Utah was denied admission as a state until it outlawed polygamy and in fact the Edmunds Act makes polygamy a Federal crime. Given the state of affairs that SSM is now legal in all 50 states and federally, what would happen if Utah decided tomorrow to make polygamy legal.
What happens when someone with a legal (in their country) polygamous marriage comes to the US. What is the marital status of all involved?
To answer the GQ have the background of overtuning DOMA, the legalization of SSM through Hollingsworth v. Perry, what happens when two states have conflicting marriage laws, etc.
Would Utah polygamous laws ultimately be found constitutional i.e. legal marriages while in Utah?
Would Utah polygamous marriages ultimately be legal in other states?
Would laws banning polygamous marriages ultimately be found to be unconstitutional?
There is near-zero support for this. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (58% of Utah) isn’t biding their time, hoping for a day where it becomes legal. They have long abandoned this. The main group who does support it, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, is at maximum something like 0.3% of the population of Utah. Other Mormon/LDS groups are also not in support of it or openly hostile to the idea of plural marriage from the beginning (Community of Christ).
As for recognition by the Supreme Court, they would never hear it, and if they did I predict 0-8 decision.
It is not the equivalent to SSM. Two men marrying does not affect your life at all. It could be argued that a plural marriage does affect others (when legally recognized with financial implications, not polyamory).
My thoughts on this is that in practice you will have a whole lot of marriages between one man and several women and very few between one woman and several men. This could lead to a situation where you end up with a lot men that have a significantly diminished chance at finding a wife. If I remember correctly the FLDS communities deal with this by finding excuses to exile younger and less powerful men from the community.
You mean to tell me I’d be deprived of the “opportunity” to marry someone who would, given the choice, prefer to be Trump’s 4th wife rather than marry me?
You think the incidence of polygamous marriage in the US would scale in proportion to the incidence in an FLDS community? Anywhere near in proportion? Really?
I don’t have a cite, but I think that there are roughly equal numbers of gay men and lesbians. Even if that isn’t the case, I don’t think that most heterosexual people would want to marry a homosexual person. Why would they if their potential spouse is not sexually attracted to them? With legalized polygamy the most likely outcome is that rich and powerful men would form harems, further diminishing the chances that the less desirable men have of finding a mate, as well as the women having essentially part time husbands.
Why would you expect that in a country like the modern United States, where women can have their own jobs and careers and a person can live reasonably well on their own? Women who want to get married and be a housewife generally want a husband not to be part of a harem. Rich dudes who want to be a sugar daddy can get the fun without the risk of long-term alimony payments - it’s not like Hugh Hefner was unable to attract a harem without marriage. And there are a lot of rich older women out there too, who would seem better off than men with a married harem.
We wouldn’t be considering this question if the government got out of the marriage business altogether. I don’t find plural marriages to be equivalent to a marriage between just two people, but that’s not going to stop people from saying they are. This is a trip down the rabbit hole if we don’t get the state out of the marriage business.
The think is, though, marriage is a social reality, and a fairly-deeply entrenched one. If a government finds a social reality complicated, divisive and hard to deal with, they have my sympathies. But completely ignoring reality is rarely a good basis for sound public policy. I doubt there are any governments in the world who simply ignore marriage for all purposes of public policy, or whose citizens would be in a better position if they did so. So I don’t think this is a practical or desirable course.
We have some experience with that here in Minnesota. The Mayo Clinic in Rochester has had wealthy Arab patients who rent a whole floor in a hotel, and bring a whole bunch of relatives with them, including several wives.
Marital status? Not a concern of the clinic; they are treating the patient.
For legal purposes (like ability to make decisions for the patient when he is unable), the clinic would treat the ‘senior wife’ as the legal spouse. But in practice, this doesn’t happen – given the sexism of that society, they always bring a male relative who has medical power of attorney.
The same issue would arise in lots of areas. Somebody wishes to migrate to the US, and he qualifies for a visa that would allow him to bring in his spouse. He has two spouses. Do the Feds let in both? Just the spouse he married first? Just one, but he gets to choose? Neither, on the basis that a polygamous relationship is not a “marriage” that is recognised by US law?
I don’t know the answer to this question, but I’m damn sure there is an answer, established by practice and backed by legal consideration and advice within the State Department (and possibly even tested in the courts).
Or the issue might arise when somebody dies leaving property in the US, and two spouses claim as heirs.
Googling, apparently he’s right, but not sure if it means all interracial relationships or specific pairings.
John Mace: I said allegedly. Cecil covered some negatives, e.g. polygyny will be more than polyandry, but otherwise tax benefits could prefer polygamy.
Polygamy, in a safe-sane-consensual world, where any number of spouses can marry any number of other spouses? Sure, sounds great… if an enormous headache when it comes to the real purpose of marriage – financial asset security and transfer.
Polygamy, as it has existed in every culture that has had it so far (including the FLDS): no thanks. The patriarchal structure of these marriages does not lead to a stable society – either for men (most of whom will be unmarriageable) or for women (who will have a huge reduction in rights, because that’s how this system works). The modern democracy and historical polygamy cannot coexist.
We have done this before. To quote myself from that thread:
I think is entirely possible to have a morally and ethically sound committed relationship with more than two partners. Being in such a relationship should not be a crime in and of itself. But to give that type of relationship the legal standing, protections, and presumptions of current two party marriage is certainly non-trivial (SSM only required pronoun changes for the most part), and may not be possible.
I will quote myself again on the complexity that must be addressed in any legal changes that recognize multi-party marriages:
Bottom line for me: If those who wish poly marriages can ever come together and agree with a proposal that would address all the legal ramifications I would not be opposed to it on principle. I may oppose a specific proposal or aspect of said proposal if it seems discriminatory (men can have multiple wives, but not vice versa or the power is vested in one sex over the other when it comes to divorce) or puts an undue burden on the 99% of the population that wants to be in a two party marriage (requiring a specific, detailed contract for every marriage). If those requirements are met I would support such laws at the national and state level. I just don’t see that happening anytime soon.
The world has changed. People have come to the conclusion that no one really cares who anyone over the age of consent sleeps/lives with, marries, dates, or loves. Frankly, I’d prefer polygamy to the current welfare system. Think of the tax money we’d save if single, unskilled, jobless mothers had shared husbands to support them.
It actually does exist just like that, although not legally, in the US today. And haven’t we been told by the courts that marriage is a fundamental right concerning loving adults? Sure, finance is a part of it, but that’s not what Loving was decided on.