If polyamory is next, then polygamy isn't far behind

[Skylar]

If such were the case, bigamy would already be legal.

It isn't.

Again, most prosecutions for bigamy involve fraud, someone marrying multiple partners without the knowledge of certain parties. If there is no harmed party, i.e. no one complains if it is discovered, then all that happens is that the marriage license is voided.

Show me a bigamy law that requires deception perpetrated on any party involved in the marriage by any party of in the marriage.

Most broken laws required an aggrieved party to press charges on someone. If the person in the first marriage is agreed to an in on the 2nd marriage, Why would any prosecutor go after them for nothing more than nulling the 2nd marriage contract?

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to show me a bigamy statute that requires deception by a party of the marriage upon a party to the marriage.

Please do so.

Considering you can only get the 2nd license via deception, its pretty much part of the act. The issue isn't deceiving the State, its deceiving one of the people involved in the marriages.

You don't have to lie to anyone within a marriage to commit bigamy. Bigamy is when you get married more than once at the same time. Your insistence that deception is required for bigamy isn't reflected in our laws.

 

[Skylar]

They do. They don't have the right to commit bigamy, however.

That's double talk. Answer the question, is there a "right" to plural marriage or not, and if not, why not?

There is no recognized right to enter into two marriages at the same time. That's not 'double talk'. That's bigamy....which is a crime.

If you believe otherwise, show us a single court case taht recognizes the right of an individual to enter into two marriages at the same time.

After all Loving said marriage is a right, and oberkfell extended it to same sex marriages, where is the moral and legal rationale for stopping there?

Marriage is a right. Bigamy is not.

Plural marriage is not "two marriages", it is people wanting to enter into one marriage.

Under the law it is bigamy.

So change the law. Sodomy used to be illegal too.

If there is sufficient interest, the law will change. If not, it won't. As there's no right to bigamy recognized by any court. If that changes, we'll talk.

 

[martybegan]

So why don't people who want a plural marriage have a "right to marry"?

They do. They don't have the right to commit bigamy, however.

That's double talk. Answer the question, is there a "right" to plural marriage or not, and if not, why not?

There is no recognized right to enter into two marriages at the same time. That's not 'double talk'. That's bigamy....which is a crime.

If you believe otherwise, show us a single court case taht recognizes the right of an individual to enter into two marriages at the same time.

After all Loving said marriage is a right, and oberkfell extended it to same sex marriages, where is the moral and legal rationale for stopping there?

Marriage is a right. Bigamy is not.

Plural marriage is not "two marriages", it is people wanting to enter into one marriage.

Under the law it is bigamy.

And under the law gay marriage wasn't legal until recently. You are arguing mechanics, not the underlying reasoning.

 

[martybegan]

That's double talk. Answer the question, is there a "right" to plural marriage or not, and if not, why not?

There is no recognized right to enter into two marriages at the same time. That's not 'double talk'. That's bigamy....which is a crime.

If you believe otherwise, show us a single court case taht recognizes the right of an individual to enter into two marriages at the same time.

After all Loving said marriage is a right, and oberkfell extended it to same sex marriages, where is the moral and legal rationale for stopping there?

Marriage is a right. Bigamy is not.

Plural marriage is not "two marriages", it is people wanting to enter into one marriage.

Under the law it is bigamy.

So change the law. Sodomy used to be illegal too.

If there is sufficient interest, the law will change. If not, it won't. As there's no right to bigamy recognized by any court. If that changes, we'll talk.

What does interest have to do with something being a right? That was the the argument in Oberkfell when it forced States to change their contract, regardless of the "will of the people".

You can't have it both ways.

 

[Katzndogz]

The likely result is that people just won't bother with marriage. After all what woman wants to pay spousal support to her husband's other wife.

I am personally ambivalent. Marriage is okay for other people.

As long as marriage is socially and economically advantageous there will be folks that choose it. And its still both.

Of course. Is the concept of marriage changing? Yes. Is the move towards recognizing non traditional marriages? Yes,

Polygamous marriages will happen and cannot be stopped.

Cable TV has a show called Sister Wives. It's about non traditional families in polygamous marriages. There has been no prosecution. They are all allowed to live their lives as they see fit.

 

[martybegan]

Again, most prosecutions for bigamy involve fraud, someone marrying multiple partners without the knowledge of certain parties. If there is no harmed party, i.e. no one complains if it is discovered, then all that happens is that the marriage license is voided.

Show me a bigamy law that requires deception perpetrated on any party involved in the marriage by any party of in the marriage.

Most broken laws required an aggrieved party to press charges on someone. If the person in the first marriage is agreed to an in on the 2nd marriage, Why would any prosecutor go after them for nothing more than nulling the 2nd marriage contract?

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to show me a bigamy statute that requires deception by a party of the marriage upon a party to the marriage.

Please do so.

