In what way is polygamy illeagal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I understand it is illegal to legally marry one spouse and then get a state to perform a second legal (as opposed to religious) marriage while still married to the first.

But is it illegal to be legally married to one person and hold another person out as your second spouse? That shouldn't be illegal.

What do you mean by "holding out"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love is love is love.

I'm asking about what the law IS.

chill, dude/dudette

It's a joke.

love X 3, I imagine

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand it is illegal to legally marry one spouse and then get a state to perform a second legal (as opposed to religious) marriage while still married to the first.

But is it illegal to be legally married to one person and hold another person out as your second spouse? That shouldn't be illegal.

What do you mean by "holding out"?

As in common law marriage, you hold the person out to others as your spouse.

[Anonymous]

I think I've figured it out. Bigamy is marrying more than one person using the law. Polygamy, under some laws) does not require two government weddings. Simply having a ceremony, living with your second wife, and calling her your wife is in violation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love is love is love.

I'm asking about what the law IS.

I am sure that you know this but it depends on your state. The relevant dc statute is here http://dccode.org/simple/sections/22-501.html. MD and VA likley have their own version.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think either should be illegal.

I've always wondered how mistresses weren't polygamy?

But you can see for taxation and other benefits why the government might prefer to keep people in units of two adults. There are government benefits distributed to spouses of government employees, for example, and you don't want people pretending to be polygamous so they can get more benefits.

That doesn't support making social polygamy illegal.

Your argument is silly. That extra spouse could have been picked up by another government employee. Same with taxes.

[Anonymous]

OP I am not a lawyer but I will attempt to answer your question based on what I have read. Disclaimer, I believe that it is unconstitutional to ban polygamy.
Ok here goes. It is illegal to be legally married to one person and at the same time call another person your spouse. Even if the second marriage is not on the books. The laws actually don't ban extramarital affairs. It is just illegal when you call another person your spouse if you are legally married to one person. BTW I'm not sure if you do not legally marry anyone but call two people your spouse, you are breaking the law. Also in some places, cohabitation with another person who you are having a relationship with is illegal.
It seems that when you say that you have a second spouse, and you are doing so for religious reasons, you are breaking the law.
Few people have been prosecuted for this though. In the last 40 years, only a handful have been prosecuted.
The is also a ban on legal marriages to more than one person.

[Anonymous]

Many people will scoff at this...and call it bigotry...but with the passing of laws regarding same sex marriage polygamy is next.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many people will scoff at this...and call it bigotry...but with the passing of laws regarding same sex marriage polygamy is next.

Assuming the legal logistics were worked out, I have no problem with the idea of group marriages. However, I think it's highly unlikely for a few reasons:

1) There's a much smaller constituency supporting polygamy than there is supporting gay marriage - that means much less public exposure and much less money devoted to the cause. Although I wouldn't have a problem with plural marriages, I'm not interested in one myself and I have no friends or relatives who are being frustrated in their desires to have a group marriage. On the other hand, I have friends and family who are gay.

2) There's much less public sympathy towards polygamy. Of course that could change rapidly, as it did with gay marriage, but given (1), that seems unlikely.

3) Permitting polygamy creates a legal nightmare in terms of benefits, child custody, property rights, inheritance, divorce, etc. All of that can be resolved with effort, but given the lack of social pressure and political support, it's unlikely that anyone is going to push hard for it.

4) Because there are other cultures that permit polygamy, there is actually more legitimate academic research on the adverse consequences of polygamy both for the individual members of the family and the society. Something that doesn't actually exist with gay marriage (i.e., no one could actually demonstrate there is a harm to permitting gay marriage, but there have been studies showing harms associated with polygamy both at an individual and societal level).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP I am not a lawyer but I will attempt to answer your question based on what I have read. Disclaimer, I believe that it is unconstitutional to ban polygamy.
Ok here goes. It is illegal to be legally married to one person and at the same time call another person your spouse. Even if the second marriage is not on the books. The laws actually don't ban extramarital affairs. It is just illegal when you call another person your spouse if you are legally married to one person. BTW I'm not sure if you do not legally marry anyone but call two people your spouse, you are breaking the law. Also in some places, cohabitation with another person who you are having a relationship with is illegal.
It seems that when you say that you have a second spouse, and you are doing so for religious reasons, you are breaking the law.
Few people have been prosecuted for this though. In the last 40 years, only a handful have been prosecuted.
The is also a ban on legal marriages to more than one person.

I'm pretty sure it would only be illegal if you present that person as your spouse to the government or authorities. If you introduce someone to your friend as your wife and she actually isn't, I doubt that would be a crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many people will scoff at this...and call it bigotry...but with the passing of laws regarding same sex marriage polygamy is next.

Fine with me. My main issue with the current state of polygamous marriages is that they often involved young women who are coerced. I don't care what consenting adults do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many people will scoff at this...and call it bigotry...but with the passing of laws regarding same sex marriage polygamy is next.

Assuming the legal logistics were worked out, I have no problem with the idea of group marriages. However, I think it's highly unlikely for a few reasons:

1) There's a much smaller constituency supporting polygamy than there is supporting gay marriage - that means much less public exposure and much less money devoted to the cause. Although I wouldn't have a problem with plural marriages, I'm not interested in one myself and I have no friends or relatives who are being frustrated in their desires to have a group marriage. On the other hand, I have friends and family who are gay.

