# Bigamy in Belgium **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 29, 2003, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bigamy-in-belgium/221485 "2003-12-29T00:25:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![AZCowboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/97f17d/32.png) [@AZCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AZCowboy)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bigamy-in-belgium/221485/61 "2003-12-29T21:33:46Z")
Please educate me on this point of Shari’a law. First, can I assume that we are not talking about “official” marriage, but the equivalent of cohabitation? That is, under Shari’a law, it is not permissible for one woman to live with two men, outside of family relationships? I’m afraid to ask about the penalties for violators… ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bigamy-in-belgium/221485/62 "2003-12-29T21:48:01Z")
No, I was talking about official marriage. “Living together” as if you are married but without being married is out of the question. It can happen but it is in no way an acceptable situation. Shi’a Islam permits a brilliant -although in my eyes extremely hypocritical since inviting for women-exploitation - solution for this, called Muta = temporary marriage. But one women with two men in such a situation is something quite unthinkable. “Penalty” on those things depends of the country and its laws. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bigamy-in-belgium/221485/63 "2003-12-29T23:26:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gary Kumquat \* > I would welcome the advice or input of anyone who is familiar with the application of American immigration law, as to my reading the key phrase is what is meant by "to practice polygamy ". I would have understood that as meaning someone intending to live in a polygamous marriage in the states. Especially as that section (again by my deeply limited understand) seems to be for immigration, rather than a visitors visa? I’m not a lawyer, but I’ll take my best crack at this issue anyway. When it comes to the prohibition on practicing polygamy, there is no distinction that I’m aware of between remaining permanently in the U.S. and coming for a temporary, or even a long-term (such as on a work visa), visit. As a practical matter, however, it would be difficult for the consular officer issuing the visa, or for the Homeland Security inspector at the airport, to know what the relationship is between all of these individuals without doing some hardcore investigating. I’m sure there is quite a bit of willful ignorance on the part of U.S. immigration officials in this regard. The only time one would need to prove a marriage for immigration purposes is if the dependent spouse is applying for some sort of immigration benefit (as a dependent on the primary spouse’s work visa, or a green card). If the spouse is applying for a visa on his/her own merits, usually no documentary proof of civil status is required. In my days in Immigration Court, I saw a number of marriage fraud cases where the person in deportation proceedings had married a U.S. citizen and applied for a family-based green card, while conveniently “forgetting” about the wife and six kids back in the Old Country, whom he had listed as family members remaining behind when he had applied for his six-month tourist visa years earlier. If you once admitted being married, then under U.S. immigration law, you have to show legal proof of divorce or death of the prior spouse before gaining an immigration benefit based on a subsequent marriage. Maybe this is why in all this time I’ve never done a green card case for a Saudi…they just don’t want to deal with the hassle, so they stay home. And then, of course, I’ve seen cases where the husband (it’s almost always the husband in these cases) divorces his “real” wife back home, comes to the U.S., marries a U.S. citizen, gets a green card and eventually citizenship, then divorces the U.S. citizen spouse and remarries Wife #1 to get her a green card. Of course, he goes back to his home country every few months to visit Wife #1, so it’s almost like a long-distance double marriage. There was one case where it was later discovered that he basically conceived a child with Wife #1 pretty much every time he went back to visit. Does that sound like a breakup to you? (And this was not even a Muslim country, or one where bigamy is legal.) (A former co-worker of mine, who used to be a student visa officer at a local university, swears he had a visiting research scholar once who used to rotate his wives, back before embassies kept halfway decent records of visa issuances. He’d bring one wife one semester, then “bench” her back home and rotate in the other wife. All you needed to show was proof that your wife was actually your wife to get her the dependent visa; apparently the Embassy never caught on to the switcheroo.) Eva Luna, Immigration Paralegal and former Immigration Court interpreter ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bigamy-in-belgium/221485/64 "2003-12-29T23:30:53Z")
