I hope you guys can help me with this: Its really important to me that I adopt children when I want to become a parent. I’m sure adoption policies vary depending on where i adopt from, but if im comitted to a multi-partner relationship could i be barred from adopting? Or if i do adopt successfully, could my children potentially be taken away from me later on if they’re raised in a non-monogamous household?

The short answer, sadly, is yes. There is precedent for biological children being taken away once the family was outed as polyamorous, and adoptive parents are screened heavily and often at the discretion of the adoption agency.

Since polyamory is still seen in the mainstream as a “sexual behavior” and not an orientation or identity (one of my beefs with Dan Savage), many people assume that adults living openly as polyamorous creates an inappropriate environment for children. People think “well, I don’t think it’s healthy for a kid to grow up in a place where adult sexuality is openly on display, like a swinger’s clubhouse or a bdsm dungeon,” not realizing that a multi-parent household is a completely different situation.

If you’ll permit me to get on my soapbox for a bit, this is a huge issue that our generation will face within the next ten years. All the victories won for the gay community - hospital visitation rights, child custody and adoption, health insurance coverage, etc. - must once again be fought for by the poly community. And I don’t think there’s nearly enough activism focused on the legal and social practicalities as there should be.

We ought to be less concerned about whether polyamory is a lifestyle or an orientation, we ought to spend less time arguing about whether poly hetero relationships count as “queer,” we ought to worry less about academic identity politics and more about the real-world challenges faced by people who want to live, love, work, and parent in openly poly relationships.

Can a triad marry?

In America, no, a triad cannot marry legally. In many states, it is illegal under bigamy laws to be legally married to one person and to “live as if married” with another person. Each state has its own laws regarding this, and if you are planning to hold a “commitment ceremony,” seek benefits like health insurance and child custody, or otherwise enter the legal maze of plural marriage, my recommendation is to find a lawyer in your area that specializes in this.

For more, check out “Legal Stuff” category of Polyamory On Purpose to see a breakdown of the bigamy/plural marriage laws in each state. The Legal page on the Poly Families website also has lots of resources for triads and other poly folks looking to marry.

I’ve been in a poly relationship for over four years. He’s my only partner(I’m not interested in dating anyone else) and is married, I currently live with them. I’ve recently been experiencing that need/want to get married, but I can’t. It’s selfish, but I find it unfair that she gets a lot of marital benefits that I’ll never get. Any tips?

First off, never say never! This is a perfect example of why we poly folk need to fight for marriage equality. All the benefits that come with marriage - health insurance, child custody, hospital visitation rights, weddings - are denied to polyamorous people, and that sucks.

But as for your current situation, that sounds rough, and I’m sorry. As with all problems in polyamory, my main piece of advice would be open communication. Tell your partner that you’ve been feeling this sadness and desire for marriage. Maybe there are some things you two could do together, or relationship dynamics that can chang, to help you feel better.

On a more serious level, there may be some things you two can do to establish your commitment to each other. The laws differ between states, and in some places it is illegal to “live as if married” with more than one person - but you two might want to talk to a lawyer together about what options you have. There’s nothing stopping you two from staging a proposal (side note: I’m a huge sucker for proposals but could do without weddings), having a party to celebrate your love, taking photos together, going on a honeymoon trip, wearing each other’s rings, things like that.

You may also be able to get a joint bank account and share each other’s names without getting legally married. Of course, I am not a lawyer, and it would definitely be best to find an LGTBQ-friendly lawyer to hash some of this out so you can keep yourself safe.

Judith Butler, in an interview with Xtra →

Relevant to my latest post on John Corvino’s short-sighted focus on “joining the club” as the nexus of his fight for “equality:”

Xtra: The relationship between queers and the state has always been a strained one, and I wonder if in the struggle of dealing with Israeli policy, I wonder if queers are already cynical of the state, writ large.

JB: Yeah, well, you know, I think there are different states. There are different kinds of states, and in the US and several different European states and I think here in Canada as well, the gay and lesbian movement has been really focused on getting recognition by the state and having equal entitlements that would not only be recognized but guaranteed by the state.

