Reply to Why is polygamy illegal?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Why is polygamy illegal?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Even beyond any religious objections, polygamy is not a victimless crime. The laws against bigamy protect the first wife, who could lose most of the benefits and security of marriage without her consent. [/quote]
If someone is victimized there are already laws in place to protect them.  What [i]benefits [/i]would be stolen from the first wife?  How would her [i]security[/i] be jeopardized?[/quote]

Seriously? Marriage is a contract with shared benefits and responsibilities. The wife's share of the family property, retirement, and assets would be jeopardized, as would her children's share of support from the father, if he can just keep adding more wives and children. In most of these cases, the women do not earn much income on their own and are dependent on their husbands. The wives are only getting married once. It is the husbands who have multiple marriages. [/quote]

OK, but you do understand that in no way do our current laws protect women from this problem in divorce and remarriage, right? [/quote]
There is also no protection from either spouse going out and having affairs.  Either spouse having children with someone else, or either spouse spending money frivolously on others.  And as you said, it's a contract, so the fist wife could always add language to the contract to add whatever protections she deems appropriate.[/quote]

Some benefits for surviving spouses are written into law for retirement benefits, Social Security benefits, tax benefits. I can't withdraw money from my retirement accounts or change my retirement benefits without my wife signing her consent.

There are state law provisions for dividing joint marital property in a divorce - some states more than others.

All of those benefits and protections would be watered down if the husband could add another wife without settling up with the first wife first. [/quote]
Your falsely assuming the family unit would dissolve once a spouse dies.  The benefits would only be "watered down" if the the surviving spouses discontinued living together.

Those same laws you speak of would protect all spouses.  So for example if you change your retirement account beneficiaries it would require the signature of all spouses.[/quote]

There is no marriage after the bigamist dies. The wives are not married to each other, only to the husband. So you would have the widows dividing the property and assets, not sharing them in a continuing marriage. What I am saying that for some reason you refuse to acknowledge is that the first wife's share of the marriage property, assets, and benefits from her husband will be watered down if the husband marries a second wife. The first wife loses some of her claim on the husband's estate but does not have any legal claim to any income or assets that the second wife brought to her marriage with the husband.  The husband shares the assets and responsibilities of all of his marriages, but each wife only has a claim to the assets of her own marriage. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics