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.
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(A subsequent federal polygamy law, the Edmunds-Tucker Act, was repealed in 1978).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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Anonymous wrote:There's probably a lot less abuse in southeast Utah hamlets than in Southeast DC.