bold Move For Equality

Rachel Weiner reports at washingtonpost.com on developments in Rhode Island...

In Rhode Island, an entire delegation to the state Senate backs gay marriage - and it’s the Republicans.

Rhode Island Public Radio reports that all five Republican members of the state’s upper chamber will support a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in the state.

The state House voted in favor of gay marriage earlier this year; it’s now before the  Senate Judiciary Committee and could see a vote in the full Senate by the end of the week. 

Other states within the US are progressing, too, including Illinois, Nevada, and Delaware. In other countries, New Zealand just adopted the limited same-gender freedom to marry, France is coming online, and there is progress elsewhere as well.

Rhode Island is in a unique position for US states as far as adopting full marriage equality as it has no laws against consanguinamory. This means that there are currently consanguinamorous households existing in the Rhode Island without violating any laws. The citizens of Rhode Island in such relationships should also have their right to marry, if that is what they want to do.

The lawmakers of Rhode Island should adopt a law that reflects this policy...

An adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution, harassment, or discrimination.

There are many reasons why they should do this.

1. There are adults in Rhode Island, and in some cases their children, suffering right now because of discriminatory laws preventing them from marrying. If we really care about children, equality, stability, security, and valuing family, we will let people decide for themselves what kind of relationships they will have, including marriage, if they want to marry.

2. As US Supreme Court precedent states, marriage is a fundamental civil right.

3. As US Supreme Court precedent states, when the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, the usual deference to the legislature is inappropriate, and the Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.

4. Freedom of association for consenting adults is a basic Constitutional right. Just as there is no good reason to ban interracial relationships or marriage, there is no good reason to ban same-gender relationships or marriages, polyamorous relationships or polygamous marriages, or consanguinamorous relationships or consanguineous marriages. There is no good reason to limit marriage to narrowly exogamous heterosexual couples.

5. Freedom of religion is a basic Constitutional right. One group’s religion should not deny the rights of other consenting adults to be together or marry. Conversely, some religions recognize or promote marriages currently banned under laws in most or all fifty states, depending on the marriages.

6. Such legislation will provide what the Constitution requires: equal protection, rather than a piecemeal approach of this freedom to marry or that form of civil union. Equality just for some, or in some aspects but not others, is notequality. The Constitutional principles of equal protection, freedom of association, freedom of religion, and the right to privacy, along with basic fairness, rational reflection, and compassion, necessitate that the the state ensure the rights of all adults.

7. The momentum within the US, neighboring countries, and the modern world is for marriage equality. Full marriage equality is inevitable, as even many opponents of equality admit. So it is pointless to drag the fight out.

8. Recognizing relationships rights, including full marriage equality, for all adults is good for business, as many businesses have publicly stated. Their employees will no longer be treated as second-class citizens.

Nobody should be denied the freedom to marry other consenting adults.

There are people who love each other, who have been living as spouses, even have children together, who are denied their rights, who need and want full marriage equality.

Let’s get on the right side of history sooner rather than later, and put the hate, bigotry, and bullying behind us. Rhode Island should protect the rights of all adults in the state.

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,consanguineous,freedom to marry,law,LGBT,marriage equality,polyamory,Rhode Island

Excellent Article on Polyamorous Triad

This article by Patrick Barkham at guardian.co.uk has been getting much notice in polyamory circles. It involves a FFF triad with a cisgendered woman and two trans women.

Zoe O'Connell, left, Sarah Brown, centre, and Sylvia Knight, who live together in a polyamorous relationship. Photograph: Sarah Lee for the Guardian

The article starts with a young man and woman falling in love and marrying, and then says years into the marriage...

The young man became Sarah, now a chatty, self-assured city councillor who lives in Cambridge. A stereotypical way of describing trans women in childhood is to say they feel like "a girl trapped in a boy's body," says Sarah, but she believes few people think at that level. "As a kid, I assumed that everybody wanted to be a girl and some people were lucky enough to be born that way. Then it very rapidly became clear that this was something that we did not talk about and it got buried very, very deep inside."

Suppression brings pain.

Only a small minority of marriages survive one partner changing sex and Sarah is no longer married to Sylvia, the woman she fell in love with when they were students. But this is only because the law forbids two women to be married.

That's cruel.

When Sarah completed her transition with gender-reassignment surgery in January 2007, she and Sylvia were compelled to divorce, despite the fact that they were very much together. So they are now civil partners instead, with a wedding album and a divorce certificate stowed away in a drawer in their house.

At best, that's good for a pained chuckle. But it is very insulting.