2) There's much less public sympathy towards polygamy. Of course that could change rapidly, as it did with gay marriage, but given (1), that seems unlikely.

3) Permitting polygamy creates a legal nightmare in terms of benefits, child custody, property rights, inheritance, divorce, etc. All of that can be resolved with effort, but given the lack of social pressure and political support, it's unlikely that anyone is going to push hard for it.

4) Because there are other cultures that permit polygamy, there is actually more legitimate academic research on the adverse consequences of polygamy both for the individual members of the family and the society. Something that doesn't actually exist with gay marriage (i.e., no one could actually demonstrate there is a harm to permitting gay marriage, but there have been studies showing harms associated with polygamy both at an individual and societal level).

WRT #4. It is hard to tease out the negative effects of polygamy in those cultures with the culture itself. I bet if you told those men that they could only have one wife, that wife would be just as unhappy.
Also, we have not had a long enough track record with gay marriage to know of any ill effects.

It is likely that there will be a ruling on the federal level that the ban is unconstitutional, then one or two states (Nevada more likely) will allow it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP I am not a lawyer but I will attempt to answer your question based on what I have read. Disclaimer, I believe that it is unconstitutional to ban polygamy.
Ok here goes. It is illegal to be legally married to one person and at the same time call another person your spouse. Even if the second marriage is not on the books. The laws actually don't ban extramarital affairs. It is just illegal when you call another person your spouse if you are legally married to one person. BTW I'm not sure if you do not legally marry anyone but call two people your spouse, you are breaking the law. Also in some places, cohabitation with another person who you are having a relationship with is illegal.
It seems that when you say that you have a second spouse, and you are doing so for religious reasons, you are breaking the law.
Few people have been prosecuted for this though. In the last 40 years, only a handful have been prosecuted.
The is also a ban on legal marriages to more than one person.

I'm pretty sure it would only be illegal if you present that person as your spouse to the government or authorities. If you introduce someone to your friend as your wife and she actually isn't, I doubt that would be a crime.

Sadly, I am right and it is illegal to do that. It is an odd confusing law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many people will scoff at this...and call it bigotry...but with the passing of laws regarding same sex marriage polygamy is next.

Assuming the legal logistics were worked out, I have no problem with the idea of group marriages. However, I think it's highly unlikely for a few reasons:

1) There's a much smaller constituency supporting polygamy than there is supporting gay marriage - that means much less public exposure and much less money devoted to the cause. Although I wouldn't have a problem with plural marriages, I'm not interested in one myself and I have no friends or relatives who are being frustrated in their desires to have a group marriage. On the other hand, I have friends and family who are gay.

2) There's much less public sympathy towards polygamy. Of course that could change rapidly, as it did with gay marriage, but given (1), that seems unlikely.

3) Permitting polygamy creates a legal nightmare in terms of benefits, child custody, property rights, inheritance, divorce, etc. All of that can be resolved with effort, but given the lack of social pressure and political support, it's unlikely that anyone is going to push hard for it.

4) Because there are other cultures that permit polygamy, there is actually more legitimate academic research on the adverse consequences of polygamy both for the individual members of the family and the society. Something that doesn't actually exist with gay marriage (i.e., no one could actually demonstrate there is a harm to permitting gay marriage, but there have been studies showing harms associated with polygamy both at an individual and societal level).

If it is brought before the Supreme Court...and the issue regarding same sex marriage has been largely resolved, and there are cases working through the system, don't you think they will take the case and rule?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many people will scoff at this...and call it bigotry...but with the passing of laws regarding same sex marriage polygamy is next.

Assuming the legal logistics were worked out, I have no problem with the idea of group marriages. However, I think it's highly unlikely for a few reasons:

1) There's a much smaller constituency supporting polygamy than there is supporting gay marriage - that means much less public exposure and much less money devoted to the cause. Although I wouldn't have a problem with plural marriages, I'm not interested in one myself and I have no friends or relatives who are being frustrated in their desires to have a group marriage. On the other hand, I have friends and family who are gay.

2) There's much less public sympathy towards polygamy. Of course that could change rapidly, as it did with gay marriage, but given (1), that seems unlikely.

3) Permitting polygamy creates a legal nightmare in terms of benefits, child custody, property rights, inheritance, divorce, etc. All of that can be resolved with effort, but given the lack of social pressure and political support, it's unlikely that anyone is going to push hard for it.

4) Because there are other cultures that permit polygamy, there is actually more legitimate academic research on the adverse consequences of polygamy both for the individual members of the family and the society. Something that doesn't actually exist with gay marriage (i.e., no one could actually demonstrate there is a harm to permitting gay marriage, but there have been studies showing harms associated with polygamy both at an individual and societal level).

If it is brought before the Supreme Court...and the issue regarding same sex marriage has been largely resolved, and there are cases working through the system, don't you think they will take the case and rule?

Agree, and WRT #1 above, the principle of a republic is just for that tiny minority whose rights are being violated. IOW, it does not really matter how many people are being harmed by the unfair laws, it just takes one.