When is Polygamy NOT Polygamy?

[Balthisar]

@DrDeth

No. If they are not related to you, you must provide over 50% of their support and they must reside with you for the entire calendar year (small vacations and such are fine).

I guess I was overly broad in saying “anyone I want.” But if I were a polygamist, then I’d be okay claiming my multiple wives as dependents, again, assuming they live with me all year and I’m providing their support.

[DrDeth]

@Balthisar

I guess I was overly broad in saying “anyone I want.” But if I were a polygamist, then I’d be okay claiming my multiple wives as dependents, again, assuming they live with me all year and I’m providing their support.

The issue often is that all those “wives” get on “the welfare” in which case you are not supporting them (often they are supporting you) and it can be welfare fraud.

This is what pisses me off about the semi-Mormon-cult* Polygamy- not only is it cheesy, they want me to pay for their bevy of under-aged and related-by-blood harem.
*they are almost never part of the Mainstream LDS Church.

[UltraVires]

@DrDeth

The issue often is that all those “wives” get on “the welfare” in which case you are not supporting them (often they are supporting you) and it can be welfare fraud.

This is what pisses me off about the semi-Mormon-cult* Polygamy- not only is it cheesy, they want me to pay for their bevy of under-aged and related-by-blood harem.
*they are almost never part of the Mainstream LDS Church.

It seems like semantics to me. So don’t call them “wives” or “marriages”. Call them “living arrangments” and “partners”. Don’t ever apply for a state issued marriage license.

They will still be able to collect welfare, but it will no longer be polygamy and completely legal. In fact, they could have church ceremonies for all of their “partners” pretending to be marriages (remembering not to register at the courthouse).

Since there is no original legal marriage, there is no polygamy…

[Balthisar]

@jtgain

They will still be able to collect welfare, but it will no longer be polygamy and completely legal. In fact, they could have church ceremonies for all of their “partners” pretending to be marriages (remembering not to register at the courthouse).

Now we’ve come full circle, and I see where claiming them as dependents on tax forms would be a problem.

[Will_Repair]

@Sapo

What about those states (FL?) where cohabitating with someone for some length of time counts as a marriage?

Urban Legend. States recognize common law marriages from other states but do not codify common law marriage.

[Otto]

@Will Repair

Urban Legend. States recognize common law marriages from other states but do not codify common law marriage.

This makes no sense.

[Gfactor]

@Otto

This makes no sense.

Seconded. See, http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8987751&postcount=12

[DrDeth]

@jtgain

It seems like semantics to me. So don’t call them “wives” or “marriages”. Call them “living arrangments” and “partners”. Don’t ever apply for a state issued marriage license…

If you don’t call them “wives” it becomes Statutory Rape. In most states it is illegal to have sex with a minor under 18 unless you are married. ( I think you can marry as early as 15 in some states?)

No one gives a shit about Consenting adults sharing living quarters. As long as they are:
Consenting
Adults
Not close relatives
and you aren’t using them to scam welfare.

The issue with most Polygamy arrests is that the “brides” are not truly consenting (brainwashed) not adults, too often close relatives, and are used to scam welfare.

[UltraVires]

@DrDeth

If you don’t call them “wives” it becomes Statutory Rape. In most states it is illegal to have sex with a minor under 18 unless you are married. ( I think you can marry as early as 15 in some states?)

No one gives a shit about Consenting adults sharing living quarters. As long as they are:
Consenting
Adults
Not close relatives
and you aren’t using them to scam welfare.

The issue with most Polygamy arrests is that the “brides” are not truly consenting (brainwashed) not adults, too often close relatives, and are used to scam welfare.

For me, that goes without saying. No under 18, no close relatives, no scamming welfare, but your contention is that these women are brainwashed and incapable of consent? That’s a slippery slope.

As far as scamming welfare, though, I don’t see how the marriages would help. If it is me, my five “sexual companions”, and our 20 kids, then how would it help me as far as welfare goes by claiming one (or more) of these women as my wife(s) and expose me to polygamy charges?

[aldiboronti]

Suppose a Saudi Arabian emigrates to the US. He happens to have five wives, perfectly legally under the Islamic laws of his former country.