\*\*Aldebaran, \*\* as long as you’re in the (figurative) neighborhood, maybe you can explain a strange notation I once saw on an Iranian marriage certificate. There were several boxes to check for “type of marriage,” and one of them was “temporary.” I’m guessing it had to do with the Shi’ite “temporary marriage” thing you mention. Could you expound on that a bit? How does temporary marriage work in Shi’ism? An acquaintance of mine said it happened frequently in wartime; soldiers would add a wife for the duration of the military campaign, then divorce her when the war ended. Other than that, it sounds like an institution that could easily become a thinly veiled excuse for prostitution. Is this getting too elaborate? Should I open a GQ thread? (Then there are three options to check on the marriage certificate for the bride’s classification: apparently one can only be a virgin, divorced, or widowed, but I digress.) ---
**Author:** ![Elenfair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/cc9497/32.png) [@Elenfair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elenfair)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bigamy-in-belgium/221485/65 "2003-12-29T23:52:37Z")
Yay for Eva Luna, our own immigration gal 😉 I have put forward the question of polygamist _visitors_ to some immigration lawyers on a forum I participate in. I look forward to the answer, and to post it here. Common sense, to me, would state that visitors are of no importance (in this way) to the US. Only people who intend to immigrate _OR_ who are in the US on a “long term” (work, study, etc) visa which has special classes for spouses of the beneficiaries. I can also see it as a problem for those who change visa classes - like an H1B for example who can eventually become a permanent resident. Immigration rules have changed considerably in the last two years. People get investigated, reinvestigated, checked and triple checked and then checked out some more, especially if they are from certain countries on the “red hot list”. Visitor visas, I presume, can be issued to whomever wants them assuming they qualify for one (proofs of ties back home, etc.). Family-related benefits for people coming for schooling, or work, or internships will require them to abide by US laws and I can see a problem in bringing in wife #2 if wife #1 is still on the books without a divorce decree. Make sense? ---
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bigamy-in-belgium/221485/66 "2003-12-30T05:17:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Aldebaran \* > \*\ ***Thanks for your reply.** > > No problem. > Salaam. A > Always at service for the needing. \*\* Thank you, **Aldebaran** , for edumucating a silly US’er. To **Stoneburg** and **LC** : We can play “dueling dictionary definitions” if you like, but it’s rather pointless. The definition of “bigamy” that I originally posted doesn’t denote illegality, so once more, I did not call anybody a criminal. ---
**Author:** ![gouda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c77e96/32.png) [@gouda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gouda)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bigamy-in-belgium/221485/67 "2003-12-30T07:29:11Z")
Yes, you never directly called him a criminal. You only called him a bigamist, and then went on to state that bigamy was illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bigamy-in-belgium/221485/68 "2003-12-30T07:31:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gouda \* > \*\*Yes, you never directly called him a criminal. You only called him a bigamist, and then went on to state that bigamy was illegal. \*\* So is polygamy, in America. ---
**Author:** ![gouda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c77e96/32.png) [@gouda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gouda)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bigamy-in-belgium/221485/69 "2003-12-30T07:33:52Z")
Yes, you never directly called him a criminal. You only called him a bigamist, and then went on to state that bigamy was illegal. Could you, for all us doubters of your serious intentions, clarify whether or not you now accept that he is not a bigamist? ---