Sylvia and Sarah hope to remarry when the marriage (same-sex couples) bill becomes law, but their original marriage can never be restored in the eyes of the law. "When the registrar pronounced us civil partners it felt like the state was kicking us in the teeth," adds Sarah.

We can't change the past, but we can be damn sure to make the future better.

The article goes on to explain how they met Zoe O'Connell, a another trans woman. Here's how the relationship became polyamorous...

Some months later, Sarah and Zoe went to Brighton again to support a mutual friend's surgery and this time shared a twin-bedded hotel room. "There was sexual tension in the room," remembers Sarah, laughing. Sarah and Zoe were falling in love.

Feeling increasingly stressed about their feelings, Sarah, Zoe and Sylvia sat down to talk and, together, they "renegotiated the bounds of the existing relationship," as Sarah puts it.

Soon afterwards, Zoe moved into Sarah and Sylvia's house. At first, they tried sleeping together in a big bed but the person in the middle was always very uncomfortable. Now Zoe has her own room and often sleeps there, although the three all move between bedrooms.

How does being a triad work for them?

Isn't three fundamentally an awkward number? "It can be really handy," says Sylvia. "If two of us are massively disagreeing about whether to do something around the house, we can have someone to break the deadlock. As long as you're careful enough so it doesn't end up with two people picking on one."

"We're all adult enough not to do that," adds Sarah.

Their relationship is a "triangle" (a "V-shaped" polyamorous relationship in which not all three members of the relationship are connected would be more tricky, they say), and they share many passions.

There's a lot more to the article; click through to read everything. Much thanks to The Guardian and to Barkham, and much thanks to the triad for having the courage to speak up and be featured. They are another example of why the limited same-gender freedom to marry, while a good step, is not enough. Full marriage equality is needed, so that an adult is free to marry any and all consenting adults.

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,coming out,family reaction,freedom to marry,lack of equality harms,law,LGBT,love,media,polyamory,same-sex,UK

Excellent Article on Polyamorous Triad

This article by Patrick Barkham at guardian.co.uk has been getting much notice in polyamory circles. It involves a FFF triad with a cisgendered woman and two trans women.

Zoe O'Connell, left, Sarah Brown, centre, and Sylvia Knight, who live together in a polyamorous relationship. Photograph: Sarah Lee for the Guardian

The article starts with a young man and woman falling in love and marrying, and then says years into the marriage...

The young man became Sarah, now a chatty, self-assured city councillor who lives in Cambridge. A stereotypical way of describing trans women in childhood is to say they feel like "a girl trapped in a boy's body," says Sarah, but she believes few people think at that level. "As a kid, I assumed that everybody wanted to be a girl and some people were lucky enough to be born that way. Then it very rapidly became clear that this was something that we did not talk about and it got buried very, very deep inside."

Suppression brings pain.

Only a small minority of marriages survive one partner changing sex and Sarah is no longer married to Sylvia, the woman she fell in love with when they were students. But this is only because the law forbids two women to be married.

That's cruel.

When Sarah completed her transition with gender-reassignment surgery in January 2007, she and Sylvia were compelled to divorce, despite the fact that they were very much together. So they are now civil partners instead, with a wedding album and a divorce certificate stowed away in a drawer in their house.

At best, that's good for a pained chuckle. But it is very insulting.

Sylvia and Sarah hope to remarry when the marriage (same-sex couples) bill becomes law, but their original marriage can never be restored in the eyes of the law. "When the registrar pronounced us civil partners it felt like the state was kicking us in the teeth," adds Sarah.

We can't change the past, but we can be damn sure to make the future better.

The article goes on to explain how they met Zoe O'Connell, a another trans woman. Here's how the relationship became polyamorous...

Some months later, Sarah and Zoe went to Brighton again to support a mutual friend's surgery and this time shared a twin-bedded hotel room. "There was sexual tension in the room," remembers Sarah, laughing. Sarah and Zoe were falling in love.

Feeling increasingly stressed about their feelings, Sarah, Zoe and Sylvia sat down to talk and, together, they "renegotiated the bounds of the existing relationship," as Sarah puts it.

Soon afterwards, Zoe moved into Sarah and Sylvia's house. At first, they tried sleeping together in a big bed but the person in the middle was always very uncomfortable. Now Zoe has her own room and often sleeps there, although the three all move between bedrooms.

How does being a triad work for them?

Isn't three fundamentally an awkward number? "It can be really handy," says Sylvia. "If two of us are massively disagreeing about whether to do something around the house, we can have someone to break the deadlock. As long as you're careful enough so it doesn't end up with two people picking on one."

