SB 1476

Hi everyone, no I haven't dissapeared into a black hole, though grad school may be the next closest thing (-: I'm starting to get the rhythm of my schedule figured out, and after reading on all the California excitement on SB 1476, I decided to bring forth my return with an assessment of the bill. It's interesting stuff really.

For those who are curious, I'm going to be getting back into a weekend updating plan, so we'll see how that goes. I've been getting some help from the folks at Modern Poly (http://modernpoly.com/) with the case law review, which so dramatically eases the burden! This may actually be doable!

Anyway, more on that later, for now, I present...

Assessment of California SB 1476:

I'm still not sure I can properly digest the text of SB 1476... And the politics behind it are confusing me even more. After reviewing the CA Senate Rules Committee bill analysis of SB 1476 [1], I'm shocked there's only three organizations listed in opposition, and over a dozen listed in support... This legislation is as politically progressive as I've ever seen before, and far more so than I would ever expect to see, even for California.

I'd like to draw attention to a particular amendment that the bill proposes:

7162.b: “...a court may find that a child has more than two natural or adoptive parents...” [2]

This bit, even more than anything else, is completely shocking to me... The idea that California may recognize more than two 'natural' parents? Wow... I don't know what to make of that.

It is interesting that the opposition arguments focus on implementation issues and not moral issues, which goes in stark contrast to CA's 2008 ballot proposition 8, effectively banning homosexual marriage. It's an interesting look at the political dynamic between the citizenry and the electorate in California, as there seems to be quite a mismatch.

What does this mean to poly people though? Well, it's hard to see this as anything but a step forward, however it's important to remember that all SB 1476 is saying is that the judiciary is allowed to recognize more than two parents. There's no mandate for judges to do this, and no application process to allow for people to petition for this, it's a baby step.

Still though, it's a step.

- Jason

[1] - http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_1451-1500/sb_1476_cfa_20120828_161909_sen_floor.html

[2] - http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_1451-1500/sb_1476_bill_20120224_introduced.html

Brief Update

Hi Folks,

Just as a brief update, I *just* got to the Boston area this evening, gimmie a week or two to get settled in properly and I'll be able to start doing proper updates here!

Woot! (-:

- Jason Cherry

Change of Plan

So after doing some serious consideration on how to proceed in writing the paper, I decided to forstall it, as there's a few big holes in the research, which really looked me in the eye while I was writing. Namely there's the case law issue, which is going to take a LOT of additional research work, but will make for an exceptional project over the next few years. As such I'm going to be revisiting the state-by-state reviews, and re-doing them into proper legal research documents, now that I have some sense of what proper legal research is.

In the mean time, I'm going to post what I've already written (which is rather significant) for everyone to take a look at. It's a more detailed version of what I've been blabbing on about this past year, so enjoy!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nmeG7y0hbrcDTloWAPfT4YFXeWbG0dGos02_wRIysI0/edit

This is complete first-draft material, so there's going to be errors, problems and such. I'm not sure how much time I'll have to work on this, but with how grad school is looking, not much. This may have to be a shelved project until I finish my Master's degree, but we'll see. For the time being I'm putting things on hiatus until I'm actually in grad school and better able to asses my schedule.

Cheers,

- Jason

Assessment Models/Data

Hi Everyone,

I'm still in the throes of writing the paper, but I thought I'd share some of my assessment tools and data with you prior to dumping everything on ya'll at once.

Relationship styles, identified by relationship behaviors:

Style	Sexual	Emotional	Practical
Monogamy	Exclusive	Exclusive	Dyadic
Swinging	Inclusive	Exclusive	Dyadic
Open Relationship	Inclusive	Inclusive	Dyadic
Polyamory	Inclusive	Inclusive	Non-Dyadic
Polyfidelity	Exclusive	Exclusive	Non-Dyadic

This serves as the main tool I'll be using to match up the actual non-monogamous relationships and how they're most frequently done with the legal dimensions. You can find more details in Review 8. though I have made a few tweaks from the original connections made there, but the core idea still applies.

Also, here's the legal dimensions that I'll be using to asses state laws with:

Category	Fornication	Adultery	Bigamy
Friendly	None	None	Simple
Unfriendly	None	Present	Simple
Aggressive	Present	Present	Simple
Dyadic	None	None	Dyadic
Resistant	None	Present	Dyadic
Hostile	Present	Present	Dyadic

As I wrote about in my BA Senior Thesis, Adultery and Bigamy are the 'big two' that have already been identified. Fornication is the 'new kid,' that I ran into while doing the research.

And, a few research stats for you:

Category	Number
Friendly	11
Unfriendly	4
Aggressive	8
Dyadic	16
Resistant	6
Hostile	6

IMPORTANT NOTE: These numbers are subject to some revision between now and when I finish. Odds are things won't change too much (deviation by 5-10% maybe), so this can serve as a ballpark number for those interested.

Just something to satiate your appetite while I write the paper (-:

Cheers!

