Parts of polygamy law deemed unconstitutional

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2736287/Final-ruling-issued-against-polygamy-ban.html#ixzz3BiOJ5uPo

Hmmmm

It shouldn't be the govt's or anybodies business anyway.

If all involved in the arrangement are mature willing companions it's no one's business but their own.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phe1RV62KKs

That would be true were it not like gay marriage. Now taxpayers are liable for more benefits and entitlements. Should polygamy be legalized, we then have three, four, five or more people being jointed in "marriage" then they will all be eligible for marital benefits.

The breakdown of the traditional marriage is the cause of our increasing unemployment, crime and poverty.

For Progressives, the old adage from the Flower Power days, if it feels good...do it.

A spousal benefit cannot be expanded, but I can see plenty of schemes to abuse the system. You get somebody with max SS benefits, who is terminally Ill and 85, and they marry somebody same sex or opposite to get survivor benefits, and they are only 62. The actuarial tables were based on certain assumptions which can in fact cause more drain on the fund. My wife makes too much in her government pension to receive my survivor benefits. I could divorce my wife and marry a 62 year old man or woman who is not getting a government pension, and allow that person to get my full survivor benefits. I could only do this after I am eligible for Medicare, because I am currently on my wife's retirement policy which is a caddy plan.

2seaoat wrote:A spousal benefit cannot be expanded, but I can see plenty of schemes to abuse the system.  You get somebody with max SS benefits, who is terminally Ill and 85, and they marry somebody same sex or opposite   to get survivor benefits, and they are only 62.   The actuarial tables were based on certain assumptions which can in fact cause more drain on the fund.  My wife makes too much in her government pension to receive my survivor benefits.  I could divorce my wife and marry a 62 year old man or woman who is not getting a government pension, and allow that person to get my full survivor benefits.  I could only do this after I am eligible for Medicare, because I am currently on my wife's retirement policy which is a caddy plan.

Of course spousal benefits can be expanded. They have already with gay marriages. The same will happen we add polygamous marriage to the mix. Which could be four men and one woman or all five men. Whatever floats your boat.

Rules aren't rules, merely pink lines in the sand. Perhaps two women, a man and a sheep.

2seaoat wrote:A spousal benefit cannot be expanded, but I can see plenty of schemes to abuse the system.  You get somebody with max SS benefits, who is terminally Ill and 85, and they marry somebody same sex or opposite   to get survivor benefits, and they are only 62.   The actuarial tables were based on certain assumptions which can in fact cause more drain on the fund.  My wife makes too much in her government pension to receive my survivor benefits.  I could divorce my wife and marry a 62 year old man or woman who is not getting a government pension, and allow that person to get my full survivor benefits.  I could only do this after I am eligible for Medicare, because I am currently on my wife's retirement policy which is a caddy plan.

That's discriminating. I suspect a law suit is in order to fight that kind of thinking and discrimination. If they're my spouse they should receive any and all benefits that any other one of my spouses could receive. Just as benefits should be conferred on to the children of that arrangement.

People do have civil rights you know.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR5ApYxkU-U