# Plural marriage -- what's the crime? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 29, 2004, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plural-marriage-whats-the-crime/237153 "2004-03-29T20:40:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![TWDuke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@TWDuke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TWDuke)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plural-marriage-whats-the-crime/237153/1 "2004-03-29T20:40:44Z")
I’m allowed to have more than one sexual partner. I’m allowed to have more than one roommate. I’m allowed to have sex with my roommates. So when do I have to worry about Sheriff John Brown coming after me? If I start calling them the missuses? If we all try to register at Crate & Barrel? Note that I’m not asking IF bigamy/polygamy should be a crime as it is in the U.S., which is a subject for IMHO or GD; I’m asking what aspect of plural marriage is actually criminal. ---
**Author:** ![35340](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/3/8baadc/32.png) [@35340](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/35340)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plural-marriage-whats-the-crime/237153/2 "2004-03-29T20:49:50Z")
Based on the sensationalist pieces on the news these days, it seems that a lot of the crime involved in a pluriality these days involves incest and fraud (welfare) and other forms of abuse. ---
**Author:** ![Chastain86](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Chastain86](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chastain86)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plural-marriage-whats-the-crime/237153/3 "2004-03-29T21:09:08Z")
> [@Mynn](#): > > Based on the sensationalist pieces on the news these days, it seems that a lot of the crime involved in a pluriality these days involves incest and fraud (welfare) and other forms of abuse. Agreed, **Mynn**. That does seem to be the _stated_ reason that such activities are illegal, if not the actual reason. Like it or not, there’s still a very large contingency of people in this country that consider polygamy an immoral concept, and hence not one to promote legally. That said, it’s probably one of the primary reasons why legislators are currently railing against gay marriage, too. PS: I don’t personally count myself among the people who are against either, so put down the torches. ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plural-marriage-whats-the-crime/237153/4 "2004-03-29T21:28:18Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m asking what aspect of plural marriage is actually criminal. What aspect? That would be the part where you are married (have a legal marriage contract) to more than one other person at the same time. That’s pretty much it. If you want to know WHY being married to more than one person was deemed criminal in the first place/why it’s still considered criminal, that’s something else. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plural-marriage-whats-the-crime/237153/5 "2004-03-29T21:53:28Z")
> [@toadspittle](#): > > What aspect? That would be the part where you are married (have a legal marriage contract) to more than one other person at the same time. > > That’s pretty much it. If you want to know WHY being married to more than one person was deemed criminal in the first place/why it’s still considered criminal, that’s something else. Right. It is called bigamy. To commit bigamy, you must be legally married to one person, and then attempt to legally marry another. In doing so, you will probably also commit fraud, because every issuer of marriage licenses asks if you have ever been married. If you answer yes, you have to produce a copy of your divorce decree to get a license. ---
**Author:** ![TWDuke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@TWDuke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TWDuke)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plural-marriage-whats-the-crime/237153/6 "2004-03-29T22:19:14Z")
> [@toadspittle](#): > > What aspect? That would be the part where you are married (have a legal marriage contract) to more than one other person at the same time. Which is it, being married or having a legal marriage contract? There is a difference, at least in states that recognize common-law marriages. And if having a legal marriage contract with more than one person is the definition of bigamy, than it would seem that bigamy by definition cannot exist in the United States. > [@](#): > > If you want to know WHY being married to more than one person was deemed criminal in the first place/why it’s still considered criminal, that’s something else. Yes it is, which is why I excluded it in my OP. > [@gfactor](#): > > To commit bigamy, you must be legally married to one person, and then attempt to legally marry another. So the mere attempt to legally marry another constitutes bigamy? What constitutes an attempt? > [@](#): > > In doing so, you will probably also commit fraud, because every issuer of marriage licenses asks if you have ever been married. If you answer yes, you have to produce a copy of your divorce decree to get a license. I’m looking for what legally constitutes bigamy or polygamy, not fraud, incest, statutory rape or any other crime. It may seem like I’m picking nits here, but we all have a general idea what bigamy is. What I’m trying to get at is what defines it as a crime, and that would seem to require a high degree of specificity. Cites would be nice, or even appeals to authority (such as, "As an assistant district attorney in the state of Utah, I…) ---