Considering you can only get the 2nd license via deception, its pretty much part of the act. The issue isn't deceiving the State, its deceiving one of the people involved in the marriages.

You don't have to lie to anyone within a marriage to commit bigamy. Bigamy is when you get married more than once at the same time. Your insistence that deception is required for bigamy isn't reflected in our laws.

It isn't required for it, but it is required for some prosecutor to go any further than just nullifying the 2nd marriage contract.

 

[Skylar]

They do. They don't have the right to commit bigamy, however.

That's double talk. Answer the question, is there a "right" to plural marriage or not, and if not, why not?

There is no recognized right to enter into two marriages at the same time. That's not 'double talk'. That's bigamy....which is a crime.

If you believe otherwise, show us a single court case taht recognizes the right of an individual to enter into two marriages at the same time.

After all Loving said marriage is a right, and oberkfell extended it to same sex marriages, where is the moral and legal rationale for stopping there?

Marriage is a right. Bigamy is not.

Plural marriage is not "two marriages", it is people wanting to enter into one marriage.

Under the law it is bigamy.

And under the law gay marriage wasn't legal until recently. You are arguing mechanics, not the underlying reasoning.

Same sex marriage wasn't legally recognized until recently. It wasn't 'illegal' as it violated no law. It was merely legally void, being unrecognized by the law.

Bigamy is illegal. And there's been no successful challenge against it. Nor is there any recognized right to bigamy.

 

[Skylar]

The likely result is that people just won't bother with marriage. After all what woman wants to pay spousal support to her husband's other wife.

I am personally ambivalent. Marriage is okay for other people.

As long as marriage is socially and economically advantageous there will be folks that choose it. And its still both.

Of course. Is the concept of marriage changing? Yes. Is the move towards recognizing non traditional marriages? Yes,

Polygamous marriages will happen and cannot be stopped.

Unless they don't.

Cable TV has a show called Sister Wives. It's about non traditional families in polygamous marriages. There has been no prosecution. They are all allowed to live their lives as they see fit.

The case is still in court. There were rulings on the matter only a few days ago.

 

[Skylar]

Show me a bigamy law that requires deception perpetrated on any party involved in the marriage by any party of in the marriage.

Most broken laws required an aggrieved party to press charges on someone. If the person in the first marriage is agreed to an in on the 2nd marriage, Why would any prosecutor go after them for nothing more than nulling the 2nd marriage contract?

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to show me a bigamy statute that requires deception by a party of the marriage upon a party to the marriage.

Please do so.

Considering you can only get the 2nd license via deception, its pretty much part of the act. The issue isn't deceiving the State, its deceiving one of the people involved in the marriages.

You don't have to lie to anyone within a marriage to commit bigamy. Bigamy is when you get married more than once at the same time. Your insistence that deception is required for bigamy isn't reflected in our laws.

It isn't required for it, but it is required for some prosecutor to go any further than just nullifying the 2nd marriage contract.

If deception is a lega requirement of bigamy....show me the law saying this.

If you can't, then your claims are without basis.

 

[Skylar]

There is no recognized right to enter into two marriages at the same time. That's not 'double talk'. That's bigamy....which is a crime.

If you believe otherwise, show us a single court case taht recognizes the right of an individual to enter into two marriages at the same time.

Marriage is a right. Bigamy is not.

Plural marriage is not "two marriages", it is people wanting to enter into one marriage.

Under the law it is bigamy.

So change the law. Sodomy used to be illegal too.

If there is sufficient interest, the law will change. If not, it won't. As there's no right to bigamy recognized by any court. If that changes, we'll talk.

What does interest have to do with something being a right? That was the the argument in Oberkfell when it forced States to change their contract, regardless of the "will of the people".

You can't have it both ways.

There is no recognized right to bigamy. The law can be changed to recognize more than one marriage, however. Which would be driven by interest in changing the law. Not by the courts which has never recognized bigamy as a right.

 

[Katzndogz]

The likely result is that people just won't bother with marriage. After all what woman wants to pay spousal support to her husband's other wife.

I am personally ambivalent. Marriage is okay for other people.

As long as marriage is socially and economically advantageous there will be folks that choose it. And its still both.

Of course. Is the concept of marriage changing? Yes. Is the move towards recognizing non traditional marriages? Yes,

Polygamous marriages will happen and cannot be stopped.

Unless they don't.

Cable TV has a show called Sister Wives. It's about non traditional families in polygamous marriages. There has been no prosecution. They are all allowed to live their lives as they see fit.

The case is still in court. There were rulings on the matter only a few days ago.

The case is not in court. It has been dismissed. The state has a long held policy of not prosecuting consenting adults in polygamous marriages.

Court dismisses "Sister Wives" lawsuit - CBS News
We're you as enthusiastic about enforcing the law when the law prohibited sodomy?

 

[Katzndogz]

Plural marriage is not "two marriages", it is people wanting to enter into one marriage.

Under the law it is bigamy.