- Jason

Grad School - Official Word

So, it's official. I'm going to Brandeis University's Master's in Public Policy program, starting this fall! They have, if not the best, one of the best family policy programs in the nation. Very exciting!!! 5 more months of what I have today, then I start. Boston here I come!

(-:

- Jason

Review 8: Swinging in America, Chapter 6 (monogamy)

Review 8:
Bergstrand, C. R. & Sinski, J. B. (2010). Swinging in america: Love, sex, and marriage in the 21st century. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, LLC.
Chapter 4: The Social Construction of Monogamy.
Sub-Section: What is Monogamy? (pp. 82-3)

This will be a little different than I usually do for these reviews, as I'm going over something I've already read. The focus here is to narrow down on something I've already covered and refine it into another tool to use for policy analysis. This time I'm re-visiting the Swinger/Open/Polyamory/Polyfidelity (S/O/PA/PF) model I used in my senior paper, and mixing it with the monogamy model used in this book.

For the curious, this is an amazing book. Ignore the title, there's material in here that covers all forms of non-monogamy.

To summarize the model that Bergstrand & Sinski work with in their book, there's three dimensions that monogamy is looked at, sexual, emotional and practical. Sexual is dyadic sexual paring, a pretty easy one to understand. Emotional is dyadic emotional bonding, usually confined only to being in love. Practical is dyadic life bonding, where you only share the regular routine of life (chores, movies, paying bills, etc.) dyadicly.

This is a phenomenally useful tool in analyzing non-monogamous relationships, as it overlaps very nicely both with the existing models I use, and with the category divisions found within U.S. laws. I will be making a minor revision to one of the criteria: I will be defining practical monogamy as dyadic family structure, and practical non-monogamy as a non-dyadic family structure. This is a policy-related adjustment, to add a higher degree of precision to the term, and to better make it fit with policy/legal analysis. With that, let me see if I can summarize the overlaps here, starting with how the three dimensions of monogamy mix with the S/O/PA/PF model:

Monogamy (traditional or serial): Monogamous across all three dimensions, sexual, emotional and practical. Not really the focus here, but it's what the normative ideal is, so I might as well mention it. Traditional (lifetime) monogamy and serial monogamy are lumped together here as policy and law (by and large) only look at how many partners you have at this moment, not over a lifetime.

Swinging (Also includes gay men): Sexually non-monogamous, emotionally and practically monogamous. Swingers tend to view themselves as only having a dyadic relationship with their partner, despite the sexual activity outside of that relationship. Gay men tend to have similar views, but I'll be using the term swingers to encompass both.

Open Relationships: Sexually and emotionally non-monogamous, practically monogamous. Though this could be classified as a form of polyamory, I separate it for policy/legal purposes. Open relationships can be thought of as a primary/secondary model, with a dyadic primary. Sexual and emotional connections are open, but the act of living one's life is only shared with one person, the primary.

Polyamory: Sexual, emotional and practical non-monogamy. This would be your multi-partner outside relationships O.K. style of non-monogamy. Also the most complex style, as connections exist all over the place (Anyone remember Spaceballs? :-). Though this can have a primary/secondary model, the distinguishing feature of polyamory is that the primary isn't exclusively dyadic.

Polyfidelity (includes religious polygamy): Sexual and emotional monogamy, practical non-monogamy. These are your 'closed' poly relationships, where you have 3 or more people who are in a poly relationship, but are exclusive within that relationship for their sexual and emotional connections. This includes religious polygamy (FLDS, for example) as well, despite the vast cultural differences between the two. From a policy perspective there really isn't much of a difference.

Please keep in mind that, like with all categories, there's more variation within groups than between groups. These are general assessments about general categories, not hard-and-fast rules. Swingers *generally* fit within the above description, but it's not an exclusive category. Open and PA (polyamorous) people *generally* fit into the above descriptions, but as anyone in an active poly community knows, there's a TON of grey area between the two. Same with PF (polyfidelitous) people.

So, now the abridged legal/policy assessment based on the monogamy dimensions, overlapped with the S/O/PA/PF categories:

Sexual Monogamy: Largely in the purview of the adultery and fornication laws. Since these laws control who you can have sex with, outside of a marriage relationship, anyone who's sexually non-monogamous is potentially open to liability here (things get complicated w/ PF relationships, bear with me).

Emotional Monogamy: Under criminal laws there's really nothing covering emotional monogamy. There is alienation of affection covered in civil laws, but that's beyond the scope of this particular piece of work. It's something I'l revisit later, which is why I keep the category around. As criminal law goes though, this category can be eliminated, so Swinger and Open relationships largely suffer the same afflictions.

Practical Monogamy: The primary barrier here is the bigamy laws, preventing a legal non-monogamous marriage, and (depending on the state) criminalizing multi-partner cohabitation. As always, bigamy and adultery/fornication laws interact with each other to treat PA and PF relationships basically the same, despite very different external behaviors. Because there is exclusivity in some of the dimensions, and potential civil law issues, I retain the division between PA and PF.