"We're all adult enough not to do that," adds Sarah.

Their relationship is a "triangle" (a "V-shaped" polyamorous relationship in which not all three members of the relationship are connected would be more tricky, they say), and they share many passions.

There's a lot more to the article; click through to read everything. Much thanks to The Guardian and to Barkham, and much thanks to the triad for having the courage to speak up and be featured. They are another example of why the limited same-gender freedom to marry, while a good step, is not enough. Full marriage equality is needed, so that an adult is free to marry any and all consenting adults.

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,coming out,family reaction,freedom to marry,lack of equality harms,law,LGBT,love,media,polyamory,same-sex,UK

Michigan Supreme Court Considers Family Court Judge's Lack of Candor

Wayne Circuit Family Court Judge Deborah Ross Adams

Truly, divorce is Hell.  No one can attest to this more directly than embattled Wayne County Family Court Judge Deborah Ross Adams.

After 3-years of her own gruelling divorce proceeding [understandably transferred from Wayne County to the Oakland County Family Court] during which Judge Adams ducked media-scrutiny of the disintegration of her 30-plus year marriage, the good Judge really hit the jackpot when her attempts to "right a wrong" at the midnight hour of her divorce went totally awry.

The divorce case went awry due to Judge Adams' own self-defeating and over-reaching conduct.  Both the Judicial Tenure Commission and a Special Master appointed by the Michigan Supreme Court found earlier this year that Judge Adams lied to the judge presiding over her divorce proceedings and signed her former attorney's name to a  petition without his permission, recommending a 180-day suspension without pay.

The appellate lawyer for the Judicial Tenure Commission even went beyond the recommended 180-day suspension, asserting in oral arguments before the Michigan Supreme Court that because Judge Adams has such little respect for the truth, that because she willfully misled a tribunal and jurist [i.e. Oakland Circuit Judge Mary Ellen Brennan] in open court, she did not deserve her elected seat on the Wayne County Family Court.

For his part, our friend Cyril Hall had his hands full on behalf of Judge Adams during the High Court oral arguments.  Mr. Hall emphasized his client's exemplary judicial record while downplaying the materiality of her one-time lies under Oath during a pro-confesso divorce proceeding.

Justices Robert Young and Stephen Markman pressed Mr. Hall on the importance of truth within a judicial proceeding, no matter how perfunctory, and queried whether his client was perhaps held to a higher standard, being herself a family court jurist facing a similar docket as Judge Brennan here in Oakland County.

Justice Markman, in particular, asked Cyril to "fill-in-the-blank" for the following statement:

This Court [Supreme Court] preserves the integrity of the judiciary, and maintains public trust in that judiciary, by allowing a judge to remain on the bench despite having testified falsely under oath, because...[why?].

Mr. Hall simply did not have a good answer for Justice Markman.

Having listened to the oral arguments, we here at the Law Blogger predict that the Supreme Court will uphold the Judicial Tenure Commission's recommended suspension, but will decline the request of the JTC's attorney to remove Judge Adams from the Wayne County bench.  Even Justice Young noted that this requested sanction exceeded the appellate attorney's own client's recommendation.

Hopefully for the family law litigants that will appear before Judge Adams in the upcoming years, assuming she survives this personal and professional setback and retakes her position on the Wayne Circuit's Family Court, she will have learned a valuable bedrock lesson upon which our entire legal structure is based: the truth matters in any and all judicial proceedings.

Post Script:  Judge Adams was removed as a judge by the Michigan Supreme Court's decision.  In August 2013, Governor Snyder appointed Bodman attorney Charles Hegarty to fill this judicial vacancy.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: Cyril Hall,divorce,Judge Deborah Ross Adams,Michigan Supreme Court,Oakland County divorce,Oakland County Family Court,Oakland County Judge Mary Ellen Brennan,Wayne County Circuit Court

Natural Consanguinity

Thanks to a friend of FME who sent me this article. Back in 2007, Heidi Ledford reported at nature.com about a study of a fish species revealing some interesting facts.

Timo Thünken

Given a choice, the cichlid Pelvicachromis taeniatus, often found in aquariums, prefers to mate with siblings nearly three times out of four.

Doesn't sound like the Westermarck Effect is present in them.

And males who shacked up with their sisters spent more time guarding their fry and less time fighting with their mate than unrelated couples.

Sounds like they are protecting their genes.

The end result was happy families and healthy kids.

Imagine that.