**Author:** ![vetbridge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b5e925/32.png) [@vetbridge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vetbridge)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plural-marriage-whats-the-crime/237153/7 "2004-03-29T22:25:02Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > Right. It is called bigamy. To commit bigamy, you must be legally married to one person, and then attempt to legally marry another. Hmmm…can someone define “legally married”? You see, in some states there is the concept of “comon-law marriage” whereby two folks who live together for a set amount of time and act as though married (you know, fighting, cheating, etc) are considered married. So, if a man leaves his spouse without a divorce, than meets the states requirements for common-law marriage with another, would he be a bigamist? If I live with 3 women (I can dream, right?) and we consider ourselves married (but no attempt at getting paperwork from the state) can I be arrested? ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plural-marriage-whats-the-crime/237153/8 "2004-03-29T22:46:56Z")
> [@](#): > > In the U.S. today, common law marriages are more common in myth than in reality. That site, [Demystifying Common Law Marriage](http://www.unmarried.org/common-law-marriage.html), also says: > [@](#): > > There’s no simple test to see if a couple qualifies as being common law married, and the only time the question usually arises is in court. If, after death or separation, one partner claims there was a common law marriage and wants the benefits of marriage, the court would consider many factors to determine if there was truly intent to be married. Since the seven-years-to-automatic-marriage idea is only a myth, determining whether a common law marriage existed can be complicated. Some lawyers recommend that couples write, sign, and date a simple statement that says they do or do not intend to be married, to offer protection should the question ever arise. If you hold yourself out as being married in a common-law recognizing state, it appears, and have also a valid marriage license, a judge may very well declare that you have committed the crime of bigamy. And that’s really what it comes down to. Criminality isn’t a flashing neon sign. It’s a determination by a judge in court. > [@TWDuke](#): > > Which is it, being married or having a legal marriage contract? There is a difference, at least in states that recognize common-law marriages. Is there really a difference? I don’t think so. You don’t have a license, but you have a valid marriage with all the rights and responsibilities thereof. And that includes going through formal divorce proceedings if you wish to marry another person. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plural-marriage-whats-the-crime/237153/9 "2004-03-29T23:34:09Z")
> [@vetbridge](#): > > Hmmm…can someone define “legally married”? You see, in some states there is the concept of “comon-law marriage” whereby two folks who live together for a set amount of time and act as though married (you know, fighting, cheating, etc) are considered married. Each state (and, in the woefully misnamed "Defense of Marriage Act, the federal government for some purposes) defines what within its borders constitutes a legal marriage. Each state sets out this definition within its statutes. For example, [here’s](http://folio.legis.state.wi.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=47937358&infobase=stats.nfo&softpage=Browse_Frame_Pg) Wisconsin’s chapter defining marriage. > [@](#): > > So, if a man leaves his spouse without a divorce, than meets the states requirements for common-law marriage with another, would he be a bigamist? Yes. > [@](#): > > If I live with 3 women (I can dream, right?) and we consider ourselves married (but no attempt at getting paperwork from the state) can I be arrested? Possibly. Depends on the prosecutor, most likely. As long as you don’t attempt to reap the legal benefits of marriage with more than one of them, probably no one’s going to care. ---
**Author:** ![TWDuke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@TWDuke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TWDuke)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plural-marriage-whats-the-crime/237153/10 "2004-03-30T00:30:12Z")
Thanks, Otto and Exapno, for coming up with some facts and cites. OK. Let’s propose a hypothetical situation here. I share a beachfront apartment with my sexy roommates, Janet and Chrissy. Our meddling landlord, Mr. Roper, decides to report me as a bigamist to the local constable (played by Don Knotts). What conditions would have to be true for the charges to stick? **a)** Janet, Chrissy and I live together. **b)** Janet, Chrissy and I have sexual relations. **c)** Our relationship has continued for several years. **d)** I have applied for two simultaneous marriage licenses (one for me and Janet, one for me and Chrissy). **e)** I have _received_ two simultaneous marriage licenses (i.e., no divorce or anulment) **f)** I commonly refer to Janet and Chrissy as my “wives”, and they refer to me as their “husband”. **g)** I have applied for government benefits based on my marital status. **h)** I behave in an effeminate manner and attend cooking school. Assume all parties have consented to whatever relationship exists, are of legal age to do so, and are not closely related to one another (except for the fact of this marriage, if it is considered to be one.) Is **d** or **e** an absolute requirement for a case of bigamy, or would **a, b, c** and **f** suffice? Could an overzealous prosecutor make a case out of **b** alone? Would Janet and Chrissy be criminals as well? ---
