What is the nature of anti-polygamy laws?

[manifold]

Is the practice of polygamy really illegal, or is it simply that you cannot have more than one legally recognized spouse?

For example, if a guy keeps a harem of women and sires children with all of them, but is never legally married to more than one, is that against the law?

If so, why?

 

[AllieBaba]

No, it's not against the law. Because people in this country have the freedom to live any lifestyle they choose, provided they aren't infringing upon the rights of others in doing so.

I think it IS required to have birth certificates, however. THat's where the FLDS folks will end up getting into trouble, I think. Though it's still not something which would ordinarily result in the removal of children.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/2004-10-03-turley_x.htm
The difference between a polygamist and the follower of an "alternative lifestyle" is often religion. In addition to protecting privacy, the Constitution is supposed to protect the free exercise of religion unless the religious practice injures a third party or causes some public danger.

However, in its 1878 opinion in Reynolds vs. United States, the court refused to recognize polygamy as a legitimate religious practice, dismissing it in racist and anti-Mormon terms as "almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and African people." In later decisions, the court declared polygamy to be "a blot on our civilization" and compared it to human sacrifice and "a return to barbarism." Most tellingly, the court found that the practice is "contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western World."

Contrary to the court's statements, the practice of polygamy is actually one of the common threads between Christians, Jews and Muslims.....
While the justifications have changed over the years, the most common argument today in favor of a criminal ban is that underage girls have been coerced into polygamist marriages. There are indeed such cases. However, banning polygamy is no more a solution to child abuse than banning marriage would be a solution to spousal abuse. The country has laws to punish pedophiles and there is no religious exception to those laws...
While the justifications have changed over the years, the most common argument today in favor of a criminal ban is that underage girls have been coerced into polygamist marriages. There are indeed such cases. However, banning polygamy is no more a solution to child abuse than banning marriage would be a solution to spousal abuse. The country has laws to punish pedophiles and there is no religious exception to those laws.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington Law School.

And how old does a girl have to be to get married with her parents' consent in Texas? I don't think it's very old.

 

[Ravi]

Is the practice of polygamy really illegal, or is it simply that you cannot have more than one legally recognized spouse?

For example, if a guy keeps a harem of women and sires children with all of them, but is never legally married to more than one, is that against the law?

If so, why?

I read somewhere the other day that the reason it is illegal is because it is committing a fraud against the state.

You can marry one and then have as many others in the house as you please.

 

[Dogger]

Is the practice of polygamy really illegal, or is it simply that you cannot have more than one legally recognized spouse?

For example, if a guy keeps a harem of women and sires children with all of them, but is never legally married to more than one, is that against the law?

If so, why?

Different states have different laws. What you have described would be a crime in Texas and Utah, and maybe other states.

Utah defines Bigamy as "A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person." They also have a law that prohibits Fornication: "Any unmarried person who shall voluntarily engage in sexual intercourse with another is guilty of fornication."

The Bigamy law is similar in Texas, where Bigamy is defined as follows:

An individual commits an offense if:

(1) he is legally married and he:

(A) purports to marry or does marry a person other than his spouse in this state, or any other state or foreign country, under circumstances that would, but for the actor's prior marriage, constitute a marriage; or
(B) lives with a person other than his spouse in this state under the appearance of being married; or​

(2) he knows that a married person other than his spouse is married and he:

(A) purports to marry or does marry that person in this state, or any other state or foreign country, under circumstances that would, but for the person's prior marriage, constitute a marriage; or
(B) lives with that person in this state under the appearance of being married.​

 

[Adam's Apple]

We don't have laws on the books against polygamy in our state.

Here's a website that will tell you if it's a law in your state.
http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/polygamy/index.shtml

 

[Dogger]

We don't have laws on the books against polygamy in our state.

Here's a website that will tell you if it's a law in your state.
http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/polygamy/index.shtml

Huh? Read this part of your article - "All 50 states have statutes against bigamy (multiple licensed marriages). In most states, bigamy is a felony."

What state do you live in? Denial?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Huh? Read this part of your article - "All 50 states have statutes against bigamy (multiple licensed marriages). In most states, bigamy is a felony."

What state do you live in? Denial?

polygomy is not bigamy. You sure you are a lawyer?

 

[Dogger]

polygomy is not bigamy. You sure you are a lawyer?

Polygamy is the same as bigamy in the penal code. Reference the Texas and Utah statutes I posted above. They cover what is commonly understood as polygamy under the crime of bigamy.

Please explain how you think bigamy differs from polygamy, and I will be happy to tell you why you are wrong. Again.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Polygamy is the same as bigamy in the penal code. Reference the Texas and Utah statutes I posted above. They cover what is commonly understood as polygamy under the crime of bigamy.

Please explain how you think bigamy differs from polygamy, and I will be happy to tell you why you are wrong. Again.

There is no law against cohabitation with as many women as a man choses to do so. No law against out of marriage child birth. So long as a man does not seek State sanction on more than one marriage he is free to live with whom ever he pleases in any number he pleases and have sex with and support as many people as he is able and willing to do so.

 

[Dogger]

There is no law against cohabitation with as many women as a man choses to do so. No law against out of marriage child birth. So long as a man does not seek State sanction on more than one marriage he is free to live with whom ever he pleases in any number he pleases and have sex with and support as many people as he is able and willing to do so.

I don't expect you to be bright enough to find these things for yourself, but when I direct your attention to the Texas and Utah statutes I've posted, you really ought to read them before weighing in.