While a normal copy of a gene can sometimes mask a mutation, offspring that inherit two mutated copies lack any such protection. This can make inbred offspring less able to survive or reproduce.

But Timo Thünken and his collaborators at the University of Bonn in Germany found that inbred and outbred P. taeniatus had the same growth and survival rates. These results, together with recent studies in birds and other fish, suggest that the popularity of inbreeding in the animal kingdom may have been underestimated, Thünken says.

While I'm always cautious about applying what happens in other species to humans, I do find reports like this to be interesting when people insist that incest is not natural or that consanguineous reproduction will be problematic. Many humans experience the Westermarck Effect. Some don't. And, of course, those raised apart from their genetic siblings or genetic parents aren't going to experience the Westermarck Effect if they are introduced to, or reunited with them after becoming sexually mature.

The same phenomenon has been seen in some insects and other fish species says William Shields, an evolutionary biologist at the State University of New York in Syracuse. "We still deal with the overriding dogma that inbreeding is deleterious," says Shields, "but there's evidence from lots of organisms that inbreeding can have advantages."

Furthermore, it only takes three or four generations of inbreeding to purge the gene pool of many of the mutations that initially make it harmful, says Shields.

Perhaps the most common argument used against the consanguineous freedom to marry is Discredited Argument #18. But it just doesn't hold up, which is why it is discredited.

Read more »

Posted in: brother-sister,children,consanguineous,incest,science

Natural Consanguinity

Thanks to a friend of FME who sent me this article. Back in 2007, Heidi Ledford reported at nature.com about a study of a fish species revealing some interesting facts.

Timo Thünken

Given a choice, the cichlid Pelvicachromis taeniatus, often found in aquariums, prefers to mate with siblings nearly three times out of four.

Doesn't sound like the Westermarck Effect is present in them.

And males who shacked up with their sisters spent more time guarding their fry and less time fighting with their mate than unrelated couples.

Sounds like they are protecting their genes.

The end result was happy families and healthy kids.

Imagine that.

While a normal copy of a gene can sometimes mask a mutation, offspring that inherit two mutated copies lack any such protection. This can make inbred offspring less able to survive or reproduce.

But Timo Thünken and his collaborators at the University of Bonn in Germany found that inbred and outbred P. taeniatus had the same growth and survival rates. These results, together with recent studies in birds and other fish, suggest that the popularity of inbreeding in the animal kingdom may have been underestimated, Thünken says.

While I'm always cautious about applying what happens in other species to humans, I do find reports like this to be interesting when people insist that incest is not natural or that consanguineous reproduction will be problematic. Many humans experience the Westermarck Effect. Some don't. And, of course, those raised apart from their genetic siblings or genetic parents aren't going to experience the Westermarck Effect if they are introduced to, or reunited with them after becoming sexually mature.

The same phenomenon has been seen in some insects and other fish species says William Shields, an evolutionary biologist at the State University of New York in Syracuse. "We still deal with the overriding dogma that inbreeding is deleterious," says Shields, "but there's evidence from lots of organisms that inbreeding can have advantages."

Furthermore, it only takes three or four generations of inbreeding to purge the gene pool of many of the mutations that initially make it harmful, says Shields.

Perhaps the most common argument used against the consanguineous freedom to marry is Discredited Argument #18. But it just doesn't hold up, which is why it is discredited.

Read more »

Posted in: brother-sister,children,consanguineous,incest,science

Stuff Poly Folks Hear

Here's a sample conversation that many polyamorous people can expect to have with those prejudiced against polyamory...

Prejudiced Person: "Oh, polyamory? So you want to sleep around on your wife and you want her to say she's OK with that? You are so selfish. You just want to have a harem."

Polyamorous Husband: "Actually, my wife has two other partners and I have one."

Prejudiced Person: [pause] "You're sick for wanting her to have sex with other people and making her do that."

Polyamorous Husband: "I didn't make her do anything. She's an adult who makes her own decisions. Actually, she's the one who told me she's polyamorous. She very much likes the way things are."

Prejudiced Person: "So the two of you will sleep around with anyone? Casual sex is emotionally damaging you know."

Polyamorous Husband: "This isn't causal sex, and no we don't sleep around with just anyone. Both of us formed strong emotional bonds with our partners before sex was involved."

Prejudiced Person: [longer pause] "So you're not getting the job done, eh? You're not giving her what she needs. She must be getting ready to leave you."

