- This topic has 139 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 9 months ago by
NotCranky.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 27, 2015 at 2:14 PM #787600June 27, 2015 at 2:30 PM #787601
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=AN][quote=svelte]Polygamy – I’ve never really understood the country’s aversion to that. Guess I wouldn’t oppose it, but would probably put some sort of limitation on drawing public assistance. Ain’t gonna happen anyway, so I don’t spend much time thinking about it.
I’ve known several ppl in 3some relationships. They never seem to be long-lasting, though I’m sure some have.[/quote]
Would you put the same limitation on drawing public assistance for straight and gay couples?Does it matter if their relationships last? Straight divorce rate is around 50%, it’ll be interesting to see what the divorce rate would be for gay couples.[/quote]
AN, in the case of the polygamist culture, the entire family lives on a compound and shares household and bldg/land maintenance. When they grow up, they do not move away. They simply “marry” and perpetuate the lifestyle on the very same compound they grew up in. The children are “homeschooled” by parents (mainly moms) who have little education themselves and so are unqualified to “teach” their children. Very, very few of these children ever set foot in a college unless they manage to “escape” the only culture they ever knew. Because of the above factors, taxpayers in higher cost areas (almost anyplace other than the semi-remote and remote desert of Southern UT/Northern AZ) would end up having to financially support many thousands of dependent children and uneducated women who are only qualified to perform minimum-wage jobs. The polygamist lifestyle this population practices doesn’t condone women working for pay unless they were found to be infertile or have aged beyond their fertile years.
Everyone has to eat and have a roof over their head and these families are really HUGE!
This is not usually the case with the garden-variety American legally married couple who may end up divorcing.
June 27, 2015 at 3:11 PM #787602spdrun
ParticipantImagine the State Dept of Child Support Services trying to collect aid payments from ONE PAYOR to reimburse themselves for aid to 23 children (with 5 different moms).
Big deal. That already happens with monogamous ultra-Orthodox sects in NY. The fathers don’t work either, and child support only comes into play in case of divorce. So there you have it.
That’s not a polygamy issue. That’s a cult issue.
June 27, 2015 at 3:50 PM #787603Participant[quote=spdrun]
Imagine the State Dept of Child Support Services trying to collect aid payments from ONE PAYOR to reimburse themselves for aid to 23 children (with 5 different moms).
Big deal. That already happens with monogamous ultra-Orthodox sects in NY. The fathers don’t work either, and child support only comes into play in case of divorce. So there you have it.
That’s not a polygamy issue. That’s a cult issue.[/quote]
In CA, child support comes into play when paternity is legally established, admitted or not disputed. Marriage and divorce have nothing to do with it. The DCSS collects support for children and pays the payee parent monthly after a few days lag time. If the “custodial” parent applies for TANF for their children, they must first name the other parent of each child on the application and list their contact information and SSN and employer (if they know).
DCSS then seeks reimbursement from the “non-custodial” parent of any aid paid on behalf of their minor children. If the “custodial” parent has not filed in the court for paternity (in the case of unmarried applicants) and/or child support (in all cases), DCSS’ own counsel will do it for them for free. After obtaining the order of support, the agency (under color of law) is permitted to have any CS payments made redirected from the payor’s employer to themselves to first reimburse themselves for any aid paid to the “custodial” parent from the date of the CS order forward. They also periodically go back to court for aid recipients with an upward modification request for CS, especially if the payor is gainfully employed and in arrears with CS aid-reimbursement payments. If there is any money left each month after the DCSS reimburses themselves for aid, that money is returned to the aid recipient IF the payor is not in arrears to the agency for past aid paid to the custodial parent.
DCSS has a fleet of counsel in every county in the state who do nothing but file for paternity/CS orders, obtain CS orders from the court and stipulate with CS payors 40 hours per week.
If the non-custodial parent and/or greater-earning spouse is married and sued for child support in a divorce action and *he* believes one (or more) of the children he was sued to support aren’t his, he has the right to bring a paternity action to determine whether he is the father … or not. The reason being that it is “assumed” in CA that the husband is the father of all children born in wedlock.
As svelte noted here, it could get awfully confusing trying to investigate which kids belong to which “families” (if the polygamist lifestyle was legal in CA, for example).
Yes, spd, I do believe the fringe “ousted `Mormon'” polygamist “lifestyle” IS a cult, as well as the “cults” you are speaking of in NYC (although I doubt your cults have as many kids in each “family” as the ones in UT) but as long as the local laws in those states allow it, they will carry on and continue to bribe their local gubment officials and contribute to their communities to stay in good standing with those officials.
