Are you sure you’re not drunk? 
Still, one’s enough of a handful.
Now, what would be the benefit of marrying both of them if you’re claiming you can’t tell them apart and they are willing to be “reluctant to cooperate with authorities on the subject” so to say. You can marry one. You don’t even need to know which one you’re actually marrying. Live with both. You can still claim spousal rights to one of them at a time – is there a case you’re thinking where it would be beneficial to have spousal rights to both?
Consider such a hypothetical case of twins Stacy and Susan and a guy named Steve. Steve legally marries Stacy. Steve lives with both. Whichever needs to be Steve’s wife for some legal reason can be “Stacy” for that period of time. They file two tax returns, one for Steve and Stacy and one for Susan. As long as we’re not dealing with things like separate medical histories, court testimony or an accident that puts both Stacy and Susan in the hospital at the same time, it’s functionally identical to your scenario.
Yeah. No.
A marraige is the relationship between persons. A wedding is the ceremony that formalizes that relationship.
I don’t drink alchohol. Don’t like the payback.
My original question, in my mind, was how could the law prove whose wedding was the binding one, the first one.
Anyway, it’s Steve’s, Stacy’s, and Susan’s problem now. Let’s say he marries Stacy in October, then Susan in December. How would any outside party be able to prove which is Stacy, barring inside cooperation?
I see that it doesn’t matter. The second ceremony is the crime, not the relationship. No victim needed, huh.
The law gets involved in cohabitation when it creates a common law marriage, still recognized in many states of the US and other countries.
A polygamist (PDF file) in Utah was prosecuted for polygamy because his wives were considered common law marriages, despite intervening divorces.
I had always thought that cohabitation was only formalized as common law marriage when the people in the relationship sought to do so. Isn’t that the reasoning behind those successful “palimony” lawsuits?
If they were conjoined, I think you’d be ok.
Wee Bairn-- no. They’re still individual humans, believe it or not. I know, hard to imagine.
(identical twin here vaguely annoyed by this whole line of questioning. You people do realize that for twins the whole freakshow wacky ooh, clones!1!! psychic!! threesome!! business causes some resentment towards you singlebirth mofos after a while.)
There, I feel better.
Legal? No. Easy to prosecute? Perhaps slightly less so than usual. But the whole premise, that twinsiness makes this a special case versus any other two individuals, irks.
The case of Raymon and Richard Miller is perhaps of interest here.
Not in Colorado at least. I have a friend who is trying to boot her deadbeat boyfried with whom she’s cohabitated for a number of years. He hasn’t worked in … ever. But he left-hooked her with a legitemate dovorce (founded in a common law marriage) and has a good chance at half her stuff. All she ever did was let him stay with her instead of on the street and put his name on a phone bill, but that’s pretty much all it takes. All of their acquaintences knew they weren’t married.
The conjoined twins is an interesting twist for the OP, We got us another thread 'bout that.
Something odd about that.
If he got a legitimate divorce, then the facts are more than what you say or a court wouldn’t have granted one.
There is no state in which common law marriage is recognized which does not require the couple to represent themselves as married, to my knowledge.
And I defy anyone to show how three adults cohabiting would be construed as a marriage in any state.
Sheesh, capy, I looked but didn’t find anything like what you mention. Nothing at all!.
:dubious:
Sorry if you feel singled (hehe) out.
The question is about legality, nor genetics, after all.
Peace,
mangeorge
Ok, let’s take the OP and dissect it logically.
If the OP is asserting that there would be a proof problem, because the prosecution could never provide “Wife#2” and prove that’s who she was, then the OP makes the fundamental mistake of assuming that the prosecution would prove bigamy by presenting the second wife. All it would take would be the introduction into evidence of two marriage certificates, both continuing in force, each naming the husband. The wives never need even enter the courtroom. Proof problem solved.
If the OP is asserting that bigamy would be hard to prove because neither wife would complain of being doubly married, then the OP makes the mistake of assuming the state cares about whether the wives are happy or not. It is not a crime that requires a “complainant” in that sense. The existence of two mutually exclusive legal relationships is all that is needed for conviction.
So it doesn’t matter if you could ever identify Mary Sue from Maggie Jo. Mind you, of course, it is perfectly possible to identify the two, if put to it. Dental records, medical records, fingerprints (to the extent they truly are legitimate methods of identification), etc. all will be different for the twins. If you think that the prosecutor is stymied when presented with the need to identify one twin from another, you are naive. 
I did acknowledge, way up there somewhere, that my question had been answered. All the rest of this has been pretty much discussion, which if it continues should take it out of this forum.
It has been interesting.
Naive is a little strong. I am (was) ignorant of ways to identify the twins. Of course, I didn’t assume that they were worldly and sophisticated enough to have medical and dental records, etc. The fingerprint thing though I will buy. I could have easily researched that one. Shoulda woulda coulda, eh.
Peace,
mangeorge
What’s to prove? Presumably they were issued 2 separate birth certificates, and later 2 separate SSN’s. They were “proven” to be 2 entirely different people years ago. You can’t marry the same SSN twice, so no possibility of re-use. So if there are 2 different SSN’s, and your SSN is married to both of them, then your SSN is guilty of bigamy. I guess if you dig up some undocumented cult members from the hills of Idaho then it might make things a bit more interesting, but also a lot more difficult.
This is not a difficult question, it’s really no different than if you married 2 totally unrelated people. Most of the people who detect these violations never even see the people involved; it’s all through paperwork. I can only imagine that your thinking must be somehow impaired by the salacious fantasy of someone being married to twins and getting away with it.
Can somebody explain to me the benefit of being married to twins, as opposed to being married to one and cohabitating with both? I can’t wrap my mind around that being a fantasy…
Not once did I say, or infer, that they were the same person. That idea has been dispelled over and over above.
What to prove would be if Susan and Stacy were standing in front of you holding their SSN cards (do we still have those). They pass them back and forth, giggling with glee, and dare you to prove which is which. Makes no difference if they’re twins, the cards don’t themselves have any pictures anyway.
Those cards do not prove identity. You’d have to compare them to other things, such as fingerprints.
Oh yeah, the question, phew, has already been answered and acknowledged.
Again, none of that matters. All that matters is that there ARE 2 social security numbers, and that you are married to both of them. There is no need to go any further than that unless your defense is “But yerroner, I married 1 girl who has 2 SOCIAL SECURITY CARDS”, in which case the prosecutor can easily produce the rest of the lifetime paper trail linked to those cards.
I don’t recall being asked for a Social Security Number when I was married. My wife didn’t even have one yet.