It won't matter to the prejudiced person if the polyamorous couple has been married for twenty years, during which the prejudiced person has married "monogamously" three times and divorced twice. To many prejudiced people, the only acceptable relationship is a closed, monogamous, legal marriage between a cisgendered man and a cisgendered woman of the same race. Forget about LGBT relationships, or polyamorous relationships, or interracial relationships. And for heterosexuals, according to these prejudiced people, it is out of the question to be happily single, date without seeking a legal marriage, live together without having a legal marriage, have a ceremony without a legal marriage, or involve anyone else through anything from polyfidelity to casual threesomes, from swapping to swinging to open marriage. No, only the way they claim to do it is the only way anyone should do it.

Isn't it interesting how they know what is best for you?

Read more »

Posted in: polyamory,prejudice

Stuff Poly Folks Hear

Here's a sample conversation that many polyamorous people can expect to have with those prejudiced against polyamory...

Prejudiced Person: "Oh, polyamory? So you want to sleep around on your wife and you want her to say she's OK with that? You are so selfish. You just want to have a harem."

Polyamorous Husband: "Actually, my wife has two other partners and I have one."

Prejudiced Person: [pause] "You're sick for wanting her to have sex with other people and making her do that."

Polyamorous Husband: "I didn't make her do anything. She's an adult who makes her own decisions. Actually, she's the one who told me she's polyamorous. She very much likes the way things are."

Prejudiced Person: "So the two of you will sleep around with anyone? Casual sex is emotionally damaging you know."

Polyamorous Husband: "This isn't causal sex, and no we don't sleep around with just anyone. Both of us formed strong emotional bonds with our partners before sex was involved."

Prejudiced Person: [longer pause] "So you're not getting the job done, eh? You're not giving her what she needs. She must be getting ready to leave you."

It won't matter to the prejudiced person if the polyamorous couple has been married for twenty years, during which the prejudiced person has married "monogamously" three times and divorced twice. To many prejudiced people, the only acceptable relationship is a closed, monogamous, legal marriage between a cisgendered man and a cisgendered woman of the same race. Forget about LGBT relationships, or polyamorous relationships, or interracial relationships. And for heterosexuals, according to these prejudiced people, it is out of the question to be happily single, date without seeking a legal marriage, live together without having a legal marriage, have a ceremony without a legal marriage, or involve anyone else through anything from polyfidelity to casual threesomes, from swapping to swinging to open marriage. No, only the way they claim to do it is the only way anyone should do it.

Isn't it interesting how they know what is best for you?

Read more »

Posted in: polyamory,prejudice

Michigan Legislature Looking to Ban Open-Carry in Schools

There is a little-known loophole in our gun laws that allows a person that has a concealed pistol license (CPL) to openly carry a firearm into a school, provided the weapon is visibly holstered.  Given recent headlines, State Representative Andy Schor, (D Lansing), is attempting to close this loophole with House Bill 4104.

Hopefully, these terrible headlines will render the state gun lobby ineffective, and HB 4104 gets passed and signed by Governor Rick Snyder.  Who could forget last December when the Governor, on the eve of the Newtown, Connecticut shooting, was poised to sign gun legislation that would have broadened and strengthened weapon possession laws, but had a change-of-heart and vetoed the bill.

The open-carry in schools exception came crashing into the media headlights last February when Nicholas Looman, a CPL holder, open carried his pistol into an elementary school in Grand Rapids in order to vote in an election.  He was allowed to vote, then escorted off school grounds and later briefly detained.

Obviously, the 25-year old was looking to make a point.  In the end, the Kent County Prosecutor took a pass on prosecuting Looman, saying he technically complied with state law.  A CPL holder can open-carry a weapon in a public school, day care center or public hospital provided the weapon is visible.

With the recent national headlines as a backdrop, the gun debate has been renewed in Lansing.  Schor's proposed legislation is competing with a senate proposal sponsored by Senator Mike Green (R-Mayville).  It was Senator Green's bill (vetoed SB 59, which now has been re-introduced as SB 112) that was sitting on Governor Snyder's desk when the Newtown shootings broke-out.

We here at the Law Blogger cannot help but conclude that when we enter certain public places, such as schools, day care centers and hospitals, we just need to leave our guns at home.  Along these lines, we hope that Representative Schor's bill will pass the Legislature and be signed by Governor Snyder, and that Senator Green and company goes away.

www.waterfordlegal.com
info@waterfordlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: Andy Schor,concealed pistol license,concealed weapon,Governor Rick Snyder,gun lobby,Nicholas Looman,open carry laws,Second Amendment,Senator Mike Green

April 19 is the National Day of Silence in US

GLSEN's National Day of Silence takes place Friday, April 19.