So my sense is that the gay and lesbian movement has moved, has embraced the state as the centre of politics, much more than in earlier years, where it was maybe more of a cultural movement or a political movement that was taking place in civil society, not necessarily in relation to the state.

The idea of queer has never really easily lined up with lesbian and gay legal rights. Although we’re glad to have legal protections, the question is whether legal protections are the aim of political movement. My sense is that “queer” had a more critical relationship to those issues, much more fearful of normalization by the state.

Xtra: In your essay on gay marriage in Undoing Gender, you point out that recognition of gay marriage segregates the population. And also in that essay, you’re trying to come to a way of defending the movement against homophobes, the people on the rightwing who are opposed to gay marriage, without yourself endorsing it. It seems like an uneasy balance you’re trying to stake.

JB: Yeah. Well, I think there are many homophobic arguments against gay marriage that have to be opposed. And then there’s a separate question, which is should gay marriage be at the centre of a movement that is meant to enfranchise or empower sexualities? And that’s where I want to say, Look, it’s not at the top of my agenda. And I’m not sure it should be at the top of the agenda. How did it come to be at the top of the agenda? But I don’t think it’s inconsistent to take those two positions.

Xtra: I just thought it was brave, and maybe not a point that people have given a lot of thought to. In particular, you were talking about people who have maybe more complicated loving arrangements of more than two, or single people, and how it affects people of colour…

JB: I think, in the US at least, the right-to-marriage movement has focused on property and wanting acceptance as normalized bourgeois people and monogamy, and the idea of couplehood. So we think about the complex ways in which sexual and intimate relationships take place; they don’t always conform to that. And I think there are other forms of kinship that are not based on the family. I’ve made that clear in my work. But I also think there are modes of sexuality that aren’t centred on marriage-like arrangements, and that that’s been part of a radical sexual movement for a really long time, calling into question how we arrange sexuality, and what arrangements are best, and what works and what doesn’t, and what are the norms or ideals around which we organize our sexual lives. It seems really important to keep those questions open.

Marriage equality Gay marriage advocate John Corvino demonstrates an astonishing ignorance of the sexual and legal culture of 2012 America in this video, which Dan Savage for some reason chose to share this week. Corvino is trying to counter the right-wing “slippery slope” argument that legalizing gay marriage will lead to allowing plural marriage, but instead of making a true case for marriage equality (“So what? Still none of your business”), he files in alongside the pearl-clutchers in a remarkable display of bigotry-shifting. His claims - that plural marriage is bad for “social stability” and generally a “bad idea” - sound identical to the fears that other people voice about gay marriage:

Whether it’s a good idea to allow people to marry one unrelated person of the same sexis a different question from whether it’s a good idea to allow them to marry multiple partners, or their relatives, or their pets, or their kitchen appliances, or whatever…Take polygamy, which is in fact very common historically…Polygamy tends to be polygyny, that is one man with multiple wives, and the societies that practice it tend not only to have rampant sexism, but also serious class differences, where high-status males acquire multiple wives, and then low-status males become virtually unmarriageable. From the standpoint of promoting social stability, this seems to be bad public policy. But look, I’ll let the polygamy advocates make their own case, which is different from mine. My case is that it’s a good idea for everyone to have someone to marry, which is a different idea than saying that it’s a good idea for them to have anyone or anything to marry.

Unfortunately for John Corvino, he doesn’t appear to have any idea of what “plural marriage” looks like in 2012. Sure, there are religious sects in America pushing for legal recognition of their polygamous practices, but there’s a small but significant and still-growing group of Americans who practice healthy, consensual non-monogamy and would also like hospital visitations, custody rights, healthcare, protection against discrimination, etc. By throwing us under the bus in such blatant terms, John Corvino reveals that he’s fighting for his own rights not on the basis of human dignity and equality, but by trying to shift the other-ness onto a different, less understood and thus more easily demonized group of people.

