The Future of Marriage Rights
Added 2024-08-26 06:37:09 +0000 UTCOA1063
We are excited to bring you a fascinating conversation with Attorney Diana Adams (they/them) of the Chosen Family Law Center, a New York City-based non-profit which advocates for LGBTQIA and other non-traditional families of all backgrounds and descriptions. Diana is one of the nation’s leading advocates for rethinking how governments, courts, employers, and other institutions can accommodate committed relationships beyond the norms of romantic and/or sexual monogamy, including those involving more than two people, platonic partnerships, non-traditional parenting arrangements, and the many other ways in which people can choose to be in family relationships. Topics include (among many other things) the surprisingly racist history of the term “nuclear family,” developments in local and state law since the Supreme Court’s monumental recognition of full marriage equality in 2015, and what an immigration system not fundamentally based in a 1950’s conception of white heteronormative marriage might look like.
“Why US Laws Must Expand Beyond the Nuclear Family,” Diana Adams (TED Talk)(3/25/2022)
“Three's Company, Too: The Emergence of Polyamorous Partnership Ordinances” - Harvard Law Review (March 2022)
Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality, Ryan, Christopher, Jetha, Cacilda (2010)
Comments
I already thought Matt was cool but finding out that like me he's also been polyamorous since college and is in a happy marriage made him even cooler.
Patrick Walker
2024-08-27 17:39:13 +0000 UTCThis is a lovely episode. Thanks for bringing it.
Katie Byrum
2024-08-27 16:38:56 +0000 UTCI've said it before and I'll say it again; these modern OA episodes with interesting deep dives and interviews are outstanding. I love it when a pod does something no other pod could do, something perfectly on brand for them and yet still surprising and fresh. You deliver it in spades and it's just a joy. It's terrifying hearing how tough people have it in USA. I wish the dems would call it 'valuing families' instead of family values. It could encompass every family, gender/sexuality/exclusivity configuration. It's so tiring and sad in these capitalistic neoliberal systems how many people are excluded, hampered, and erased.
Jess C
2024-08-27 02:59:42 +0000 UTCyou know me! but yes, not down with the capitalistic "mutual property" model of relationships under any circumstances
Matt Cameron
2024-08-26 23:38:15 +0000 UTCUnlike Naughty by Nature, Matt is NOT down with OPP.
Lydia Smith
2024-08-26 22:56:31 +0000 UTCThanks! I just wanted to clarify that polyamory is the practice of having multiple committed partners (which is legal), while polygamy is the practice of having multiple spouses (which is not). (Even more technically, polygamy is the practice of having multiple wives and polyandry is the practice of having multiple husbands--but the Mormons never took to the latter *for some reason.*) I generally agree with Diana that marriage doesn't have to be the standard and that governments and other institutions can make room for committed chosen families by recognizing them in other ways, but I also see your point here about how polygamy as historically practiced in patriarchal cultures has been and absolutely can be abusive at worst and is fundamentally misogynist at best. As someone who has been practicing polyamory for more than 20 years I can say that a lot of people back then confused us with the kinds of communities you are talking about because that was the only model most people had ever heard of--and you're right that it is a very strange horseshoe. But in my mind it's not truly polyamory unless *everyone* involved is free to make healthy and ethical connections of all kinds, so I don't recognize the extreme patriarchal dictates of those communities as even really resembling anything in my own life and certainly no one I would associate with. (I give a hard side-eye (for example) to anyone in so-called "open" hetero relationships in which the woman is only "allowed" to date other women (or at most other non-cismen). In its own way that is really just as patriarchal and misogynist as the kind of polygamy you are talking about.) I honestly didn't even know that there were polygamists in AZ, but I guess that makes sense given the proximity to UT. As you may know UT decriminalized polygamy a couple of years ago (I think bigamy is still technically a crime though?) so it might be too soon to tell if it has made things worse. But the UT state government was always in a difficult position there because it really doesn't look great to arrest people for living together in committed relationships even if you can prove benefits fraud, domestic abuse, etc.--so it's just one of those thing where having it as a crime on the books wasn't really doing much good as it was IMO. I totally understand what you're saying about patriarchal polygamy but I think the only real solution is going to be from within those communities and I just don't think that there is anything a government can realistically do to police them. (That's my read as someone who has read a couple of books and seen a couple of documentaries about Mormon polygamy though, certainly no actual firsthand knowledge or experience to work from on that.)
Matt Cameron
2024-08-26 22:25:12 +0000 UTCMy first reaction was “no this is too complicated” but the more I listened the more this made sense to me. I appreciate you introducing me to a concept and movement that is new to me.
KeepingThePlatesSpinning
2024-08-26 22:06:12 +0000 UTCGreat episode - I truly enjoyed it and I learned a lot. When discussing a topic like this, I would genuinely like to hear your response to the critics of the legalization of polyamory. I’m from rural northern Arizona. Like 46 miles to the closest stoplight, which happens to be at a tribal casino kinda rural. We have polygamists, and there are problems such as kicking out the excess young men who have no skills and education, and trapping women in a place with few options for escape. While what modern, educated, informed, consenting adults is no concern of mine, legalizing polyamory would come with some downsides I would like to hear the counter argument to. This cause has a weird horseshoe theory with the fundamentalist Mormons, and the Taliban on on end of the u, and sexually progressive people on the other. Again, no criticism of anything informed consenting adults do, but unlike gay marriage and fair housing, there would be some legitimate challenges with expanded polyamory.
Steve S
2024-08-26 21:01:38 +0000 UTCwhat a great episode!!
lauren
2024-08-26 19:51:14 +0000 UTCThey just need to go more basic.
Reese
2024-08-26 16:52:11 +0000 UTCIm about to listen to episode. I agree with what ur saying. I grew up up in evangelical republican land and i feel like maybe part of the problem is they need some help from people who converted out of anti- lgbtq thought. Someone who has shifted their beliefs. When i hear some of the democratic party talking on that topic…it needs to be more “family values” like youre saying and then mirror and define the points better and more simply- with less lgbtq+ vocab/language
Reese
2024-08-26 16:51:00 +0000 UTCI think it's worth expanding on the topic of Democrats presenting themselves as the party of family values. Democratic politicians are often criticized for being bad in their messaging, with a recent case being how some pundits believe that the Democratic stance on LGBTQ issues in schools should be branded as them wanting the government to not interfere in private life, a traditionally Republican angle to policy. In many other fields, however, Democrats now have explicit messaging that co-opts what has traditionally been Republican talking points. Harris is presented as a law and order candidate by making the election about a prosecutor versus a criminal, they push border security by bringing up Trump blocking legislation proposed by Democrats, individual freedom is highlighted through issues such as abortion and marijuana legalization, and the push to label Republicans as weird hints at Democrats preserving social normalcy. Republicans genuinely seem dumbstruck and have launched incredibly scattershot responses that only fall flat. Family values could definitely be the next such battlefield, contrasting the love and joy in the Harris/Emhoff and Walz families with the Trumps/Murdochs/Musks/Kennedys all fighting and seemingly hating each other.
Viktor Arthuis
2024-08-26 12:21:30 +0000 UTCThank you for representing queer/poly folks. We tread some societally weird water. Good to know there are lawyers looking out for us.
Unlikable Internet Goblin
2024-08-26 11:37:26 +0000 UTCThat was a really interesting episode. Great guest and discussion
Andrew W
2024-08-26 10:32:05 +0000 UTC
