In his latest columnCecil discusses arguments against polygamy. It’s interesting to compare the comments of Arthur Schopenhauer on that topic here:
As this essay points out,
Cecil:
>>rewriting of the very well-settled capitalist<<
Not sure why you needed to take a swipe at capitalism here. In fact, the more capitalist the country, the lower the incidence of polygamy.
I fear you’re turning into a political shill.
Madman2001
Under the First Covenant, there are circumstances where a man is required to take on a second wife … hopefully she’s cute. I can’t say for sure, but I’m suspicious that this is the reason Henry VIII of England had to marry Catherine of Aragon, Henry’s older brother Arthur’s widow.
The math just doesn’t work out. If there are equal numbers of men and women, and each man is sleeping with multiple women, and he’s forced to marry each of them, then each woman would have several husbands as well. And since the standard is, apparently, that everyone with multiple spouses must financially support them, then I think it’s only fair that I get several wives so I can quit my job.
If they legalize polygamy, then they must legalize polyandry - no special treatment for the boys - we have spent too many years trying to make things fair and NOW people are saying polygamy sounds ok? Grrr!!! Of course boys love that idea, but remember everyone THERE IS A PRICE FOR EVERYTHING IN THIS WORLD and I believe there cannot be true closeness & respect when there is no loyalty to a special partner. It’s a shame that males seem to be able to just have a physical fling with no feelings involved, which generally I do not think is the same for women and that is what causes the one-sided, generally male, unfaithful behavior, but I still would not accept polygamy only as a new rule. I am on my own and I prefer THAT to an unfaithful situation - I now refuse to NEED any male !
The situation about lower-status (or whatever) men being forced out of the marriage pool is sort of being played out in China today. The ‘one baby per family’ rule has unfortunately resulted in there being a shortage of women.
Forbidding polygamy is essentially a legal platitude.
By Missouri law, I cannot have more than one valid marriage license. However, by no law is it forbidden for me to have two, three, four, or a hundred women of marriagable age in my home. Whether or not I call them my “wives” or “concubines” or “roommates” is of no consequence legally.
Now, 150 years ago, I could very well have wound up before a judge on the matter, either to answer charges of polygamy (because my situation amounts to de facto polygamy, the number of marriage licenses notwithstanding; or a prosecutor could have prosecuted me for adultery or something similar. Now, I doubt that there’s a judge in Missouri who cares one way or another.
There’s no common law marriage in Missouri?
The place to start I think is to expand domestic partnerships. Just as business partnerships can have more than two partners and spell out all rights and responsibilities by contract to all those who join be they male or female.
The problem of spousal benefits offered by an employer raised by Cecil can easily be addressed by policy of limiting benefit coverage to a set number of partners, or just giving the employee an equivalent cash benefit to expend in a flex/cafe benefit plan.
Say you meet and fall in love with someone who is a member of domestic partnership, if you’re serious, he/she’d invite to join subject to approval of all the other partners to whom you might have sexual or emotional responsibilities to and possibly support responsibilities for dependents (children, fosters, elderly parents, siblings). You’d probably have to grant sexual access to yourself by all the other partners, but you’d get to sleep with any of them too. Although it’s easy to imagine allowing someone in who is not interested in sex and contract that provision in, and just wants to be part of a “marriage.”
Keeping track of partnership assets (basis, gain, loss) would give lots of work for family law attorneys and accountants and enrich the economy too with all these transactions. Very necessary in case of dissociations (nicer word than divorce!).
Any kind of legal entity you can create which will allow for family households to make use of tools to aggregate wealth (esp. if you keep the tax and property transfer advantages of marriage) will get the upper classes on board politically.
Possibly. Maybe. I don’t know.
But I can tell you confidently that, as long as there’s no domestic violence and/or welfare fraud going on, nobody is going to care a whit about how many women live in my home.
No. A small number of states still allow it. But that number keeps shrinking.
Note that in Kansas, for example, one of the requirements is “capacity to marry” which might rule out polygamy given that an existing marriage could rule out capacity to marry again. You’d have to look at the details of the statutes involved. Utah has more conditions than most for some unexplainable reason.
The Utah constitution states that “polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited”, but that wasn’t good enough because of the “loophole” you mention. So Utah outlawed even claiming to be married while bigamously cohabiting.
Then, that law was ruled unconstitutional in 2013 thanks to a lawsuit by the Brown family (from the reality show Sister Wives). Of course, the actual obtaining of multiple marriage licenses was still illegal.
THEN, just last month, the 10th circuit Court of Appeals reversed that ruling, causing the polygamous families like the Browns to apparently be outlaws again.
I suspect HeyHomie is right that, barring violence or fraud or coercion, most people probably don’t want to criminalize it when consenting adults get together and have sex and kids, even if there are more than two of them. But I also suspect most people find situations like the Fundamentalist LDS church (where girls are raised in isolation and social/economic pressures to comply are extremely strong) quite disturbing, and don’t really want polygamy legalized because of that association, even if it puts the more sympathetic polygamous families like the Browns (or the family on that HBO show Big Love) in an unfortunate legal spot.
Utah - and to a lesser extent, other heavily Mormon states like Arizona - walk a fine line when it comes to this situation because a lot of Mormons are living in de facto polygamous relationships, laws to the contrary notwithstanding. Some do so in secrecy, some do so openly.
There are some problems that come into play with this situation. One is welfare fraud: keeping x wives and y children fed isn’t easy, so I’m sure there’s a lot of food stamp abuse in those situations (unless the man is wealthy, like in the Sister Wives case).
Another, much more serious problem is the matter of teenage girls being married off to elderly men. The FLDS was basically running a human trafficking operation in that regard, and the police in that town have largely looked the other way. Then there’s the problem of, as another poster mentioned upthread, adolescent boys - with little education and fewer job skills - being pushed out of the only community they’ve ever known.
I know of several lonely women who probably would gladly be a part of a polygamous household if it provided security and companionship.
Granted they are not the most attractive by a long shot.
Is there a specific law in Utah (or other states) forbidding a man to cohabit with more than one woman if no claim of marriage is involved?
Polygamy is fine if it’s gender neutral, i.e. women can have multiple husbands as well. The traditional form in male dominated societies, not so much. (Unless you have a divergent sex ratio). You’d need to do something (either social/cultural pressure, or regulating the amount of marriage licenses) to ensure that roughly the same amount of men and women partook of multiple spouses.
Oregon Revised Statute 221.916 – Powers of common council
(1) The mayor and alderpersons shall compose the common council of any city organized under sections 1 to 6, pages 119 to 123, Oregon Laws 1893. At any regular council meeting, the common council may:
… (i) Prevent and suppress bawdyhouses, lewd and lascivious cohabitation, opium-smoking houses and places occupied or kept therefor.
There was a fascinating article on Gizmodo that touches on the subject. Genetic studies suggest that back in the Bronze age a small number of men were siring a large percentage of the ancestors of today’s Europeans:
It’s all too easy to imagine a society consisting almost entirely of a handful of alpha warriors, their harems, and a mass of eunuch slaves. Like high school.
You seem to be confusing polygamy with polygyny. Polygyny is the distaff counterpart of polyandry; polygamy covers both of them.
Powers &8^]
Actually, if you dig through the story what happened is that the county attorney adopted a policy that the polygamy law would only be enforced if other crimes were happening, which meant that the Browns were not outlaws, but also meant that the circuit court felt they had no grounds to continue litigation. The court didn’t change the substantive part of the ruling, that prosecuting someone under the law was invalid on first amendment grounds, and I don’t think that any-polygamy laws will stand up to a legal challenge in today’s world.