Well there you go, folks. This sums up the literature review. I've completed the final step in this legal assessment, and all that's left is for me to actually write the damn paper (-: This is going to be a major project, and it's not going to require me to interact with the blog much, so expect me to drop out for awhile. I'm targeting a drop-dead-must-have-done-by-date of June 15. Two months and change to finish this. I give myself some extra time as I'll be writing it legal bluebook format, which I've never done before, and this will be the single largest paper I have ever worked on.

Feel free to drop me a line anytime to check on the status, I welcome correspondence: JCherry@gmail.com. Feedback, advice, etc is always welcome too.

See ya'll in a few months!

- Jason

P.S. Yes, I will post the details about grad school here, as soon as I finalize them (-:

Review 7: Border Sexualities, Border Families in Schools, Chapter 4 (Complete)

Author's Note:

I'm hesitant to announce the news prior to it being official, but I'll say this much: I'm going to grad school! (-: Details forthcoming once I get things locked down.

- Jason

-----------------

Review 7:
Pallotta-Chiarolli, M. (2010). Border sexualities, border families in schools. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Fourth Chapter: "Messing up the Couples Cabinet": Multisexual and Polyamorous Families in Schools. (complete chapter) Pp. 161-220

Instead of doing a chapter summation, as it's nicely covered in the three subsections, I'm starting to formulate a framework based on the material in this chapter to use as an assessment tool for all three models, pass/border/pollute. Since the goal of this blog is both public information, and to support my policy/legal research, I'm going to focus this post on how to adapt passing/bordering/polluting into policy analysis. I covered passing and polluting's models nicely in their subsections, but let me lay it out here in completeness, and with a specific emphasis on assessing the impact of specific policies/laws on polyfamilies.

Passing: Since passing families try to acclimate to existing labels, it's a matter of how effectively the family can 'cloak' their poly behaviors from the institution who's policy is being assessed. The questions that come up on a passing assessment are 'What labels are most similar to a polyfamily structure, that are still legitimized by the policy/institution?', 'What labels are the least likely to cause the polyfamily to come under scrutiny from the institution?' and 'What services/benefits/etc. do those labels provide/remove/modify/etc that don't match with the family structure?' Asking these questions of a policy would provide insight into not only how might polyfamilies interact with said policy, but also to identify how friendly the policy is to that approach.

Polluting: I'll get to bordering in a moment, as polluting is important to cover first. Since polluting families are 'out', unlike passing families it's not a matter of how well they can fit themselves to the labels, it's a matter of how well the labels can be applied to the polluting family. The questions to ask here are 'On contact with the family, what parts of the polyfamily structure can 'fit' into existing labels and processes, and what can't?', 'From those parts that can and can't fit, what services are and aren't accessible to the family?' and 'what kind of 'wiggle-room' does the policy provide to accommodate for not fitting within the labels?'. These questions can strongly highlight inequity issues between monogamous and non-monogamous families, as it's the policy's ability to handle the family, not the other way around, that's being assessed here. For an activist-approach toward policy (important for my future work), these seem to be vital questions to ask.

Bordering: Like explained previously, bordering is something of a hybrid approach, but also an amalgam of it's own. Since there's a mix-n-match process that goes on here, the questions from passing and polluting both need to be asked, in addition to questions like 'Where in the policy is passing or polluting a more effective strategy?', 'How much leeway does the policy give towards inconsistent representations?' and 'How will a selective and targeted approach impact the services/benefits/etc. that the polyfamily has access to?' The idea is to capture border's amorphousness in interacting with different groups in different ways.

After all these questions are asked, then a few final questions needs to be asked: 'Which of these three approaches yields the most services for the polyfamily?', 'How well do those services address polyfamily needs?' and 'How do those services compare to the services, and service needs, of monogamous families?' This is both an effectiveness question, and a 'social directing' question. The effectiveness is about trying to find out how well non-monogamous families are served by these policies compared to monogamous families. The 'social directing' question is asking how this policy encourages certain kinds of non-monogamous behaviors, by making them more and/or less beneficial for the family.

There's one other key concept that I got from this chapter, and that's the idea of the 'panopticonic' environment, or the idea that there's a constant sense of surveillance, in a very 'big brother' fashion. I'm not going to spend too much time on this, but it struck me rather interestingly, as each of the three approaches addressed it in different ways, passers by hiding, polluters by 'gussying up' for the proverbial press, and borders by being just enough in the light to function, but not so much to gain notice. I really think there's more to dig into here, but my work must go forward. I'd really encourage other academics to look into how notions of being panopticonically observed and how that impacts non-monogamy.

I have 14 pages left to go in this book, so I may have one more posting about it, but I may not. I'm about ready to launch into the writing process, but I need to do one more review prior to that. Expect to see that within the next week or so.

- Jason