**Author:** ![gouda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c77e96/32.png) [@gouda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gouda)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bigamy-in-belgium/221485/70 "2003-12-30T07:39:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Brutus \* > \*\*So is polygamy, in America. \*\* And in Belgium, and in a hundred other countries too. So what? As long as he isn’t practicing polygamy (or bigamy) in those countries, what’s your point? 😕 Like someone mentioned, are you going to arrest the King of Saudi Arabia the next time he comes on a shopping trip to America, because he has wives back home?! ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bigamy-in-belgium/221485/71 "2003-12-30T08:55:50Z")
The normal American reaction to polygamy seems to be shock, moral outrage and maybe a little smug moral superiority. Since polygamy is a voluntary contract, I’m not sure why we feel that way. It seems to be socially acceptable for Americans to be promiscuous or at least have multiple partners, but when **Aldebaran** carefully makes his choices and enters into a contract that protects both him and his wives, we judge it differently. I wonder how many of our customs and behaviors seem outrageous to him? Yikes. Don’t answer that **Aldebaran**. That would need it’s own topic.🙂 My question is to **milroyj** \*. Have you always made sure that the women that you’ve been with have not been used in any way, have been protected and provided for financially, in case of a problem? Is this the typical behaviour for American men? Why would it be wrong for **Aldebaran** to marry two women and it is not wrong for an American man to sleep with 30 and marry 1. I know this is kind of a hi-jack, but I am amusing myself by trying to see his perspective.😉 \*If you’re a woman or you don’t like women, disregard answering personally and just answer generally if possible. ---
**Author:** ![Stoneburg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@Stoneburg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoneburg)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 10:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bigamy-in-belgium/221485/72 "2003-12-30T10:58:22Z")
> [@](#): > > We can play “dueling dictionary definitions” if you like, but it’s rather pointless. The definition of “bigamy” that I originally posted doesn’t denote illegality, so once more, I did not call anybody a criminal. Duelling dictionary as in I quote the actual dictionary and you say I am wrong? You just can’t accept that you are wrong even when it is proven in black and white? That’s not an admirable trait you know, it’s not “standing up for yourself”, it’s just “being stupid”. It makes me question the point in debating anything with you, if you will simply never change your mind or admit that you are wrong, no matter what. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bigamy-in-belgium/221485/73 "2003-12-30T11:16:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Stoneburg \* > \*\*Duelling dictionary as in I quote the actual dictionary and you say I am wrong? You just can’t accept that you are wrong even when it is proven in black and white? That’s not an admirable trait you know, it’s not “standing up for yourself”, it’s just “being stupid”. It makes me question the point in debating anything with you, if you will simply never change your mind or admit that you are wrong, no matter what. \*\* Grow up. [There](http://www.lawinfo.com/lawdictionary/#B) [are](http://www.legal-definitions.com/bigamy.htm) [umpteen](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=bigamy) [different](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy) [definitions](http://www.rhymezone.com/r/rhyme.cgi?Word=bigamy) [for](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02561a.htm) [‘bigamy’](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02564a.htm). Stop with the offenderati act. ---
**Author:** ![Elenfair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/cc9497/32.png) [@Elenfair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elenfair)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bigamy-in-belgium/221485/74 "2003-12-30T14:10:38Z")
Here’s the Immigration Law stuff on polygamy and VISITING the United States. From Mr. Folinsky (from LA) who is an immigration attorney (Calif. Bar Board of Legal Specialization) > [@](#): > > Elly: > > You may find the answer to your question interesting. Take a look at the following from the Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Manual: > > [http://foia.state.gov/masterdocs/09fam/0940021aN.pdf](http://foia.state.gov/masterdocs/09fam/0940021aN.pdf) > > [http://foia.state.gov/masterdocs/09fam/0940101N.pdf](http://foia.state.gov/masterdocs/09fam/0940101N.pdf) > > This is really OLD stuff, isn’t it? The former section 212(a)(11) excluding polygamists was REPEALED in 1990. The only ground of inasmissiblity regarding inadmissibiity in the area is found at present 212(a)(10)(A) and leaves in only the ground of “coming to the United States to practice polygamy”. The ground of simply being a polygam[ist] or advocating polygamy is gone from the law. > > BTW, 212(a)(10(A) is limited by its terms to “immigrants”. > > The definition of “practice of polygamy in the United States” is left undefined. So. Polygamous visitors seem to be welcome. If you’re gonna immigrate and practice it, it’s a bad thing. Elly ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bigamy-in-belgium/221485/75 "2003-12-30T15:47:32Z")
