How does U.S. law deal with polygamy in other countries?

[Lumpy]

With all the debate about gay marriage (or other unconventional forms of union), I was wondering what our legal system does when disputes arising from polygamous marriage in other countries spill over into our country. Can a U.S. citizen have two wives in the Middle East, or get legal recognition in the U.S. of both marriages? What about custody disputes, property settlements, etc.?

[Elendil_s_Heir]

The Constitution requires that U.S. courts give full faith and credit to the judgments and acts of other courts, but that’s vis-a-vis other U.S. states, and not necessarily foreign countries. What is legal elsewhere but illegal here will still be illegal here. If a foreign country permits polygamy, a U.S. federal or state court will almost surely not recognize each spouse as being lawfully married to the man. Remember that Utah was not admitted as a state until the Mormons abolished (at least de jure) their practicing of polygamy.

I suppose a person in a polygamous foreign marriage might have to designate one spouse (and only one spouse) in applying for public benefits, paying taxes, getting credit, etc.

[flurb]

Man, I can’t wait to see the evolution of the Google Ads on this one as the thread goes on.

[Rusalka]

The first spouse he marries is the spouse that would be recognized under U.S. law. The second wife would not have any legal standing.

[Corner_Case]

Not being a citizen, it seems as though your passport and visa are your only means of identification and declaration. Is there some other paperwork you fill out to declare your spouse and children as being yours?

Could you then come to America and declare spouse #1 as your spouse, return home, and then come again declaring spouse #2 as your spouse? It would seem equivalent in the eyes of the law to getting a divorce, remarrying, and returning.

[Crandolph]

Is there any case law on this (perhaps stretching back to pre-statehood Utah)? If not, how do we know?

[Telemark]

Someone posted some good cites on previous threads about polygamy that confirm that only one spouse is recognized by US Law. Can’t find the threads now.

[Gfactor]

@Crandolph

Is there any case law on this (perhaps stretching back to pre-statehood Utah)? If not, how do we know?

Yes. I’m thinking of one case in particular, but I don’t remember exactly how it came out.

This article cites some cases about extraterritorial recognition of marriages. It also discusses the positions taken by the First and Second Restatements of Conflicts of Law:

The First Restatement holds that a marriage, “which is against the law of the state of domicil of either party, though the requirements of the law of the state of celebration have been complied with, will be invalid everywhere” in cases of polygamy, incest as defined by the domicile, “marriage between persons of different races where such marriages are at the domicil regarded as odious,” or other marriages governed by evasion statutes. The Second Restatement made this rule less stringent, providing that, in order for another state to void a marriage, that state must have a “strong public policy” against the marriage and “the most significant relationship to the spouses and the marriage at the time of
the marriage.”

So it depends, to some extent whether the state in question applies the First or Second Restatement. According to the author of the article, another author investigated the question, and concluded that 15 states follow the First, 24 the second, and the remainder were difficult to categorize. But this study considered tort law. States that apply the Restatement view to tort law questions do not necessarily follow it for other questions. Both try to handle what the author describes as “evasive” marriages (visiting a state to take advantage of its marriage laws when it has no other connection to the marrying parties). Both seem to indicate that if both parties are domiciled (don’t get me started on domicile law) in a jurisdiction that allows their marriage, and then move to a different state, whose laws forbid it, the state of new residence should respect the marriage.

On the other hand, Professor Brilmayer says:

The “public policy doctrine,” almost as old as this country’s legal system, has been applied to foreign marriages between first cousins, persons too recently divorced, persons of different races, and persons under the age of consent. The granting of a marriage license has always been treated differently than a court award, which is indeed entitled to full interstate recognition. Court judgments are entitled to full faith and credit but historically very little interstate recognition has been given to licenses.

http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html/Public_Affairs/455/yls_article.htm

Most of these cases have complex fact patterns that make conclusions hard to form. For example:

Lopes v. Lopes involved a Dominican Republic bilateral divorce, which a
Connecticut husband obtained at a time he and his wife were domiciled in Connecticut. The wife remarried in Connecticut and, 15 years later, she filed for divorce from her second husband in Florida, where the spouses had moved at some prior time. Although neither Florida nor Connecticut recognized the Dominican divorce, only Florida, not Connecticut, allowed the second husband to challenge its validity. The second husband did so. The court found that the wife did not timely plead Connecticut law and thus the court was free to assume that that law was the same as Florida law. Over a strong dissent, the court applied Florida law and declared the second marriage void, thus freeing the second husband from having to pay alimony. The court also rejected the wife’s estoppel argument because the trial court believed the second husband’s claim that he did not know of the Dominican divorce until 12 years into the marriage.

http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/wlo/conflicts/03survey/03Survey.pdf

See also http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/wlo/conflicts/02survey/2002survey2.pdf (pp. 70-73).

I’ll see if I can find the case that I am thinking of.

[Gfactor]

Ah, I found it, the *Bir *case, discussed here along with some other precedents on the recognition of foreign marriages that are legal were solemnized, but illegal in the forum.

[Gfactor]

In case anybody was wondering,

“Restatements” are essentially model laws, designed to “clarify and synthesize” the common law in a particular field of law. Restatements are published by the American Law Institute (ALI).

http://www.lexisnexis.com/infopro/zimmerman/disp.aspx?z=1896

Restatement of the Law
n. a series of detailed statements of the basic law in the United States on a variety of subjects written and updated by well-known legal scholars under the auspices of the American Law Institute since the 1930s. While not having the force of statutes or of decided precedents, the Restatement (as lawyers generally call it) has the prestige of the scholars who have studied the legal questions. Topics covered include agency, contracts, property, torts and trusts.

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1830&bold=||||

[Gfactor]

Here is a link about how the UK handles serial immigration of polygamous spouses. (First wife to arrive can block second wife, irrespective of order of marriages).

This article cites a 1963 immigration case for the proposition that “marriages that are counter to public policy are generally not valid for immigration purposes.”

And the US Department of State says, “In cases of polygamy, only the first spouse may qualify as a spouse for immigration.” http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_1315.html