Both statutes will punish the conduct you desribed in your last sentence. Read them. Slowly. Move your lips if you need.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I don't expect you to be bright enough to find these things for yourself, but when I direct your attention to the Texas and Utah statutes I've posted, you really ought to read them before weighing in.

Both statutes will punish the conduct you desribed in your last sentence. Read them. Slowly. Move your lips if you need.

Then they are violations of the 14th amendment. Let me see if I have this right, the Supreme Court tells us one has a right to privacy to have an abortion but you claim these States have the right to dictate with whom people can and can not live with, have sex with ( if of legal age) and have children with ( if of legal age). That is a direct violation of civil rights, right to privacy, right to assemble with and live with whom ever you want.

So murdering an unborn child, legal and a right. Living with a gay partner, legal and a right. Living with 2 or more women illegal and not a right. Got ya.

 

[Dogger]

You keep changing the subject, but that's a common tactic when you're wrong. You said bigamy and polygamy were different, but that's not correct. You said a man could have one legal wife and cohabit with others, but that's not correct.

Admit it when you're wrong. I'll respect you more.

And I never said I thought the bigamy laws would survive Supreme Court review. I'm undecided on that matter. But that is not the point. The point is that you were wrong. Twice.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You keep changing the subject, but that's a common tactic when you're wrong. You said bigamy and polygamy were different, but that's not correct. You said a man could have one legal wife and cohabit with others, but that's not correct.

Admit it when you're wrong. I'll respect you more.

And I never said I thought the bigamy laws would survive Supreme Court review. I'm undecided on that matter. But that is not the point. The point is that you were wrong. Twice.

No I am not. An unconstitutional law is not a law at all. Or are you saying laws can be passed outlawing gay sex again?

Bigamy is legally marrying 2 or more people. Polygamy is having 2 or more women ( or men ) as your partners. Two distinct separate things.

Now where is Larkinn to explain to us all how words have meanings?

 

[Dogger]

No I am not. An unconstitutional law is not a law at all. Or are you saying laws can be passed outlawing gay sex again?

Bigamy is legally marrying 2 or more people. Polygamy is having 2 or more women ( or men ) as your partners. Two distinct separate things.

Yes, you are. Now you have 4 errors in this thread.

The bigamy statute has been upheld by all courts that have considered it. Your bald declaration that it's unconstitutional does not change that.

Bigamy is legally distinguishable from homosexual conduct under the law. In Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court overturned the homosexuality ban, holding, "The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual." Privacy is not absolute; it must yield to legitimate state interests. The Supreme Court of Utah has examined their satute in light of Lawrence, and held that "the protections enshrined in the federal constitution, as well as our state constitution, guaranteeing the free exercise of religion and conscience, due process, and freedom of association do not shield Holm’s polygamous practices from state prosecution." State v. Holm
______

Polygamy is "The having of a plurality of wives or husbands at the same time; usually, the marriage of a man to more than one woman, or the practice of having several wives, at the same time; . . ." The practice of "having 2 or more women (or men) as your partners" is called "having fun", not polygamy.

Care to make it 5 errors?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes, you are. Now you have 4 errors in this thread.

The bigamy statute has been upheld by all courts that have considered it. Your bald declaration that it's unconstitutional does not change that.

Bigamy is legally distinguishable from homosexual conduct under the law. In Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court overturned the homosexuality ban, holding, "The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual." Privacy is not absolute; it must yield to legitimate state interests. The Supreme Court of Utah has examined their satute in light of Lawrence, and held that "the protections enshrined in the federal constitution, as well as our state constitution, guaranteeing the free exercise of religion and conscience, due process, and freedom of association do not shield Holm’s polygamous practices from state prosecution." State v. Holm
______

Polygamy is "The having of a plurality of wives or husbands at the same time; usually, the marriage of a man to more than one woman, or the practice of having several wives, at the same time; . . ." The practice of "having 2 or more women (or men) as your partners" is called "having fun", not polygamy.

Care to make it 5 errors?

Play all the games you want, they are two different things, thus the reason there are TWO distinct words for them.

Remind me how you support law and order and the rights of individuals while supporting laws that tell people who they can and can not live with.

 

[Dogger]

Play all the games you want, they are two different things, thus the reason there are TWO distinct words for them.

Remind me how you support law and order and the rights of individuals while supporting laws that tell people who they can and can not live with.

But look up the definitions of those words, and there is no distinction under the penal code. And your definition of Polygamy was just flat wrong.

And I never said I supported those laws, I said judges have upheld them, in response to your erroneous assertion that the laws were unconstitutional.

That's 6 errors. Keep going.

 

[Ravi]

No I am not. An unconstitutional law is not a law at all. Or are you saying laws can be passed outlawing gay sex again?

Bigamy is legally marrying 2 or more people. Polygamy is having 2 or more women ( or men ) as your partners. Two distinct separate things.

Now where is Larkinn to explain to us all how words have meanings?

You're a riot, seriously. Yesterday you were claiming a law is a law and must be followed and now you're claiming a law is only a law if you agree with it.

 

[manifold]

You're a riot, seriously. Yesterday you were claiming a law is a law and must be followed and now you're claiming a law is only a law if you agree with it.

Hypocrisy is an artform to RetardedGySgt.

 

[Dogger]

Since RetiredGySgt appears afraid to post in this thread after I called him out, perhaps he should change his avatar to avoid disgrace on his rank.

I suggest this one:

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Since RetiredGySgt appears afraid to post in this thread after I called him out, perhaps he should change his avatar to avoid disgrace on his rank.

I suggest this one:

You are a moron. But do keep telling us just how much smarter than all of us you are.