Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW, there is talk of challenging (among other things) the constitutionality of a man (or woman) not being able to SAY that they have more than one spouse.
It gets into freedom of speech issues.
I hope thatthe polygamists can present their arguments in a clear and calm way to get legislation changed.
Illegal plural marriage is truly a violation of their rights.

Saying you have more than one spouse doesn't make you a bigamist. You have to actually get married.

Here is relevant section of the DC Code (http://dccode.org/simple/sections/22-501.html)
"Whoever, having a spouse or domestic partner living, marries or enters a domestic partnership with another shall be deemed guilty of bigamy."

Nothing in there about calling someone your spouse.

That is a bit much. So essentially they can throw you in the slammer for this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW, there is talk of challenging (among other things) the constitutionality of a man (or woman) not being able to SAY that they have more than one spouse.
It gets into freedom of speech issues.
I hope thatthe polygamists can present their arguments in a clear and calm way to get legislation changed.
Illegal plural marriage is truly a violation of their rights.

Saying you have more than one spouse doesn't make you a bigamist. You have to actually get married.

Here is relevant section of the DC Code (http://dccode.org/simple/sections/22-501.html)
"Whoever, having a spouse or domestic partner living, marries or enters a domestic partnership with another shall be deemed guilty of bigamy."

Nothing in there about calling someone your spouse.

That is at the local level. At the federal level, the talk is itself is criminal.

Sorry, "the talk is itself, criminal"

The federal statute only applies to people living "in a Territory or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction." IE, not in a state. Marriage is the domain of the states.

The statute is here, the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882: http://probationarystate.blogspot.com/2010/06/laws-against-polygamy-1882-edmunds-act.html

(A subsequent federal polygamy law, the Edmunds-Tucker Act, was repealed in 1978).

The statute makes it a crime to for a man to "cohabit with more than one woman," so a formal marriage is not necessary. But there is no prohibition in the law on speech.

As a historical note, Wikipedia notes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds_Act) "The Edmunds Act restrictions were enforced regardless of whether an individual was actually practicing polygamy, or merely stated a belief in the Mormon doctrine of plural marriage without actually participating in it."

So yes, at one time, if you were living in a federal territory, merely stating support for polygamy was enough to get you charged, even though that wasn't what the law said.

Regardless, there have been convictions in recent years, merely for declaring that the man supports polygamy and has relations with more than one woman. Many of them were with other charges like child rape, but nevertheless bigamy was a charge. Utah is the most strict since I believe banning polygamy was a condition to become a state and recover church assets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW, there is talk of challenging (among other things) the constitutionality of a man (or woman) not being able to SAY that they have more than one spouse.
It gets into freedom of speech issues.
I hope thatthe polygamists can present their arguments in a clear and calm way to get legislation changed.
Illegal plural marriage is truly a violation of their rights.

Saying you have more than one spouse doesn't make you a bigamist. You have to actually get married.

Here is relevant section of the DC Code (http://dccode.org/simple/sections/22-501.html)
"Whoever, having a spouse or domestic partner living, marries or enters a domestic partnership with another shall be deemed guilty of bigamy."

Nothing in there about calling someone your spouse.

That is at the local level. At the federal level, the talk is itself is criminal.

Sorry, "the talk is itself, criminal"

The federal statute only applies to people living "in a Territory or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction." IE, not in a state. Marriage is the domain of the states.

The statute is here, the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882: http://probationarystate.blogspot.com/2010/06/laws-against-polygamy-1882-edmunds-act.html

(A subsequent federal polygamy law, the Edmunds-Tucker Act, was repealed in 1978).

The statute makes it a crime to for a man to "cohabit with more than one woman," so a formal marriage is not necessary. But there is no prohibition in the law on speech.

As a historical note, Wikipedia notes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds_Act) "The Edmunds Act restrictions were enforced regardless of whether an individual was actually practicing polygamy, or merely stated a belief in the Mormon doctrine of plural marriage without actually participating in it."

So yes, at one time, if you were living in a federal territory, merely stating support for polygamy was enough to get you charged, even though that wasn't what the law said.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW, there is talk of challenging (among other things) the constitutionality of a man (or woman) not being able to SAY that they have more than one spouse.
It gets into freedom of speech issues.
I hope thatthe polygamists can present their arguments in a clear and calm way to get legislation changed.
Illegal plural marriage is truly a violation of their rights.