It's a day of silence, especially in schools, to bring awareness to the prejudice and inequality suffered by LGBT people. Along with all allies, I also think poly people and consanguinamorous people should participate. Everyone should have the freedom to be themselves without being bullied. Every adult should have the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with ANY and ALL consenting adults, without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination. LGBT, poly, and consanguinamorous students and faculty still have to deal with hateful policies and attacks, but with your help, that will continue to change.

Read more »

Posted in: academia,allies,LGBT,persecution,prejudice,solidarity,USA

Revisiting the Legal Nitty-Gritty of Polygamy

A very kind reader sent along a description of the legal theory by which the polygamous freedom to marry can be accomplished, and I will offer my thoughts as well. It's a long essay, Ultimately, the thing to take away is that our laws can accommodate people in any form of polyamory who want legal recognition of a marriage (polyagamy). Since as far as the government involvement is concerned, marriage is mostly about financial and "who has responsibility for whom" issues, contract and business law has already demonstrated that three or more people can have legally recognized relationships. I had previous written about this here.

There is an ongoing discussion among polyamory activists regarding a legal model of polyamorous marriage (i.e., the extension of the legal concept of marriage to include polyamorous families). One debate centers around the relative merits of an all-with-all approach to marriage (whereby three or more persons are all joined together at the same time within a single marriage) and dyadic networks (whereby existing laws against bigamy are revised such that people are perfectly free to be concurrently married to multiple other persons, provided that each such new marriage is preceded by a legal notification regarding the pending new marriage to all those to whom one is already married; failure to provide that legal notification would then constitute the updated crime of bigamy).

I think both should be offered. The basic paperwork can actually be rather simple.

Dyadic networks would result in what might be thought of as a "molecular" family structure — one which might be best represented by the molecular diagrams commonly used in chemistry. In this way, marriage would remain a dyadic relationship (i.e., a relationship between two persons), thus minimizing any changes to the existing system of legal marriage, but the introduction of concurrency would provide access to legal marriage for polyamorous families.

Dyadic networks can correctly represent any situation associated with the "all-with-all" paradigm, as well as many situations that the "all-with-all" paradigm cannot deal with. A "complete" dyadic network would take the form of a complete graph, in which every person is (pairwise) married to every other person, thus correctly representing any situation associated with the "all-with-all" paradigm.

What this is saying that if A, B, and C all want to marry as a triad, with a dyadic model that can be accomplished through A & B marrying, A & C marrying, and B & C marrying. However, the all-with-all model automatically does this with one ceremony and one piece of paper. All-with-all wouldn't be what every polycule would want, as detailed below. It would only be a desirable option for polycules in which every individual wants to be married to all of the others. It would only work for the triangle or the square below.

A dyadic network may also represent situations in which some persons are (pairwise) married to some members of the dyadic network but not to all of them ("V" and "N" geometries, for example) — these are situations that the "all-with-all" marriage paradigm is unable to accurately represent.

The "all-with-all" marriage paradigm assumes that everyone is equally involved with everyone else in the group — one global marriage agreement has to fit every participant at the same time. But dyadic network marriages separately define the terms of each specific 2-person relationship, and these dyadic marriages do not typically happen at the same time (A marries B, B marries C ("V" structure), C marries D ("N" structure), etc. — thus, the shape of the dyadic network dynamically changes over time). Participants in a dyadic network need not even be aware of the specific terms of marriage agreements existing elsewhere within the same dyadic network.

Under the "all-with-all" marriage paradigm, when irreconcilable differences arise there can be no alternative to a complete separation — one person cannot divorce another without ending the entire marriage agreement for everyone involved.

Actually, it doesn’t have to be complicated. This happens with, for example, rock or pop musical acts. Let’s pick a folk music act, Peter, Paul, and Mary, and assume they had equal ownership of the act. Let’s say Paul wants to leave, or Peter and Mary want to leave Paul. Paul gets compensated for 1/3rd of the act or, if there had been an agreement that said otherwise, whatever that agreement said. Then, Peter and Mary would continue on as a duo, and would be free to add new members.

But dyadic networks can function in much the same way as watertight compartmentalization functions in naval vessels, i.e., to limit and contain damage. An intense disagreement between two persons takes place within the context of their marriage, and need not greatly involve (or threaten) the relationships between other participants. Within a well-connected dyadic network, a divorce between two persons need not result in a complete separation of the network — for example, a dyadic network with triangle geometry would simply turn into a dyadic network with "V" geometry. 

