Civil Unions...now for everyone...

[Scarecrow]

I was reading this article and came across something I had not seen before...

"Heterosexual couples also can enter into civil unions in Illinois."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43255306/ns/us_news/

In the past I had seen states limit marriage to heterosexual couples, and civil unions to gay and lesbian couples. This is the first time I have heard of civil unions being offered to both while maintaining "marriage" for monogamous heterosexuals. Could civil unions for multiple consenting adults be next?

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Many philosophers and theologians now think it is is indeed the best for this privatization of unions to be the avenue to resolve this debate that has ravaged this USA nation for years now. Civil unions would be contractual in nature, which is really how the courts see it as is anyway. People could contract together and if there arises a problem the contract would then be the basis to how the matter would be resolved. Those who contract together could then call their union whatever term they so choose or by whatever term their religion calls it.

 

[Scarecrow]

I think this is the bill itself...

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/96/HB/P ... 2234lv.pdf

Section 25. Prohibited civil unions. The following civil unions are prohibited:

(2) a civil union entered into prior to the dissolution of a marriage or civil union or substantially similar legal relationship of one of the parties;

Seems to rule out polygamy. Since a civil union is similar to a business partnership I wonder why the restriction? A partnership can have numerous partners. I wonder how this could be legally challenged.

I am going to send each Illinois General Assembly member the following email:

Thank you for taking a moment out of your busy schedule to read my email.

I was studying HB2234 that was recently passed and noticed what appears to be a discrepancy. The bill states:

“Nothing in this Act shall interfere with or regulate the religious practice of any religious body.”

Yet it goes on to say:

Section 25. Prohibited civil unions. The following civil unions are prohibited:

(2) a civil union entered into prior to the dissolution of a marriage or civil union or substantially similar legal relationship of one of the parties;

This seems to clearly discriminate against any Muslim man that would want to register his wives in civil union contracts thus affording them equal protection under the law. There are also many others including Christians, atheists, Native Americans, and other religions that have members that do not practice monogamy. Since a civil union is similar to a business partnership legally why would there need to be this discriminatory limitation put in place?

 

[Doc]

Line 17 on the first page specifically limits civil unions to two parties.

However, I bounced this off a friend of mine, who really likes legal knots. Here is the question he asked:

Can one or more civil unions enter into a civil union?

In other words, can an established civil union, which is now one entity in the eyes of the law, enter into a NEW civil union with one or more additional parties?

Just stirring the pot....

Doc

 

[Scarecrow]

Not sure that would work since it is stated that individuals wanting to enter into a civil union cannot have any other such unions or similar union such as marriage. To enter into one of these unions one must not be obligated contractually or otherwise to another individual. They were very careful to make sure that a union could only be entered by two single individuals and that it would remain that way. No response yet from my email campaign as expected...time will tell.

 

[steve]

i do not see how they can deny a contract in which all parties are represented.

maybe what they are trying to avoid is a "civil union" that is made up of a number of people (regardless of gender) one of whom works for the state all claiming benefits?

 

[Scarecrow]

Well I got a reply...hmmm...maybe it will start them thinking... : )

"I just wanted to let you know that we received your email. I am forwarding it on to our legislative liaison with the IL Dept. of Human Rights for review.



Sincerely,

Dara Brockmeyer

District Office Director

State Representative Dan Brady"

 

[Scarecrow]

I received another response:

"I have looked into your concerns and have been advised by staff that federal courts have upheld prohibitions against bigamy on the ground that states have a compelling interest in enforcing its ban on plural marriages to protect monogamous marriage relationships. The courts generally rely upon the fact that many laws are premised on a monogamous relationship, such as property rights etc, so the State has a compelling interest in prohibiting plural marriages.



I hope this information helps you understand why the law was written the way it was.



Sincerely,

Dara Brockmeyer

District Office Director

State Representative Dan Brady"

They don't sound like very good arguments to me.
1) How would decriminalizing bigamy suddenly cause the demise of monogamy, and why would the state be responsible to protect it in the first place if it were in jeopardy?
2) The laws were written to reflect monogamy because that is all that was recognized at the time, these laws could easily be modified to represent polygamous relationships. In any case isn't it the responsibility of the government to modify laws to reflect a change needed in them should circumstances warrant it? Sounds like "we don't want to" to me.

 

[Isabella]

I received another response:

"I have looked into your concerns and have been advised by staff that federal courts have upheld prohibitions against bigamy on the ground that states have a compelling interest in enforcing its ban on plural marriages to protect monogamous marriage relationships. .

:evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

 

[CecilW]

They don't sound like very good arguments to me.
1) How would decriminalizing bigamy suddenly cause the demise of monogamy, and why would the state be responsible to protect it in the first place if it were in jeopardy?
2) The laws were written to reflect monogamy because that is all that was recognized at the time, these laws could easily be modified to represent polygamous relationships. In any case isn't it the responsibility of the government to modify laws to reflect a change needed in them should circumstances warrant it? Sounds like "we don't want to" to me.

What IS the State's compelling interest? Simply that it is responsible for division of property, future income, and custody/visitation rights in the event the union is dissolved. That's relatively easy with two people. Each item is a digital choice -- to Party A or Party B. If there were three or more, such a division would become exponentially more complicated.

One suggestion: Write her back and quote the Supreme Court back in the 90s acknowledging that they would have to re-evaluate polygamy unless for some reason pligs have less civil rights than gays. Ask if they really want to have that sort of challenge, and lawsuit presented, with attendant publicity? Why not just quietly take out the offending language in the first place?

 

[blugrniz4u]

Rather than trying to re-invent the wheel, why not create a LLC (Limited Liability Corporation) for the plig family?? Each adult is then protected and provided for; assets and real property to be held by the LLC; the LLC would be able to contract a group health insurance plan as well as a group life insurance plan. It is a win-win for all members of the plig family.

