Legal stuff.

Some Legal Questions

One aspect of the way of life among Howard's is polyamory. While we are in support of abolition of State sanctioned marriages, and or legalization of Polygamy (Including polygyny and polyandry) we recommend that our members that they stay within the law unless they wish to become a test case before the supreme court. This means that we do not practice "marriage" as defined by the United States or most countries around the world. We instead come together in voluntary family groupings to support one another and raise children in a caring and loving home. When we say family we do not here speak of genetic links nor of traditional families, instead we mean mutual adoption. Contrary to popular myth this is not illegal. What is illegal at least here in the United States is polygamy, which as defined by law is marriage to more than one individual. This means claiming to have more than one husband (polyandry) or more than one wife (polygyny), it is currently unclear if claiming to have both a wife and a husband would be legally polygamy, we however are incline to believe so however.

To avoid legal complications we recommend that our members stay away from traditional terms associated with marriage and instead speak of terms associated with family or neutral terms. While this may appear to some to be a Symantec ruse this is in truth not the case. Words have specific meanings, for example while the term Wife has come to change quite a bit over the past hundred years, it is still culturally and legally akin to a woman owned by her husband. It is true that not all husbands think in such terms but they are few and far between. The word has further been complicated by the feminazi who have attempted to redefine in such a way as to deny men the right to act gallantly, any action such as pulling out a chair or holding open a door is seen as oppression.

Instead of using inaccurate terms such as husband and wife we opt for such terms as mate or partner or the like. This is because we recognize the absurdity of monogamy, and the diverse forms which families can take. For example it is quite possible for someone to be a mate but not a partner, or a partner but not a mate. This is because a mate is someone whom one feels amorously towards but has not committed to a relationship with, conversely a partner is someone who one chooses to raise children with. Thus a gay man and a lesbian woman may be partners but not mates. In my own family there are two men and one woman and we are working on our first child. We never refer to each other as husbands and wife, because this term as stated before is inaccurate, and we are opposed to state controlled licencing of marriage.

Wait you don't hold to monogamy?
No we do not. For those who ask that question we recommend they study history. Not only is monogamy a recent invention, not becoming wide spread until Christianity conquered the west in the 1200's, further it is impractical. When men and women could expect to be married less than twenty years because one spouse or the other would die, it is not practical in a world with a greatly increased and increasing life expectancy. The current projections for my life expectancy if technology continues to develop at its current rate is 150 years. I will not say how old I am except to say that it is less than fifty. True not serial monogamy unrealistically expects that people never change. You are suppose to be the same person she married when you were twenty, an she is suppose to be the same person at 70. Instead we recognize that people grow apart and together again, and that this is the natural way of things. We also do not see why families should be broken up just because a couple do not love each other the same way anymore. Instead we have built in a flexible family structure, so that partners can peruse their own paths and still raise children together. Just because mom broke up with dad why should dad move out. If the boyfriend is interested in joining the family can not three more easily take care of children than two? Instead our irrational society demands that dad move out before moms boyfriend can move in. Who keeps the children? Further the breakup wastes resources as now their are two households instead of one.

Often times a breakup happens when the two people involved are not in love with each other any more. Our question is why breakup? No we do not mean stay in a relationship which is painful to both, but when possible why not split up and stay together raising the children. This only requires a redefining of the relationship. It preserves resources of all parties, and allows parents to be fully involved in their children life. Redefine how? Instead of boyfriend/girlfriend mom and dad are simply roommates.

We do understand that it takes a strong person to think in these terms, as the society puts strong pressures on individuals to conform to its code. Our question however is who's good does societies current code serve? The children who must choose either mom or dad? The parents who must waste money supporting two households, instead of spending that money on ones children and oneself? Even society looses, as such a scheme makes it impossible to save and or invest, thus tying up capital in unnecessary redundant behavior. Our way however avoids these evils, as well as provides for a multitude of loving parents. Our philosophy is "dad is not the one who impregnated your mom, but the men who were their for you." yes men. and the same goes for moms.

What to do then? How do you handle property and the like?

We recommend that our members establish LLC's which holds all common property, such as a house and the like. It can also be setup so that all common bills are charged to the LLC, as well as setting up health plans and the like.


An exception for those who must get married.
There are some of our members we recognize that want marriage for whatever reason. For them we recommend a four corner marriage. This means that while the two couples hold property in common, and raise children together the couples are separate.