LGBTQ+

the laws banning poly-marriage, as I understand, were largely targeted at Mormons, and in the context of a cult, I can see how that would be a reasonable restriction

My question is, why was the government ever involved in personal commitments?

Go back far enough and the answer is almost always inheritance.

I think your second statement answers the first. 🙂

All the legal protections and multiple inherent contracts that come from having a state-sanctioned marriage, all for $20 ($100?) or whatever for the town/county clerk vs hundreds or much more for enacting every individual contract it stands in for.

I have a long winded reply in my head about how these relationship types are not a new idea, humans have had multiple types of relationships for millennia, etc., etc. But I'm tired, and it's preaching to the choir at this point. (So to speak, lol)

Oh honey, that straw man is all projection. Those same conservatives are defending child marriage laws and are responsible for the "white women fuck dogs" stereotype.

These are settled issues. Turns out last remaining parents with multiple children die all the time leaving more than one person to make decisions and settle inheritance.

Spousal rights < parental rights. Step parents are generally (BIG emphasis on generally here, you can what if this shit to death, your specific cases where the parents aren't fit are not what we're talking about here) made to defer to the child's actual parents when making decisions for that child. I can imagine family court, when it comes to that, will come to the same conclusion with polyspousal relationships. The good news is a system exists to deal with it.

Inheritance, like anything without a will, is split equally among the remaining next of kin, in this case, multiple remaining spouses.

It's already advisable to have a Will in place and to discuss what your preferences are medically with your partner, that wouldn't change with multiple partners. Just like a single parent with multiple children.

Even if these issues weren't settled, even if you have some stupid specific edge case that invalidates everything I've said so far, it doesn't fucking matter. These are not problems. They're inconveniences. They can be settled and are no reason to stand in the way of consenting adults seeking happiness at

It was my first thought but only because I’m poly and have seen some insane breakups.

Because it could be a step towards polygamy, which increases the number of partners involved in a divorce. Imagine a scenario where one divorce triggers a separate filing, or a prenup being rendered invalid by the second partner becoming the sole partner, etc etc.

I think divorce aka family lawyers already kind of handle these things as is in the case of merged assets.

Yep, exactly, we have two partners and are happy with them. We do often specify partners though because like you said often beings don't talk about polyamorous relationships that work out.

So we think it's important to push back on the narrative these self-righteous monogamous beings want to push, that monogamy is the only way to be good, pure and have relationships that work out.

As if monogamous beings never cheat, break up, or are toxic, but lol, we guess it's better to lie about it than be honest that we want multiple partners or can love multiple beings 🙄.

Believe us we have seen lots of unhealthy polyamorous beings and relationships too, we know why it happens and really wish they'd learn and grow from it, but we are happily unmarried and polyamorous, and still going after quite a few years.

Yup, been with my wife for 14 years and she's had a steady boyfriend for 3 now. We still have relationship problems but that's the fairly normal communication issues everyone gets through as you grow up together.

would it not also protect them?

Still, they might be affected as well. I honestly wonder if they'll do a 180 again on the matter of polygamy once such protections are all over Utah.