Continuing The Quest For Equality

The writing is on the proverbial wall for the end of the heterosexual hold on the institution of government sanctioned marriage between two people as three states voted to legalize same-sex marriage in this November election - a very good step in the right direction of equal rights. Personally I don't endorse government intervention in matters of human relationships at all, but the fact remains.  So within the confines of reality, whether a bourgeois straight-couple marriage, or new radical in-vogue same-sex marriage, the government designed institution (that codifies and dehumanizes natural love relationships) remains discriminatory toward multiple-partnered espousal relationships (polygamy). The new marriage laws probably don't include gender neutrality either - just a hunch, I don't know for sure.

There are three specifically understood forms of polygamy: polygyny (one man having multiple wives), polyandry (one woman having multiple husbands), and group marriage (multiple partners of some combination of polygyny and polyandry).  Marriages of this type of multiplicity (more than two) are not sanctioned by current legal systems in the United States which of course is discriminatory toward people who partner up with more than one, and wish to be "legally" conjoined with each of their respective sweethearts.

With the advent of legal same-sex marriage between two people, the evolution toward legal, multiple-partner marriage remains the logical next step in the continued quest for equality.  Of course any marriage dynamic of multiple partners will require new rules and regulations regarding insurance, employment benefits, etc., as that is the only function of government meddling that could serve any purpose.

The definitions of such regulations need to be completely flexible to avoid discriminatory restrictions. Said flexibility must include static (one to one) and dynamic (one to many) wedlock provisions irrespective of gender of course (which would inherently include gender neutral people). These provisions must include any dynamic desired, including definitions for an equilateral state of matrimony in which all partners may be married to each participating partner, aggregate dissolution contingencies, and so on.

Additionally, and with specific regard to those who do not identify with one of the gender binary (male/female), the first step logically should be the elimination of gender verbiage from all legal terminology regarding marriage, and other legal documentation.  Eliminating the gender factor and just referring to the participants as espoused partners, associates, whatever the situation warrants, is much less linguistically restrictive, and consequently much easier for the minions of government to litigate and indoctrinate into the legal system.