This type of lifestyle would never fly in expensive US cities. It would fall apart inside of 60 days unless the patriarch was worth millions AND “inherited” a local “compound” (of sorts).
June 27, 2015 at 3:58 PM #787604FlyerInHi
GuestAnother thing, AN. Leaders are supposed to lead for the betterment of the country.
When you look back at history, you can clearly see that with civil rights, the Southern states got saved from themselves. With desegregation, we created a more perfect union and a more prosperous country.
Desegregation allowed the southern states to proper in the 1970s and 1980s by attracting businesses and residents.
If Florida were still segregated it would not have become a major tourist destination by attracting Disney World and major hotel chains. North Carolina would not have the RTP area. Atlanta would not be a major airline hub. Dallas wouldn’t be attracting multinationals, etc…
Also, I’m sure the Supreme Court considered universal human rights. The civilized world has moved pretty fast in adopting gay marriage, as was the case of Ireland, which not too long ago was a poor conservative, Catholic, sort of backward country.
Come on, even Mexico allows gay marriage.
June 27, 2015 at 4:11 PM #787605Participantbearishgurl — in the Orthodox community, parents are legally married, so both are custodial.
Correct that this won’t fly in expensive cities, but the communities I speak of are often outside of NYC. Typically in the foothills of the Catskills, west of the Hudson.
My point is that this crap happens now on the fringe. If polygamy is legalized, it will keep happening, but remain on the fringe.
From what I understand, polygamy is actually pretty rare in Muslim countries where it’s legal.
June 27, 2015 at 4:32 PM #787606Participant[quote=spdrun]bearishgurl — in the Orthodox community, parents are legally married, so both are custodial. . . .[/quote]
Is your “Orthodox” community in NY polygamous? And if so, were the men married to multiple “wives” in the eyes of the church only? Or do they have legal marriages to more than one person?
June 27, 2015 at 5:04 PM #787607GuestHow does marriage make a difference in terms of social services? Don’t poor kids who are born out of wedlock get foodstamps, Medicaid, and free lunches?
June 27, 2015 at 6:19 PM #787608an
Participantbg, those are some of the stuff anti-gay marriage people say about gays too. Just because a minority group is small, is it OK to not give them the same rights as everyone else? I don’t care how fringe they are, everyone deserve to be treated equally.
June 27, 2015 at 6:23 PM #787609Participant[quote=svelte]
Question A: Would be fine by me. Could be something general such as if you’re on public assistance for more than 2 years and have more than 5 kids attached to the marriage network, all persons in the marriage network (even if just 2 ppl) are required to go through sterilization to continue benefits. Works for 2 person marriages and plural marriages.Full disclosure – my family research the last few years has turned up quite a few polygamists in my tree. Yeah, a lot of my family is Mormon. It didn’t have any effect on my opinion, but was quite an interesting find.
Problem is: If Andy can have five wives, can his wife Mary have five husbands? And can one of Mary’s husbands, Paul, have eight other wives? The marriage network would get very confusing…probably not a good idea.
Second question: personally I’ve pushed getting rid of marriage altogether for over a decade now. People should be together because they want to be, not because they are legally bound. Just my opinion. I’m not with my wife today because I signed a paper, I can tell you that.[/quote]I don’t think it’s a problem at all. Also, you should think even bigger. Maybe Paul have 2 wives and 3 husbands. It’s not just straight and gay, there are also bi people out there too. We shouldn’t dismiss them just the same.
I agree with you, I think marriage should be a religious thing and the government shouldn’t care about marriage and just civil union.June 27, 2015 at 7:40 PM #787610no_such_reality
ParticipantPolygamy is like incorporation just without the limits to liability..
June 27, 2015 at 8:57 PM #787611Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]How does marriage make a difference in terms of social services? Don’t poor kids who are born out of wedlock get foodstamps, Medicaid, and free lunches?[/quote]
Yes, they do, FIH, but as you know, each kid living with a single parent collecting public aid for them has another parent … somewhere. If that “other parent” is still alive, whenever and whenever they are working and their employer reports their wages to whatever state they are working in, the other parent will get a portion of their wages garnished for aid reimbursement if there is an active court order in place for child support. If there is not, an order for support is typically sought by the state paying the aid and wage garnishments for CS commence.
It’s NOT typical for American non-custodial parents (who are not married to the custodial parent) to have 23-30 children with 4-8 “wives” simultaneously and with 12-20 of those children still minors. This scenario IS typical for the isolated sects of (ousted) “Mormons” I’m referring to here. It WORKS for them because they live in relatively unpopulated rugged backcountry which is undesirable to the masses (hot and dusty several months per year) and where the families can live off the land and barter and help each other in times of need.