Saying you have more than one spouse doesn't make you a bigamist. You have to actually get married.

Here is relevant section of the DC Code (http://dccode.org/simple/sections/22-501.html)
"Whoever, having a spouse or domestic partner living, marries or enters a domestic partnership with another shall be deemed guilty of bigamy."

Nothing in there about calling someone your spouse.

That is at the local level. At the federal level, the talk is itself is criminal.

Sorry, "the talk is itself, criminal"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW, there is talk of challenging (among other things) the constitutionality of a man (or woman) not being able to SAY that they have more than one spouse.
It gets into freedom of speech issues.
I hope thatthe polygamists can present their arguments in a clear and calm way to get legislation changed.
Illegal plural marriage is truly a violation of their rights.

Saying you have more than one spouse doesn't make you a bigamist. You have to actually get married.

Here is relevant section of the DC Code (http://dccode.org/simple/sections/22-501.html)
"Whoever, having a spouse or domestic partner living, marries or enters a domestic partnership with another shall be deemed guilty of bigamy."

Nothing in there about calling someone your spouse.

That is at the local level. At the federal level, the talk is itself is criminal.

Anonymous wrote:BTW, there is talk of challenging (among other things) the constitutionality of a man (or woman) not being able to SAY that they have more than one spouse.
It gets into freedom of speech issues.
I hope thatthe polygamists can present their arguments in a clear and calm way to get legislation changed.
Illegal plural marriage is truly a violation of their rights.

Saying you have more than one spouse doesn't make you a bigamist. You have to actually get married.

Here is relevant section of the DC Code (http://dccode.org/simple/sections/22-501.html)
"Whoever, having a spouse or domestic partner living, marries or enters a domestic partnership with another shall be deemed guilty of bigamy."

Nothing in there about calling someone your spouse.

Anonymous wrote:
The only legal framework for polygamy that exists today (sharia) views each couple as completely separate and detached from all other couples of which one spouse in the original couple may be a member. Multiple wives of the same man are not relatives, they don't share households, they don't even have to meet if they don't wish it. Each family exists in its own universe, meeting only occasionally for extended family events. Breakdown of one marriage has no consequences for all other marriage in which a spouse in the first may have been a member.

Actually there already exists US laws governing multiple partnerships. Granted they are geared toward business multiple partnerships but none the less they could be used as guidance as to how multiple marriage partnerships would contractually work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Actually that's just your interpretation of how assets would be divided in a multi-spousal relationship. There is no US legal precedence to support your belief. What I'm saying is yes, when the man takes on another wife, the first wife is also marrying the second wife. They are legally all married together and all three would have to sign the new marriage license. It would be a group marriage. The group could be made up of any combination of men and women. A divorce could be a complete dissolving of the entire group, one member leaving the group, a couple breaking off onto their own, etc.

Also a group marriage would offer more support, security, and benefits than a monogamous marriage.

Not necessarily. It depends entirely on how the members would organize themselves. In a fully cohesive group marriage, there would be more opportunity for support, but also more opportunity for abuse.

Aren't you one to look on the bright side. I suppose you have the same attitude about having children, the more you have the more opportunity for abuse?

No dimwit, the more unrelated adults around your child in close quarters, the more opportunity for abuse.

So a spouse is considered unrelated? Good to know.

Another spouse of your spouse is not related to you, no.

Legally, another spouse is related to you, yes. You and your husband are not related by blood, hopefully, but the legal bonds that connect you can turned and twisted and manipulated to incorporate as many people as you would like. Law is a human concept and is frequently changed to keep up with the times.

There is no "legally", at least not yet. You speak of possibilities as if they were realities.

The only legal framework for polygamy that exists today (sharia) views each couple as completely separate and detached from all other couples of which one spouse in the original couple may be a member. Multiple wives of the same man are not relatives, they don't share households, they don't even have to meet if they don't wish it. Each family exists in its own universe, meeting only occasionally for extended family events. Breakdown of one marriage has no consequences for all other marriage in which a spouse in the first may have been a member.

Anonymous wrote:I think it would be excessively difficult for one make to deal with several females on a daily basis. At least the way a Western female expects to be dealt with.

However, I think it's perfectly fine to get the state out of capable adults' hair. If multiples parties consent, who's to say they're wrong?

So you are saying that it needs to be decriminalized?

I think it would be excessively difficult for one make to deal with several females on a daily basis. At least the way a Western female expects to be dealt with.