**Author:** ![nitroglycerine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c5a1d2/32.png) [@nitroglycerine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nitroglycerine)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plural-marriage-whats-the-crime/237153/11 "2004-03-30T00:36:18Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > . In doing so, you will probably also commit fraud, because every issuer of marriage licenses asks if you have ever been married. If you answer yes, you have to produce a copy of your divorce decree to get a license. Just a nitpick… I got married in Winchester VA last april, and they didn’t ask to see my divorce papers. In fact, we didn’t even have to show ID! We just paid the cash, got our license, found this nice old lady to perform the ceremony, and we were on our way, all in the space of two hours. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plural-marriage-whats-the-crime/237153/12 "2004-03-30T01:18:06Z")
Gah. I hate my Wisconsin statutes link. For those playing along at home, the chapter is 765. > [@TWDuke](#): > > **d)** I have applied for two simultaneous marriage licenses (one for me and Janet, one for me and Chrissy). > **e)** I have _received_ two simultaneous marriage licenses (i.e., no divorce or anulment) There’s no way you could receive two licenses simultaneously. You’d have to apply for one or the other of them first, if by no more than the few seconds it would take to hand the forms to the clerk. No clerk is going to hand you two licenses in return either, so you’d have to go to two different clerks. Anyways, there’s at least two more steps in the process of becoming married. The marriage has to be “solemnized” (meaning the paperwork has to be signed by someone empowered by the state to do so along with whatever witnessing requirements the state has) and the license has to be recorded with the appropriate office (there’s a brouhaha in a couple of Oregon jurisdictions because licenses are being issued to same-sex couples and the marriages are being solemnized, but the state is literally putting the completed licenses in a drawer and not recording them). Some states IIRC don’t void an otherwise legal marriage if someone forgets to send in the completed paperwork but I haven’t reviewed the laws of all 50 states. And again, there’s no way these could both happen simultaneously. One would have to be recorded first even if it were only by a few seconds. > [@](#): > > Assume all parties have consented to whatever relationship exists, are of legal age to do so, and are not closely related to one another (except for the fact of this marriage, if it is considered to be one.) > > Is **d** or **e** an absolute requirement for a case of bigamy, or would **a, b, c** and **f** suffice? Could an overzealous prosecutor make a case out of **b** alone? > > Would Janet and Chrissy be criminals as well? Here’s Wisconsin law on bigamy: > [@](#): > > 944.05 Bigamy. > > (1) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class I felony: > > (a) Contracts a marriage in this state with knowledge that his or her prior marriage is not dissolved; or > > (b) Contracts a marriage in this state with knowledge that the prior marriage of the person he or she marries is not dissolved; or > > (c) Cohabits in this state with a person whom he or she married outside this state with knowledge that his or her own prior marriage had not been dissolved or with knowledge that the prior marriage of the person he or she married had not been dissolved. > > (2) In this section “cohabit” means to live together under the representation or appearance of being married. So, I’d say Janet and Chrissy’s guilt is dependent on which license was handled first. You’re definitely guilty of bigamy and your second wife is too. The first wife, depending on the circumstances, might be up on some bizarre conspiracy charge depending on how far the prosecutor wanted to push it. ---
**Author:** ![vetbridge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b5e925/32.png) [@vetbridge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vetbridge)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plural-marriage-whats-the-crime/237153/13 "2004-03-30T01:55:13Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > Here’s Wisconsin law on bigamy:\ > c) Cohabits in this state with a person whom he or she married outside this state with knowledge that his or her own prior marriage had not been dissolved or with knowledge that the prior marriage of the person he or she married had not been dissolved. Wow. So if a “group” from the Republic of Somewhere, where a man is legally permitted to have 12 wives moves to Wisconsin they would all become felons? Cool thread. Thanks to the OP for starting it and to Otto et al for contributing. With Ritter at room temperature I am keeping my fingers crossed 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Bromley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4da419/32.png) [@Bromley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bromley)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plural-marriage-whats-the-crime/237153/14 "2004-03-30T08:30:42Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > _So, if a man leaves his spouse without a divorce, than meets the states requirements for common-law marriage with another, would he be a bigamist?