An "all-with-all" marriage can only exist or cease to exist. In contrast, the shape of a dyadic network can dynamically change over time. Divorces subtract connections, and marriages add connections. The dyadic network itself either changes shape, separates into two dyadic networks, or merges into another dyadic network, depending on the precise nature of the newly added or subtracted connection. 

The maximum size of an "all-with-all" marriage is limited by the fact that every participant must be aware of the existence of every other participant (otherwise the global marriage contract would be invalid, because it could not satisfy the legal condition known as a "meeting of the minds"). But since a dyadic network relies only upon every participant's local knowledge of his or her own direct partners, its size is theoretically unlimited. The dyadic network paradigm is so powerful that it is theoretically capable of managing a situation in which every adult on earth is legally joined together in a single enormous dyadic network. Thus, with the dyadic network model, the idea of "many loves" is directly translated into a practical reality, and the "infinity" symbol (representing love without limits) is directly matched by a marriage model capable of handling an infinitely large number of participants.

Implementing Dyadic Networks

Within the United States, 41 states (82%) use the "equitable distribution" financial model, which is highly compatible with dyadic networks. But there are also nine other states (18%) with a financial model that is incompatible with dyadic networks - these are collectively referred to as the "community property" states (Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin).

The implementation method for the "community property" states is that the dyadic networks model will simply coexist with the old "community property" monogamy model. New marriages will automatically default to the dyadic networks model, but if the couple prefers the monogamous "community property" model then they have the option of selecting that model instead.

A triad in a community property state would mean each would get 1/3rd by default. However, that could be modified by pre- or post-nuptial agreements. Ideally, each state should allow people to choose what they want. It wouldn’t be difficult to make a couple of simple questions part of the standard marriage paperwork. If someone wants to be more detailed about who would get what upon leaving or dissolution, they can affic a prenuptial agreement, just like is done now.

Consider, for example, the existing marriage laws of Alaska.  Alaska is an "equitable distribution" state, hence couples who marry in Alaska will marry under the "equitable distribution" model by default, but these couples can instead elect to marry under the "community property" monogamy model if they wish (they do this by executing either a community property agreement or a community property trust).
Alaska thus constitutes an existence proof that both financial models can peacefully coexist within the same U.S. state's legal system.  Alaska's example shows that even community property states can easily be modernized to accomodate dyadic networks.

Polyamorous Committment

The Dyadic Networks model of polyamorous marriage raises important questions related to marital commitment. With a single dyad, the situation is simple; each spouse commits to support and protect the other, and the logic of conventional monogamous marriage applies. However, when multiple dyads intersect in a dyadic network, how exactly does the commitment process work? 

To understand this, let us consider the parent-child relationship.   In the parent-child situation, the support commitment exists only in one direction - from parent to child.  When there is a single parent, the child has a single source of commitment, and all protection must come from that source.  However, when there are two parents, they are jointly responsible for meeting the child's needs.  The precise arrangement is worked out somehow, and provided that the child's needs are being met the law has no need to intervene.  If the child's needs are not being met, then debt collection methods such as garnishing wages, seizing assets, etc. can and do occur in order to ensure that child support takes place.  These actions are typically proportional to income and/or wealth, so the wealthier parent will pay more.  Where a parent has commitments to multiple children, the parent must faithfully carry out his or her responsibilities to each and every child.   Although it may sometimes seem that the needs of children are unlimited, this is not actually the case, and once a child's needs are satisfied (a certain amount of food, shelter, medical care, etc.), all parents of that child may regard their commitments as being satisfied with respect to each need for which adequate provision has been made, regardless of which parent(s) actually did the work of satisfying that need. 

Turning now to commitment in the dyadic network model, this can be understood as a bidirectional version of the parent-child model.  Each dyad represents a commitment of each spouse to the other.  Thus, in a V configuration, the two partners at the ends of the V each rely upon commitments from the single partner at the center of the V (the "pivot") - each of them has one spouse.  The "pivot" partner can rely upon two commitments, one from each of the two partners at the two ends of the V - the pivot partner has two spouses.  If the pivot partner is incapacitated, he or she is in a position comparable to that of a child with two parents - two people are committed to assist him or her and must do so up to the point at which the pivot partner's needs are satisfied.  If one of the partners at the end of the V is incapacitated, he or she has only one spouse to rely upon - the pivot partner, who is fully responsible for meeting the incapacitated partner's needs up to the point at which that partner's needs are satisfied.  If both partners at the end of the V are incapacitated, then the pivot partner is in a position comparable to that of a single parent with two sick children - he or she must meet the needs of both. 