What is their status when they’re living in the US?

[Gfactor]

@aldiboronti

Suppose a Saudi Arabian emigrates to the US. He happens to have five wives, perfectly legally under the Islamic laws of his former country.

What is their status when they’re living in the US?

*See * How does U.S. law deal with polygamy in other countries?

[Will_Repair]

@Otto

This makes no sense.

No, it doesn’t make sense but true nonetheless. There is no such thing, but often believed, that some state(s) have a law saying something like, live together for such and such a period and you’re married. But many (if not most) states have a law that recognizes common law marriages from other states.

[Mr.Slant]

You don’t need a state law.
Common law is automatically applicable, UNTIL you specifically revoke it with state law.
Folks with state-recognized common-law marriages are getting scarce, but they’ll be around for decades.

[Gfactor]

@Will Repair

No, it doesn’t make sense but true nonetheless. There is no such thing, but often believed, that some state(s) have a law saying something like, live together for such and such a period and you’re married. But many (if not most) states have a law that recognizes common law marriages from other states.

Currently, **only 10 states ** (Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Iowa, Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Texas) and the District of Columbia **recognize common-law marriages contracted within their borders. In addition, five states have “grandfathered” common law marriage, allowing those established before a certain date to be recognized. ** New Hampshire recognizes common law marriage only for purposes of probate, and Utah recognizes common law marriages only if they have been validated by a court or administrative order.

(Emphasis added) http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/commonlaw.htm

As far as I know only a few states have statutes on point. E.g., Texas:

§ 2.401. PROOF OF INFORMAL MARRIAGE. (a) In a judicial,
administrative, or other proceeding, the marriage of a man and
woman may be proved by evidence that:
(1) a declaration of their marriage has been signed as
provided by this subchapter; or
(2) the man and woman agreed to be married and after
the agreement they lived together in this state as husband and wife
and there represented to others that they were married.

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/FA/content/htm/fa.001.00.000002.00.htm#2.401.00

Utah:

30-1-4.5. Validity of marriage not solemnized.
(1) A marriage which is not solemnized according to this chapter shall be legal and valid if a court or administrative order establishes that it arises out of a contract between a man and a woman who:
(a) are of legal age and capable of giving consent;
(b) are legally capable of entering a solemnized marriage under the provisions of this chapter;
(c) have cohabited;
(d) mutually assume marital rights, duties, and obligations; and
(e) who hold themselves out as and have acquired a uniform and general reputation as husband and wife.
(2) The determination or establishment of a marriage under this section must occur during the relationship described in Subsection (1), or within one year following the termination of that relationship. Evidence of a marriage recognizable under this section may be manifested in any form, and may be proved under the same general rules of evidence as facts in other cases.

http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE30/htm/30_01010.htm
Other states recognized them through judicial and administrative decisions.

[Little_Nemo]

Just to make an already complicated question more complicated, what happens if civil unions are involved? If a man goes to Vermont and enters a civil union with another man, can he then go to New York and legally marry a woman? Suppose he had married another man in Massachusetts (where this is legal) can he still legally marry a woman in another state which does not recognize same-sex marriages?

[Will_Repair]

@Gfactor

As far as I know only a few states have statutes on point. E.g., Texas:

Then you agree that the the belief that living together for x amount of time in such and such a state is an Urban Legend?

[Gfactor]

@Will Repair

Then you agree that the the belief that living together for x amount of time in such and such a state is an Urban Legend?

I agree that there aren’t specific, fixed durational requirements (x number of years) for common law marriage and I also agree that merely cohabiting won’t cut it, if that’s what you meant to say. I didn’t read your post as saying that, and from the other responses, I don’t think anybody else did either.

Some states still recognize common law marriage, and at least two do it by statute. The key elements, though are the couple must:

* live together for a significant period of time (not defined in any state)
* hold themselves out as a married couple -- typically this means using the same last name, referring to the other as "my husband" or "my wife," and filing a joint tax return, and
* intend to be married.

http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectId/709FAEE4-ABEA-4E17-BA34836388313A3C/118/304/192/FAQ/

While an actual “x years” rule would be more predictable, as the quoted material says, no state has adopted one.