_ > > Yes. _If_ a court ruled that he had been subsequently married in common law, then of course that would stand. However, would that be likely to happen? Surely the fact of marriage would prevent the assumption of common law marriage? The person may be committing what any uninvolved observer would judge to be the same a bigamy, but would a court mess around with that when it could more easily say that he was obviously married to the first lady and therefore could not be married to the second? ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plural-marriage-whats-the-crime/237153/15 "2004-03-30T08:44:07Z")
> [@vetbridge](#): > > Wow. So if a “group” from the Republic of Somewhere, where a man is legally permitted to have 12 wives moves to Wisconsin they would all become felons? Well, there is the principle of comity, but there is also the fact that none of them would be committing an overt act to create a marriage in Wisconsin. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plural-marriage-whats-the-crime/237153/16 "2004-03-30T12:57:05Z")
> [@](#): > > 750.439 Polygamy; definition; felony. > Sec. 439. > > Polygamy—Any person who has a former husband or wife living, who shall marry another person, or shall continue to cohabit with such second husband or wife, in this state, he or she shall, except in the cases mentioned herein, be guilty of the crime of polygamy, a felony. > > The provisions of this section shall not extend to any person whose husband or wife shall have voluntarily remained beyond the sea, or shall have voluntarily withdrawn from the other and remained absent for the space of five years next preceding such marriage, the party marrying again, not knowing the other to be living within that time, nor to any person who shall have good reason to believe such husband or wife to be dead, nor to any person who has been legally divorced from the bonds of matrimony. > History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;–CL 1948, 750.439 . > > Former Law: See sections 4 and 5 of Ch. 158 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, §§ 5859 and 5860; CL 1871, §§ 7694 and 7695; How., §§ 9280 and 9281; CL 1897, §§ 11691 and 11692; CL 1915, §§ 15465 and 15466; CL 1929, §§ 16820 and 16821; and Act 91 of 1869. There is the Michigan statute. Not the clearest thing I’ve seen. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plural-marriage-whats-the-crime/237153/17 "2004-03-30T13:31:16Z")
while we are at it, here is Utah’s statute: > [@](#): > > 76-7-101. Bigamy – Defense. > > ``` > (1) A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person. > (2) Bigamy is a felony of the third degree. > (3) It shall be a defense to bigamy that the accused reasonably believed he and the other person were legally eligible to remarry. > > ``` > > Amended by Chapter 296, 1997 General Session ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plural-marriage-whats-the-crime/237153/18 "2004-03-30T13:32:20Z")
> [@nitroglycerine](#): > > Just a nitpick… > I got married in Winchester VA last april, and they didn’t ask to see my divorce papers. In fact, we didn’t even have to show ID! We just paid the cash, got our license, found this nice old lady to perform the ceremony, and we were on our way, all in the space of two hours. Ok, now all you would-be bigamists know where to go . . . 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Tastes\_of\_Chocolate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tastes_of_chocolate/32/3232_2.png) [@Tastes\_of\_Chocolate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tastes_of_Chocolate)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plural-marriage-whats-the-crime/237153/19 "2004-03-30T16:12:15Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > while we are at it, here is Utah’s statute: > Quote: > 76-7-101. Bigamy – Defense. > > (1) A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person. > (2) Bigamy is a felony of the third degree. > (3) It shall be a defense to bigamy that the accused reasonably believed he and the other person were legally eligible to remarry. > > Amended by Chapter 296, 1997 General Session If I am reading these right, Wisconsin and Michigan define marrying a second time, and THEN cohabitating as bigamy. But Utah counts cohabitating with a married person (not your husband/wife), without a second marriage, as bigamy. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plural-marriage-whats-the-crime/237153/20 "2004-03-30T17:06:14Z")
> [@Tastes of Chocolate](#): > > If I am reading these right, Wisconsin and Michigan define marrying a second time, and THEN cohabitating as bigamy. > But Utah counts cohabitating with a married person (not your husband/wife), without a second marriage, as bigamy. Nope. All three statutes make it a crime to marry a second time. The WI and MI statutes contain language about cohabiting to make clear that if you marry a second time, and then move into the state, you are guilty of bigamy or polygamy in those states, too. In Utah, you commit bigamy simply by living with someone when either of you is married to someone else. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plural-marriage-whats-the-crime/237153.md?page=2)