However, I think it's perfectly fine to get the state out of capable adults' hair. If multiples parties consent, who's to say they're wrong?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Actually that's just your interpretation of how assets would be divided in a multi-spousal relationship. There is no US legal precedence to support your belief. What I'm saying is yes, when the man takes on another wife, the first wife is also marrying the second wife. They are legally all married together and all three would have to sign the new marriage license. It would be a group marriage. The group could be made up of any combination of men and women. A divorce could be a complete dissolving of the entire group, one member leaving the group, a couple breaking off onto their own, etc.

Also a group marriage would offer more support, security, and benefits than a monogamous marriage.

Not necessarily. It depends entirely on how the members would organize themselves. In a fully cohesive group marriage, there would be more opportunity for support, but also more opportunity for abuse.

Aren't you one to look on the bright side. I suppose you have the same attitude about having children, the more you have the more opportunity for abuse?

No dimwit, the more unrelated adults around your child in close quarters, the more opportunity for abuse.

So a spouse is considered unrelated? Good to know.

Another spouse of your spouse is not related to you, no.

Legally, another spouse is related to you, yes. You and your husband are not related by blood, hopefully, but the legal bonds that connect you can turned and twisted and manipulated to incorporate as many people as you would like. Law is a human concept and is frequently changed to keep up with the times.

The American polygamists I know and know of are interesting.
It seems like the men are either successful or not. Poverty seems to be the biggest problem, Which seems to drive wives away.
The most fair minded men seem to be successful. These are the ones that show no favoritism, complement their wives and so on. They try to never speak about one wife to the other, and show basic respect. The flip side is that they pick wives that are obedient. Let's not fool ourselves. Every man prefers that characteristic, but it seems to be vital to them.
Success is more likely if he has a high income, less squabble, more comfort. The more wives, the more poverty, the more split ups.
Sexual infidelity can not be tolerated partly because disease becomes a problem for the whole group.
One of these women confided that for the most part, the wives don't like to share childcare, some of that has to do with distrust. She also said that even though she could afford help, like a maid, she would never do that since it is not a custom for them, and they just don't want strangers in their homes, for privacy reasons.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It won't be for long. there is no legal basis for saying the old right to "one man one woman" marriage also includes "two men" but not "one man, two women," etc. Anti polygamy laws will be struck down on constitutional grounds soon enough.

Disagree. Who decides whether to pull the plug if you are on life support?

If there's multiple husbands, who is assumed to be the father?

If one party exits the polygamous marriage after a few years, how do you allocate his/her portion of the marital property?

Nope, marriage is a legal construct between two individuals. We don't care about what's in their pants. But we do have to limit it to two parties.

Want more than that, start a corporation. Then you'll all be one person!!!

If marriage is just a legal construct, then why should it be limited to two parties? We've already dispensed with the traditional definition, so limiting marriage to two people is just as arbitrary as limiting marriage to a man and woman.

Face it, the gay marriage crowd rendered the word marriage essentially meaningless and opened the door to legalized polygamy. It's funny to watch them run away from it. Shouldn't "love win"?

Only if someone share's their liberal cultural and political values. They associate polygamy with a conservative, breakaway sect of Mormonism and therefore oppose it.

Agree. The whole argument against polygamy has to do with the face of polygamy. They are people who are considered odd because they attach religion to something that we might do too, but more because of liberal values. For instance, polyamory is not frowned upon as polygamy is. I am a minority woman, and I am supposed to hate fundamentalist Mormons because they are said to be sexist and racists. Those qualities, even if true, do not make it so that we can deny them their rights. Years back, in some parts of this country, you could spy on someone, find them in bad with a person of the same sex,then prosecute them and take their kids away. That was sick. If a man decides to marry more than one woman, what gives me the right to chase him around to hear him utter the word "wife" to describe more than one woman. What kind of country are we?

Anonymous wrote:There's probably a lot less abuse in southeast Utah hamlets than in Southeast DC.

Um, I doubt it. Abuse is rampant in the polygamous communities in Utah. That said, I think it should be legalized, because I think a lot of their family discord comes from the persecution and their hiding.

Aren't there different concepts being confounded here? At one extreme is a man with several wives, each in a separate household, and at the other is a single household shared by three or more people, of any combination of genders, having sex in any combinations they choose. The first is basically one guy engaged in several one-man-one-woman relationships, while the second is the more general form of the idea of consenting adults not being told what to do by the state.