Eva Luna & Elenfair, thanks for the information. ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bigamy-in-belgium/221485/76 "2003-12-30T16:58:38Z")
Whatever friggin definition you chose to use, “Bigamy” is a criminal offence. By definition. Period. I rest my case, yer 'onour. ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bigamy-in-belgium/221485/77 "2003-12-30T22:57:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Brutus \* > \*\*Grow up. [There](http://www.lawinfo.com/lawdictionary/#B) [are](http://www.legal-definitions.com/bigamy.htm) [umpteen](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=bigamy) [different](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy) [definitions](http://www.rhymezone.com/r/rhyme.cgi?Word=bigamy) [for](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02561a.htm) [‘bigamy’](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02564a.htm). Stop with the offenderati act. \*\* I don’t think it has anything to do with “possible definitions of the word bigamy” , but with the way that word is used in the OP = it is used to refer to my marriages indicating that I am a bigamist, while the OP knows perfectly that such is not the case since we are legally married. The mere fact that polygamy is not permitted under the laws of the USA (or whatever other country where it is not) can hardly be my problem. Or do you think it should be? If yes, can you explain why? Thank you. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bigamy-in-belgium/221485/78 "2003-12-31T00:13:12Z")
Eva L. Yes, if refers to what I mentioned. And because there is a lot to say about this, I shall give you a link to a Shi’a website where you can read defence and justification of the practice. Side note: People, rejoice. I post a link… Of course out of pure lazyness and of course because the site - be it a PR style site - is indeed informative enough to get an idea of Shia Islam > **[A Shi'ite Encyclopedia](https://www.al-islam.org/shiite-encyclopedia)** > > A vast collection of information that addresses Shi'a/Sunni inter-school related issues. An effort of the Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project Team Go to chapter 6 A You shall see that there is mentioned Al Qur’an IV verse 24 (and the previous ones being 22 and 23) as reference for the practice being permitted. I mention this because in no way I can agree with the interpretation the author of that article gives of the text. Nothing of what he declares one should see intended there is even remotely there. He defends a complete distortion of the verse(s). The site gives also information on how the temporary marriage should be practiced to be legal according Shia Islam. It is of course a guideline that possibly many Shia follow. Yet in no way I shall ever be made to defend the practice. As you said: it is an open door for all kinds of abuses. And of course they do happen. I even witnessed this almost happening to someone in the USA with whom I was in contact on a rather regular base. On the other hand it can be said that Muta (if indeed practiced as prescribed) offers the women involved a lot more respect and compensation then we witness happening in other kinds of “short living” relations. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bigamy-in-belgium/221485/79 "2003-12-31T01:54:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Aldebaran \* > \*\*I don’t think it has anything to do with “possible definitions of the word bigamy” , but with the way that word is used in the OP = it is used to refer to my marriages indicating that I am a bigamist, while the OP knows perfectly that such is not the case since we are legally married. Salaam. A \*\* For the last time, the definition of the word that I looked up _before_ I posted the OP, the same one I posted earlier in this thread, and the one I just reconfirmed on [m-w.com](http://m-w.com) ALL are the same, and do not denote that bigamy, in and of itself, is criminal. It accurately describes the situation of a man having two wives at the same time. It is legal in some places, and illegal in others. I was asking if **Aldebaran** experienced trouble because of it in Belgium, where it is presumably illegal. From his answers, he doesn’t. Ignorance fought. That said: **Aldebaran** , I apologize for offending you. ---
**Author:** ![Shirley\_Ujest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shirley\_Ujest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shirley_Ujest)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bigamy-in-belgium/221485/80 "2003-12-31T04:11:09Z")
Bigamy is one wife too many. So is monogamy. -Oscar Wilde. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bigamy-in-belgium/221485.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bigamy-in-belgium/221485.md?page=5)