Polygamy in the US was made more stringently illegal (and in fact heavily prosecuted) not because of any moral outrage at the concept of multiple marriage, but because mid-19th century Mormons, who happened to practice multiple marriage, also engaged in a number of other very annoying practices (such as theft, trespass, breach of contract, and generally being jerks) that made a significant part of the Midwest really dislike them as a group. This resulted in “laws against Mormons”. Since Mormons were the only significant American group in the middle of the 19th century that practiced polygamy, it was very easy to “get at” the Mormons by ramping up the (at the time relatively weak) laws against polygamy. When Mormons ceased to form recognizable marriages with their second and subsequent spouses, many states adopted laws against the appearance of polygamy – all with the intent to persecute Mormons living in their states. This is the reason why we have laws not only against formal multiple marriage (which has been illegal under Church canon law and thus subsequently English common law for quite a long time) but also on relationships which appear to be polygamous in nature, and also probably why we, as a society, have such a visceral dislike for such relationships: these attitudes has become internalized, with no real understanding of the source of the dislike.
The first statutory acts in the United States prohibiting polygamy were adopted during this era in the Midwest. The first federal act prohibiting it was adopted in the 1860s. Prior to those acts, polygamy was illegal only under the common law of England, with no prescribed punishment.
I don’t question that full legalization of polygamy would complicate legal matters. What I question is whether that is a legitimate excuse for depriving people of their right of association (guaranteed by the First Amendment, as I recall) simply because a bunch of people 150 years dead didn’t like another bunch of people also 150 years dead).
I’ve seen some people make the argument – and whether it’s convincing or not I can’t say right now, I don’t have the cites to hand – that a lot of the abuses of this sort of patriarchal polygyny are directly linked to its illegality and secrecy. What I remember is that the guys who would be, if there were some sort of legal contract involved here, effectively deadbeat dads get off without having any real legal responsibilities to their offspring, women can be isolated in part because of possible criminality, and that sort of thing. The welfare cheating is made much easier by all these women being able to claim that they’re single . . .
Please explain to me how making polygamy legal will make these abuses, which occur despite polygamy being illegal, any worse. Explain to me also why it is necessary to make polygamy illegal to prevent men from marrying their own daughters when that’s already prohibited as incest. Explain to me how making polygamy illegal reduces welfare fraud, when doing so actually facilitates welfare fraud.
Your “parade of evils” doesn’t support making polygamy illegal; it supports enforcing laws against incest, pedophilia, and welfare fraud, all of which we already have. Further, these evils go on despite laws against polygamy. Legalizing polygamy won’t make it any harder to prosecute people for incest or polygamy, and the presumption of “one husband, one wife” is actually being exploited to facilitate welfare fraud – repealing that presumption would actually make welfare fraud harder rather than easier.
I don’t have a problem, by the way, with a man marrying his wife’s sister. Isn’t making it with a pair of identical twins a common fantasy?
What a bogus argument! If the age of consent is low, you already have “legalized pedophilia”, polygamy or not. What’s to stop a 45 year old from marrying a 6 year old in a state with a 6 year old age of consent? Making polygamy illegal doesn’t have any bearing on that.
You’re swatting flies with sledgehammers, and (far too often) missing.
If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of GD. With your delicate sensitivities, I wouldn’t recommend the Pit either.
anu-la1979, feel free to educate me about how a probate estate isn’t related to the assets of the deceased and the distribution of those assets (and outside of marital assets, I’m not sure I understand the relevence to this thread). Then explain how the entire purpose of elective share isn’t about “screwing over the testamentary document”. Any insight you can share about how all of this can occur without the oversight of probate court would also be useful.
Actually, not. Virtually identical rules are used in deciding property distribution in marriage as are used in deciding property distribution when a business partnership dissolves, and the two fields inform each other on a regular basis. Both have a default “equal shares” rule and both apply similar rules of equity when determining when equal shares are not appropriate.
Reasonable responses to most of your other objections have been presented in this and other polygamy discussions on this Board; I shall not rehash them here.