Let us now consider whether the commitment relationship is "transitive" - if A is committed to B, and B is committed to C, does this mean that A is committed to C?  No, this is not the case.  C can legally rely only upon the commitment of B and has no legal basis to expect or receive a commitment from A.  Nor can A rely upon the commitment of C - that could happen only when and if A directly married (mutually committed to) C.  However, suppose that C's needs are so large that B is thereby driven into bankruptcy and becomes destitute.  Then B can rely upon A's commitment to provide B with a certain minimal level of support (food, shelter, medical care, etc.).  Thus C's needs can have an effect on B that causes A to provide more support to B than would have been the case had C not needed to draw heavily upon B's commitment. 

Hence, under the dyadic networks model, positive effects arise as a result of multiple commitments.  When there is only a single dyad, there is a substantial risk that the size of the commitment will exceed the capacity of the committed.  However, when each person is linked to multiple other partners in a dyadic network, this has the effect of bringing in additional capacity to meet any needs that may arise.  Three or four spouses may be easily able to carry a commitment load that would have quickly driven a single spouse into bankruptcy. 

The analogy to parent-child relationships carries over into other situations as well.  Just as it would be improper to discriminate against a parent for having too many children (or too few children), so it would be improper to discriminate against a person for having too many or too few spouses.  But with each additional child comes an additional commitment, and the same is true of an additional spouse.  Adding another child to one's health insurance coverage will usually result in an increased monthly charge for the insurance, thus adding another spouse would probably have a comparable effect.  But a child, or a spouse, only needs to be covered once, regardless of how many parents, or spouses, are available to provide that coverage.  Also, a spouse may be economically self-supporting and thus able to pay for his or her own health insurance, so in this respect the total support cost for an additional spouse would then be zero. 

Having drawn lessons from the parent-child relationship and applied them to dyadic networks, let us now draw a lesson from dyadic networks and apply it to the parent-child relationship.  

Just as there is no inherent reason why a person should not have more than one spouse, so there is no inherent reason why a child should not have more than two parents.  When the law of marriage is updated to legally support dyadic networks, the existing adoption mechanism can be used as a means by which additional commitments to children can be created.  For example, a single dyad may have already produced two children when each member of the dyad marries a third partner, thus creating a triangle.  The newest member of this dyadic network can then execute two adoptions to become the third parent of each of the dyad's two children.  Hence, in this situation, each of the three adults now has two spouses and two children.  To the extent that any legal barriers might hinder the use of adoption in this manner, such legal barriers would also need to be direct targets of polyamory's legal activism (in addition, of course, to updating the law of marriage to support dyadic networks). 

This N-parent situation has already been raised in the New York Times (When 3 Really Is A Crowd, July 16 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/opinion/16marquardt.html): “On April 30, a state Superior Court panel ruled that a child can have three legal parents.  […]  Arthur S. Leonard, a professor at New York Law School, observed, 'I’m unaware of any other state appellate court that has found that a child has, simultaneously, three adults who are financially obligated to the child’s support and are also entitled to visitation.'  […]  As one advocate of polygamy argued in Newsweek, 'If Heather can have two mommies, she should also be able to have two mommies and a daddy.' If more children are granted three legal parents, what is our rationale for denying these families the rights and protections of marriage?”  Our firm answer: there cannot be any legitimate rationale for the unconstitutional denial of this legal protection to polyamorous families 

The New York Times op-ed raises a question: “Conflicts will undoubtedly arise when three parents confront the sticky, conflict-ridden reality of child-raising, often leading to a nasty, three-way custody battle. Even if they part amicably, they may still want to live in three different homes. In that case, how many homes should children travel between to satisfy the parenting needs of many adults?”  The legal answer has been provided by New York Law School Professor Arthur S. Leonard (Pennsylvania Court Finds Three Adults Can Have Parental Rights,  May 01, 2007, http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/2007/05/pennsylvania_co.html): “[...] the court gave Jennifer primary custody of the one nephew who was living with her, and partial custody (visitation rights) with the other three children; Jodilynn got primary custody of the three children and partial custody (visitation) with the one nephew, and Carl was awarded partial custody (visitation) of one weekend a month with his two children.”  In the event of divorce, family law judges will calculate child support obligations and distribute visitation rights in accordance with the best interests of the child(ren).

Read more »

Posted in: freedom to marry,group,law,polyamory,polygamy,quads,triads