Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, so in DC you can run around saying you have two wives and not be prosecuted?

As a matter of law in DC you can only be prosecuted for bigamy if you marry (or enter into a domestic partnership) with someone while you are still legally married to (or entered into a domestic partnership with) another person. And church weddings don't count as marriage unless a marriage license is issued.

That said, there is a long history of people getting prosecuted because they drew the attention of the authorities. There's a book out, "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent" (http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229). The premise is that everyone does stuff all of the time that a zealous prosecutor can literally make a federal case out of. So if you go around calling your harem "wives" you may not be charged with bigamy but don't be surprised if you're railroaded on something else.

OK, is this is the point. This is what keeps those guys so quiet in hiding. They might have a successful business, but a competitor finds out what they are up to and figures out a way to get them charged. Or a lawyer might get disbarred. It is not really freedom.

It is the secrecy and hiding that allows for the abuse. Bring these folks out in the open.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems to me that if they made polygamy legal, then perhaps there would be a way to empower the women who will be in these relationships anyhow. If you are entitled to 1/4 of the household property, you're in a much better situation than when you're entitled to 0% of it.

Umm no. It would disempower the women that wouldn't want to share (first wife) but wouldn't have much choice because women stuck in such situations are often already powerless.

Why do you keep going on about the first wife? That first wife is not blind sided by the second. She knows what kind of man she is marrying. Also, do not assume that in all cases those men are legally married to any one of those women. So in that case, who is "first wife"? If you prefer, we could make a law that the man would have to inform fist wife before marrying number two so that Mrs. First can file for divorce and take her half (ha!), and move on.

Anonymous wrote:Seems to me that if they made polygamy legal, then perhaps there would be a way to empower the women who will be in these relationships anyhow. If you are entitled to 1/4 of the household property, you're in a much better situation than when you're entitled to 0% of it.

Umm no. It would disempower the women that wouldn't want to share (first wife) but wouldn't have much choice because women stuck in such situations are often already powerless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, so in DC you can run around saying you have two wives and not be prosecuted?

As a matter of law in DC you can only be prosecuted for bigamy if you marry (or enter into a domestic partnership) with someone while you are still legally married to (or entered into a domestic partnership with) another person. And church weddings don't count as marriage unless a marriage license is issued.

That said, there is a long history of people getting prosecuted because they drew the attention of the authorities. There's a book out, "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent" (http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229). The premise is that everyone does stuff all of the time that a zealous prosecutor can literally make a federal case out of. So if you go around calling your harem "wives" you may not be charged with bigamy but don't be surprised if you're railroaded on something else.

OK, is this is the point. This is what keeps those guys so quiet in hiding. They might have a successful business, but a competitor finds out what they are up to and figures out a way to get them charged. Or a lawyer might get disbarred. It is not really freedom.

Anonymous wrote:OK, so in DC you can run around saying you have two wives and not be prosecuted?

As a matter of law in DC you can only be prosecuted for bigamy if you marry (or enter into a domestic partnership) with someone while you are still legally married to (or entered into a domestic partnership with) another person. And church weddings don't count as marriage unless a marriage license is issued.

That said, there is a long history of people getting prosecuted because they drew the attention of the authorities. There's a book out, "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent" (http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229). The premise is that everyone does stuff all of the time that a zealous prosecutor can literally make a federal case out of. So if you go around calling your harem "wives" you may not be charged with bigamy but don't be surprised if you're railroaded on something else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Polygamy is a slippery slope. What's next? Inter-racial marriage and same-sex marriage?

Ha, ha! Liberals are only for "progressive" relationships but hate anything that they view as conservative.

Agree. They will never admit it though. Not as open minded was they thought.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Polygamy is a slippery slope. What's next? Inter-racial marriage and same-sex marriage?

Ha, ha! Liberals are only for "progressive" relationships but hate anything that they view as conservative.

Unless, of course, that involves subjugating women in a burka. Then we are urged to be broadminded and tolerant of "cultural differences."

Anonymous wrote:Polygamy is a slippery slope. What's next? Inter-racial marriage and same-sex marriage?

Ha, ha! Liberals are only for "progressive" relationships but hate anything that they view as conservative.

Polygamy is a slippery slope. What's next? Inter-racial marriage and same-sex marriage?

OK, so in DC you can run around saying you have two wives and not be prosecuted?

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

"Domestic partnership" is a term of art in DC law. It doesn't mean just shacking up. It means going down to the courthouse and registering. It's what gays had to do before marriage equality to get spousal benefits.

It should be interesting to see what becomes of domestic partnership now that gay marriage is legal.

I bet it does, would like to see the language.

You can't possibly be that curious if you didn't click on the link I provided, but here goes. If you read the rest of the DC Code section at the link I provided, it says: " "Domestic partnership" shall have the same meaning as provided in § 32?701(4)" and provides a link to that section. That section says:




"Domestic partner" means a person with whom an individual maintains a committed relationship as defined in paragraph (1) of this section and who has registered under § 32?702(a). Each partner shall:
(A) Be at least 18 years old and competent to contract;
(B) Be the sole domestic partner of the other person; and
(C) Not be married.
(4) "Domestic partnership" means the relationship between 2 persons who become domestic partners by registering in accordance with § 32?702.

I guess your next question will be what is 32-702, so here goes:

To establish the existence of a domestic partnership and to qualify for benefits under §§ 32?704, 32?705, and 32?706, persons shall register as domestic partners by executing a declaration of domestic partnership to be filed with the Mayor. For the purposes of this section, the declaration shall be signed by the domestic partners and shall affirm under penalty of perjury that each domestic partner:
(1) Is at least 18 years old and competent to contract;
(2) Is the sole domestic partner of the other person; and
(3) Is not married.

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

"Domestic partnership" is a term of art in DC law. It doesn't mean just shacking up. It means going down to the courthouse and registering. It's what gays had to do before marriage equality to get spousal benefits.

It should be interesting to see what becomes of domestic partnership now that gay marriage is legal.

I bet it does, would like to see the language.

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

"Domestic partnership" is a term of art in DC law. It doesn't mean just shacking up. It means going down to the courthouse and registering. It's what gays had to do before marriage equality to get spousal benefits.

It should be interesting to see what becomes of domestic partnership now that gay marriage is legal.