[adevine]

I think this is wrong. As Dan Savage pointed out, heterosexuals had ALREADY changed marriage long before the gays came along. Forgive the bluntness, but marriage used to basically be a property transaction where a woman was transferred from her family to her husband. Long ago, though, marriage in the US has legally been viewed as a merge of equals. In fact, ALL states AFAIK had already gotten rid of parts of their laws where husbands had different rights/responsibilities from wives. Allowing gay marriage was just replacing husband or wife with "spouse" in any legal document.

With 3 party marriage, the vast majority of laws related to financial transactions would fundamentally have to change. Some simple examples 1. Survivor benefits: If someone is in a >2 person marriage, does that mean all of their spouses can continue to collect survivor benefits until the last person dies? 2. Tax-free inheritance: Similar to the above, but does a >2 person marriage mean everyone gets tax free inheritance? 3. Healthcare benefits: Could you put 5 spouses on one employee-sponsored health plan? 4. Tax laws: Tax laws would need a total rewrite because all brackets/amounts just support a single person or a 2-person marriage.

>2 person marriage has huge legal and financial implications that gay marriage did not.

[Lawtonfogle]

Perhaps simpler would be allowing one person to be in multiple 2 person marriages at once. Even if one of these must be set as the primary, for which all tax benefits, etc. apply to. So while a 3 person marriage would leave one person with no primary, a 4 person marriage would really be 6 marriages, only 2 of which are primary and which function mostly the same. Any special cases like power of attorney could work through the primary marriage unless a legal document was drafted that changed the functionality.

I'm sure a think tank can form a much better option than the one I crafted in under 5 minutes.

[LordKano]

1. Survivor benefits: If someone is in a >2 person marriage, does that mean all of their spouses can continue to collect survivor benefits until the last person dies?

Survivor benefits continue as long as there is a surviving spouse. It doesn't matter if there are 1 or 3.

2. Tax-free inheritance: Similar to the above, but does a >2 person marriage mean everyone gets tax free inheritance?

Every surviving participant in the marriage inherits tax free. Just like now.

3. Healthcare benefits: Could you put 5 spouses on one employee-sponsored health plan?

Yes.

4. Tax laws: Tax laws would need a total rewrite because all brackets/amounts just support a single person or a 2-person marriage.

Married or Single are the current choices. That wouldn't be any different. It would actually incentivize multiple person marriage.

[adevine]

And your answers are fundamentally why >2 person marriage isn't coming anytime soon. All of these solutions are basically break the entire slew of existing financial setups around marriage. Do you think a company would be willing to put 5 married people on the same spousal health plan? Do you think Social Security is going to be OK with 1 person's benefits potentially outliving them for decades as they carry on to multiple spouses?

>2 person marriage is fundamentally different from existing marriage laws in a way gay marriage is not.