It’s very common for oppressed groups to fight for their rights not by breaking down the entire structures that oppress them, but by fighting to re-define certain social terms so that they are included in the privileged group. John Corvino is not questioning the institution of marriage as a legal concept tied to health care, financial status, or parenting. He’s not questioning our society’s conceptions of love, relationships, or partnership. Instead, he’s asking for the group that is “people allowed to get married” be readjusted to let him in. He’s standing under the rope ladder of the Heterosexual Monogamous Marriage Club Treehouse shouting I know the password and I’m totally cool so come on and let me in you guys rather than questioning the idea of exclusive clubs in the first place or chopping the damn tree down.

Been with my fiance for 6 years. My best friend moved in with us and slowly we both realized we were seriously in love with her. She realized she loved us and a polyamorous relationship was born. There was a lot of talking beforehand, figuring out what we’re comfortable with and whatnot and it’s working really well. I am incredibly in love with her and my fiance… here’s the problem… I still want to be able to marry my fiance. But my girlfriend has a ton of health issues and it has kind of been decided whoever gets better insurance (from a full-time job) will marry her. The hard thing for me is my family has been waiting for us to get married for so long and I want that marriage but I want her to have good health insurance. If polygamy was legal there would be no problems but since it’s not… there is… for me anyway. I still want that marriage to him for my family for me, I’ve been planning it for years… maybe I’m being selfish?

This story just breaks my heart. It’s unfortunate that not only has plural marriage not become a human rights issue just like gay marriage, but the fight for gay marriage is actually pushing our cause backwards. I am so sorry to hear that the three of you can’t legally be married the way that works best for you emotionally and financially. You are not being selfish - it’s reasonable to want the wedding you’ve been planning for so long! Don’t beat yourself up over this. The enemy is external - it’s bigotry and legal snarls - not internal. You three have found something beautiful and fulfilling, so hold onto it no matter what the system says.

My advice would be to bring in some professionals on this. Talk to a lawyer who specializes in LGBTQ rights or other “non-traditional” marital and financial arrangements. Find out what your options are and get some paperwork and precedent on your side. Talk to a lawyer or another professional who is an expert in the healthcare field about what your girlfriend’s options may be regarding health insurance. You might not know what all the possibilities are, or you might not have the know-how to make them happen. Who knows - your girlfriend could find a way to get healthcare coverage without needing to be married to either of you. Maybe the three of you could all contribute to a pooled fund to help pay for her coverage. Maybe she is eligible for a plan you haven’t heard of. There’s a lot changing in terms of health insurance over the next few years, and I think it would be best if you three found someone to help you navigate the bureaucratic maze to find your best option. Build yourself a small army of doctors, lawyers, and other people who can help you three stay safe, healthy and sane. Know your rights and your options and document your decisions well. Know what could get you in legal trouble and how to avoid it, and who to call if you need help. It could get a little pricey speaking to all these lawyers and insurance professionals, but consider it an investment in your future together as a safe, healthy triad.

Once you’ve done that, you might find that you have a better array of decisions to make. You could hold a non-legally-binding ceremony for you and your fiance, or with all three of you (you’ll want to know the legal ramifications of this beforehand, though - talk to a lawyer in your state.) You could marry your fiance after finding another way to take care of your girlfriend’s health insurance. You could all move to another country where the marriage and healthcare laws are less frustrating (that’s a little drastic, though.) But no matter what you do, don’t sacrifice your happiness for the sake of money or legalized bigotry. Thousands of couples have come before you - gay couples who jumped through tons of legal hoops in order to adopt, divorced parents who shared custody before that was normalized, partners of people with health issues who must learn to navigate the healthcare system - and there are professionals out there who can help you carve out a place to be happy as well.

I don’t know what state you’re in, so I can’t give any specific resources, but you could start with these directories and organizations:

• Poly Friendly Professionals this is the number one directory of lawyers, doctors and other professionals who are poly friendly. 
• Alternatives to Marriage (linked to their healthcare page) This is more of an advocacy organization trying to help solve your problem once and for all, but they can probably connect you with lawyers and other advocates who know their way around the legal and healthcare systems.
• PolyFamilies suggests that a poly family open a business together to deal with the health insurance issue