 

[macike]

Rather than trying to re-invent the wheel, why not create a LLC (Limited Liability Corporation) for the plig family?? Each adult is then protected and provided for; assets and real property to be held by the LLC; the LLC would be able to contract a group health insurance plan as well as a group life insurance plan. It is a win-win for all members of the plig family.

This has been my argument for gay marriage. Here is the one little problem that I see. Many companies are now offering insurance bennies to homosexual couples. Should not unit of polygamy be afford the same rights. So if D-Land or Apple or State of New York want to offer those should the same not follow. Hence the lack of equal protection.

 

[steve]

So if D-Land or Apple or State of New York want to offer those should the same not follow. Hence the lack of equal protection.

to expect them to cover multiple partners for us because they cover A (single) partner for a gay person is not equality. and in fact, it would make us look like abusers of the system.
of course, the gays would probably then do their own polyamorous unions with one working for the group giving benefits and ten more recieving benefits.

it is just not an inspiring aproach to polygyny and our dependance on/walk with our Lord.

 

[Scarecrow]

For some time now there has been debate about insurance for families with children. Some think there should be a single rate regardless of how many children there are, and others think it is unfair if they have only one child and someone else has many but pay the same premiums. This debate is ongoing within the monogamous community without thought to polygamous families.

For the purpose of multiple member unions the insurance companies will need to develop a program where the rates are based on the number of adult individuals involved and the quantity of children or there will be no end to the screaming by the monogamous crowd. I think that type of system seems fair anyway...if you were to have three individuals working and two that did not, the ratio of income to cost of living would still be very disproportional compared to a monogamous household.

Considering where the US is headed I think that a polygamous household will likely be one of the few ways people will be able to afford a reasonable lifestyle soon.

 

[Isabella]

of course, the gays would probably then do their own polyamorous unions with one working for the group giving benefits and ten more recieving benefits.

*sigh* :?

Considering how much money gays generally put into the system, rather than taking out. I think this statement is a bit rich Steve.

Considering where the US is headed I think that a polygamous household will likely be one of the few ways people will be able to afford a reasonable lifestyle soon.

I think this is the case also, mind you, I also think less fervent consumerism would probably help also.

Bels

 

[macike]

For some time now there has been debate about insurance for families with children. Some think there should be a single rate regardless of how many children there are, and others think it is unfair if they have only one child and someone else has many but pay the same premiums. This debate is ongoing within the monogamous community without thought to polygamous families.

Will confess that i felt bad for people who paid the same rate for one kid as I paid for four kids. And we use the heck out of insurance. We spend over 1300 a month in drugs.

 

[cnystrom]

Rather than trying to re-invent the wheel, why not create a LLC (Limited Liability Corporation) for the plig family?? Each adult is then protected and provided for; assets and real property to be held by the LLC; the LLC would be able to contract a group health insurance plan as well as a group life insurance plan. It is a win-win for all members of the plig family.

I think this is a great idea and I would be tempted to try it.

 

[Scarecrow]

Yes it is a good idea...perhaps we could come up with a general set of bylaws as a template for people to use and post it as a Teaching Article...ahem...Dr. Allen... : )

 

[Jim]

Rather than trying to re-invent the wheel, why not create a LLC (Limited Liability Corporation) for the plig family?? Each adult is then protected and provided for; assets and real property to be held by the LLC; the LLC would be able to contract a group health insurance plan as well as a group life insurance plan. It is a win-win for all members of the plig family.

I think this is a great idea and I would be tempted to try it.

I don't know much about an LLC, but If I did this, could I sell stocks if I went public? ... oh yea, it would probably be a non-profit. :roll:

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

blugrniz4u wrote:

Rather than trying to re-invent the wheel, why not create a LLC (Limited Liability Corporation) for the plig family?? Each adult is then protected and provided for; assets and real property to be held by the LLC; the LLC would be able to contract a group health insurance plan as well as a group life insurance plan. It is a win-win for all members of the plig family.

Or, how about a trust?

One legal-eagle I heard at a business conference recommended that a family form a trust, and all the family's assets, including homes, autos, and businesses such as LLCs, be put in the trust. His reasoning was this: anything owned by the trust is not subject to probate when someone dies, and it also protects the family's assets from being lost because of lawsuits. The LLC is subject to probate, unless the deceased member's share is actually owned by the trust instead of the individual. Probate=$taxes$ if the total assets are valued over some certain amount. The trust's bylaws would determine who gets what and who does what, both while everyone is still living and after someone dies, no judge involved unless there is a dispute - and then, contract law, not probate law, would apply. Everything is owned by the trust, and the trust doesn't die. It can, however, have a specified amount of time that it will exist, after which it can be renewed or the assets distributed according to the trust's bylaws. Its membership changes as people die or become part of the family, and how that happens, who can become members, and who makes decisions are all specified in the bylaws.

This lawyer was talking to mono families and unmarried individuals who were starting businesses, but in a plig family, each adult would be a member of the trust. A trust could also be formed by two or more families and/or individuals. Each member of a family could form his/her own trust, as well, and one individual's or group's trust can be a member of another trust. It could get rather complicated, but so can interconnected LLCs and other business entities. If the ownership/membership trail gets too hard to follow, someone might think you are trying to hide something...

One of the main differences between a trust and a LLC is that each member of the LLC is an owner, so when he croaks, his share of ownership is one of his assets that goes through probate. In a trust, each member is simply a member and no individual owns anything, so there is nothing to go to probate.

I think (but may be wrong) that a trust can provide group insurance for its members, just as a LLC can do.

What we really need is a lawyer to sort all this out for us...anyone know one who would volunteer?