I haven’t seen Sisterwives for quite a while, but I know the Brown family is under investigation for…whatever is illegal about their plural marriage.
I know there is plenty of moral disapproval regarding polygamy, but as far as I can tell, this is the situation in their case:
The husband is legally married to only his first wife and did not apply for multiple marriage licenses. The other marriages are based on commitment ceremonies.
All parties were consenting adults when they married or began cohabiting.
The adults have worked out daycare and careers so that they are self-supporting, I think–if they receive any sort of benefits I haven’t seen mention of it. (I know some polygamous families have many wives, many children, and many, many forms of state-based aid due to stay at home moms and an inability for one salary to support them all.)
So…what am I missing? Basically, a married man is living with his lawful wife and the legal equivalent of his 3 girlfriends. Is there a tax situation that I’m missing, or other reasons for the government to take any action?
Note: I have no opinion one way or another about this type of polygamy; however, I am of the opinion that Kody Brown is kind of smarmy and really REALLY needs a good haircut.
Apparently, in Utah at least, it is against the law to be in a relationship that looks like or pretends to be polygamus. One presumes to avoid exactly the situation we have with the Brown family.
The Brown family is suing in federal court saying such a law is unconstitutional.
Personally, if you and your (one) wife want to have live in girlfriends (or boyfriends as the case may be) I do not see it is the place of the government to interfere. As long as no attempt is made at legally defining wives 2+ as legal spouses you should be allowed to shack up with whomever you want.
I see tons of IMHO fodder here, but what’s the question? Is it, “Why is polygamy illegal?” or “How is this scenario prosecuted as polygamy?” Or something else?
What is the illegal activity, in the eyes of the government, for which the Browns might be prosecuted? Basically, that’s it.
A secondary question, I guess, would be, Why would the goverment prosecute consenting, self-supporting adults who are, as Whack-a-Mole says, just shacking up? (Although if it’s against the law to appear polygamous, I guess that answers that question, as well as the first.)
I just find it odd that anyone cares, I guess–I can’t see how this particular situation (or similar ones) are infringing on the rights of others. I thought perhaps there was a tax issue, but not as far as I’ve seen anywhere.
I think this answers my question, at least as far as I can explain it without sounding even more ignorant.
Basically I think they aren’t truly polygamous; they look like it, or are pretending to be, or sincerely believe that they are, whatever. But there is only ONE legal marriage plus a lot of shacking up, so I don’t understand how their living situation constitutes polygamy or anything else illegal. If the marriage certificates were fraudulent, I would understand. If they were illegally obtaining benefits or tax breaks by claiming to be married, sure. But if they aren’t…hmmm. Just trying to get a handle on it. :dubious:
Polygamy is detremental to the economy. Multiple adults living under the same roof means reduced demand for dwellings, and the furnishings customarily fitted to said dwellings. I mean, one adult stays home while the others bring home the bacon? Sounds like Communist economics to me. Polygamists hate America–why shouldn’t they be prosecuted?
When Utah applied to become a state, there was considerable anti-Mormon sentiment in Washington, and in the country as a whole. One of the conditions of granting statehood was that the Utah constitution have a clause making polygamy illegal.
In Utah, bigamy is defined as marrying a second person OR cohabiting with a second person when you’re already married. So, one legal marriage and a lot of shacking up is illegal.
At issue is the ancient English common law concept of Adultery. Adultery used to be a crime. IOW you could go to jail for it. Now its strictly a civil matter (i.e. its grounds for divorce & favorable alimony etc.) I’m not a lawyer but to me that means that no DA anyplace should be able to prosecute anyone for it, criminally.
I see it as an example of one of the great founding concepts of America, let community standards work itself out. Worked so far…
Without going into a lot of details, a marriage is at its basis a partnership contract between two people, which is in theory exclusive. Even open marriages and affairs presume a marriage that they are in supplement to. And this binary nature is implicit in all the laws connected with it. E.g., Joe died and his widow Martha has life tenancy of the house he owned. If Joe, Martha, Tony, Phil, and Alice are in a polyamorous marriage, two want to exercise life tenancy and two want to sell immediately, who wins? If the five of them are married, Martha dies, and Alice then divorces the men, are they still married? Does whether or not they are gay, straight, or bi enter into it? Regardless of your personal judgment on polygamy, there are practical issues to a multiperson marriage at law.
I think it’s important to consider the concept of ‘marriage fraud’. Under current law, is bigamy illegal because having more than one spouse is a Bad Thing, or is it illegal because typical bigamists are representing themselves as single to Prospective Mate A when they are actually married to Person B in another state?
If we set marriage fraud apart as a separate crime, and include in it all cases of misrepresentation with respect to marriage, then we can consider polygamy on its own merits. I think polygamy should be legal, but I’m aware of the additional complexities it may introduce to family law. I wouldn’t expect it to be legalized until a lot of work had been done to extend marriage and divorce and other family law to the new cases. When they legalized same-sex marriage, the marriage certificates in Ontario went from saying “Husband” and “Wife” to “Applicant” and “Joint Applicant”. I don’t expect polygamous marriage paperwork to be that simple.
Oddly enough, it seems bigamy is favored to polygamy under the law. In a situation where everyone knows about the other spouses it is “righteously flaunting” the situation, whereas bigamy is less severe because the perpetrator at least had the decency to be sneaky and deceptive about it.
From the WIkipedia entry on bigamy:
I can’t answer the OP as far as any non-moral, non-religious basis for the laws. Many US and other laws are based purely on ‘morality’.
As to the shacking up vs. polygamy question, I think the legal basis is that the shackees constitute common-law marriages.
I agree with everything you said but what if you marry and convince Mrs. Polycarp to let your other three girlfriends live with you?
Should that be illegal? The other three have no legal claims on your estate (e.g. if you get hit by a bus and die). It all goes to Mrs. Polycarp. The other three are SOL.
Sucks for the other three but presumably they are adults who agreed to the arrangement.
That said (thinking out loud here so bear with my stream of consciousness) I suppose if girlfriends 2-4 bore your children that could complicate the case on how to divvy up your estate if you died. In theory only wife #1 has a claim but I suppose the other three could make a claim for child support.
Which isn’t different from your mistress having children, or your divorced ex-spouse having children, etc…
I can’t see any way to interpret this law except as “We have a right not to be offended by what happens in your bedrooom”
IANAL but my sense of it is there is a difference between a mistress who had your kid and you fathering children with several women who live in your house.
In the latter case the woman can prove the dad was there and took responsibility and provided for the children. In the former presumably the guy was providing for the kids on the side if at all. I’d bet the woman didn’t claim the support payments, if they existed, on her taxes. If she didn’t she has good reason to not pursue a claim.
The Devil is in the details of course. Just saying they are not necessarily an equivalent case.
Although I think the reality is it is not enforced much (like crossing against the light is illegal in Chicago but people here do it all the time even in front of police and nothing happens).
You really have to do something, like the Brown’s in the OP, to get their attention.
My sense is it is one of those laws that are put there as a “feel good” measure that has little practical effect.
The Brown family put themselves in the public eye…dramatically so. At that point it is hard for the state to ignore it.