If this population moved into big cities (especially in expensive coastal areas), there is no way they could keep their families together in one home. They may be able to obtain leases on several homes in the same neighborhood but not without having hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in an endless stream of passive income. Without that, every family member would be on 1-4 forms of public aid within 60 days of arrival … out of necessity.
One “patriarch” (even 3) cannot possibly support that many people in big cities if he and his brothers and older sons cannot compete for good jobs there because they have little formal education and no “white collar” skills. And I think the older women (not needed at home anymore) who tried to compete for service-sector and retail jobs in cities would be shunned by employers because they would refuse to wear the company uniform citing it was too immodest.
Some of the service sector employers in Southern UT and Northern AZ allow these women to work as cashiers and fast food workers, etc dressed in their typical brightly-colored or pastel full skirt, bonnet and buttoned up LS shirt with peplum as there are few reliable employees to choose from in that region. The tourists passing thru there are used to seeing this and expect it.
June 27, 2015 at 9:22 PM #787612ParticipantIn other words, an American single mom on public aid who had five minor children with three different dads has THREE prospective and potential payors to the “system” of aid reimbursement.
A “fringe (ousted) “Mormon” sect mom with five minor children has likely had all her kids with ONE dad. The problem is, that dad ALSO currently has 20 OTHER minor kids to support with 16 of them under the age of 14.
That’s not enough payors to reimburse the “system” should that mom have to apply for public assistance for her children out of necessity.
No, I don’t feel polygamy should be legalized. But if 7 “sister wives” are living together with their collective 28 minor kids in the middle of nowhere and are not nor have ever collected any public aid and they are all happy with their arrangement, far be it from me to judge their lifestyle.
June 27, 2015 at 10:56 PM #787618Participant[quote=bearishgurl]In other words, an American single mom on public aid who had five minor children with three different dads has THREE prospective and potential payors to the “system” of aid reimbursement.
A “fringe (ousted) “Mormon” sect mom with five minor children has likely had all her kids with ONE dad. The problem is, that dad ALSO currently has 20 OTHER minor kids to support with 16 of them under the age of 14.
That’s not enough payors to reimburse the “system” should that mom have to apply for public assistance for her children out of necessity.
No, I don’t feel polygamy should be legalized. But if 7 “sister wives” are living together with their collective 28 minor kids in the middle of nowhere and are not nor have ever collected any public aid and they are all happy with their arrangement, far be it from me to judge their lifestyle.[/quote]What make you think those 3 prospective and potential “payers” don’t also impregnate another 20 women and have 20 other kids each? Also, what if those 3 prospective and potential “payers” are broke and are living on welfare? Should we ban marriage for all poor people too?
June 28, 2015 at 2:54 PM #787624Participant[quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl]In other words, an American single mom on public aid who had five minor children with three different dads has THREE prospective and potential payors to the “system” of aid reimbursement.
A “fringe (ousted) “Mormon” sect mom with five minor children has likely had all her kids with ONE dad. The problem is, that dad ALSO currently has 20 OTHER minor kids to support with 16 of them under the age of 14.
That’s not enough payors to reimburse the “system” should that mom have to apply for public assistance for her children out of necessity.
No, I don’t feel polygamy should be legalized. But if 7 “sister wives” are living together with their collective 28 minor kids in the middle of nowhere and are not nor have ever collected any public aid and they are all happy with their arrangement, far be it from me to judge their lifestyle.[/quote]What make you think those 3 prospective and potential “payers” don’t also impregnate another 20 women and have 20 other kids each? Also, what if those 3 prospective and potential “payers” are broke and are living on welfare? Should we ban marriage for all poor people too?[/quote]
Uhhh, AN, I’m not saying we should “ban marriage.”
Polygamists aren’t legally married … at least not to any more spouses than ONE.
I’ve heard of ONE single father of five kids (with 2-4 separate moms) but I’ve never heard of one single father with 20+ kids floating around out there …. that is, unless they were a sperm donor at one point and thus aren’t financially responsible for them OR they are polygamists.
If a CS payor is “broke” and on “temporary general relief” of $70 – $200 mo (non-custodial parents are not entitled to TANF) and a court order is in place for CS, then they will accrue arrears in CS when they don’t pay it as they are expected to work.
If a CS payor is alive but incarcerated, then his/her CS payments or arrears can be stayed for the period of incarceration if the court is made aware of it, either forward or retroactively or both.
If a CS payor is alive but in the hospital for a lengthy stay and/or terminally ill, he/she can send their attorney into court to have their child support modified, stayed or terminated, either going forward or retroactively or both.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.