So change the law. Sodomy used to be illegal too.

If there is sufficient interest, the law will change. If not, it won't. As there's no right to bigamy recognized by any court. If that changes, we'll talk.

What does interest have to do with something being a right? That was the the argument in Oberkfell when it forced States to change their contract, regardless of the "will of the people".

You can't have it both ways.

There is no recognized right to bigamy. The law can be changed to recognize more than one marriage, however. Which would be driven by interest in changing the law. Not by the courts which has never recognized bigamy as a right.

Change bigamy to sodomy then review Lawrence v Texas.

 

[Skylar]

The likely result is that people just won't bother with marriage. After all what woman wants to pay spousal support to her husband's other wife.

I am personally ambivalent. Marriage is okay for other people.

As long as marriage is socially and economically advantageous there will be folks that choose it. And its still both.

Of course. Is the concept of marriage changing? Yes. Is the move towards recognizing non traditional marriages? Yes,

Polygamous marriages will happen and cannot be stopped.

Unless they don't.

Cable TV has a show called Sister Wives. It's about non traditional families in polygamous marriages. There has been no prosecution. They are all allowed to live their lives as they see fit.

The case is still in court. There were rulings on the matter only a few days ago.

The case is not in court. It has been dismissed. The state has a long held policy of not prosecuting consenting adults in polygamous marriages.

Court dismisses "Sister Wives" lawsuit - CBS News
We're you as enthusiastic about enforcing the law when the law prohibited sodomy?

The suit being 'dismissed'....was the polygamist's. Not the State's.

Kody Brown and his four wives cannot sue the state over its ban on plural marriages because the family never faced charges and prosecutors later said they would not prosecute consenting adults with multiple wives, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled.

Court dismisses "Sister Wives" lawsuit - CBS News

Thus, the States's ban on issuing multiple marriage licenses stand.

 

[Skylar]

Under the law it is bigamy.

So change the law. Sodomy used to be illegal too.

If there is sufficient interest, the law will change. If not, it won't. As there's no right to bigamy recognized by any court. If that changes, we'll talk.

What does interest have to do with something being a right? That was the the argument in Oberkfell when it forced States to change their contract, regardless of the "will of the people".

You can't have it both ways.

There is no recognized right to bigamy. The law can be changed to recognize more than one marriage, however. Which would be driven by interest in changing the law. Not by the courts which has never recognized bigamy as a right.

Change bigamy to sodomy then review Lawrence v Texas.

Sodomy isn't marriage. Try again.

 

[Katzndogz]

The likely result is that people just won't bother with marriage. After all what woman wants to pay spousal support to her husband's other wife.

I am personally ambivalent. Marriage is okay for other people.

As long as marriage is socially and economically advantageous there will be folks that choose it. And its still both.

Of course. Is the concept of marriage changing? Yes. Is the move towards recognizing non traditional marriages? Yes,

Polygamous marriages will happen and cannot be stopped.

Unless they don't.

Cable TV has a show called Sister Wives. It's about non traditional families in polygamous marriages. There has been no prosecution. They are all allowed to live their lives as they see fit.

The case is still in court. There were rulings on the matter only a few days ago.

The case is not in court. It has been dismissed. The state has a long held policy of not prosecuting consenting adults in polygamous marriages.

Court dismisses "Sister Wives" lawsuit - CBS News
We're you as enthusiastic about enforcing the law when the law prohibited sodomy?

The suit being 'dismissed'....was the polygamist's. Not the State's.

Kody Brown and his four wives cannot sue the state over its ban on plural marriages because the family never faced charges and prosecutors later said they would not prosecute consenting adults with multiple wives, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled.

Court dismisses "Sister Wives" lawsuit - CBS News

Thus, the States's ban on issuing multiple marriage licenses stand.

Can't you read. The state never had a case against them. You posted it. The family never faced charges. Prosecutors said they do not prosecute consenting adults with multiple wives.

When the state issues a marriage license, they don't ask if there are other marriages. Read your own post. There are no state charges. There is no state case.

 

[Katzndogz]

So change the law. Sodomy used to be illegal too.

If there is sufficient interest, the law will change. If not, it won't. As there's no right to bigamy recognized by any court. If that changes, we'll talk.

What does interest have to do with something being a right? That was the the argument in Oberkfell when it forced States to change their contract, regardless of the "will of the people".

You can't have it both ways.

There is no recognized right to bigamy. The law can be changed to recognize more than one marriage, however. Which would be driven by interest in changing the law. Not by the courts which has never recognized bigamy as a right.

Change bigamy to sodomy then review Lawrence v Texas.

Sodomy isn't marriage. Try again.

It was against the law until it wasn't against the law anymore.

 

[martybegan]

That's double talk. Answer the question, is there a "right" to plural marriage or not, and if not, why not?

There is no recognized right to enter into two marriages at the same time. That's not 'double talk'. That's bigamy....which is a crime.

If you believe otherwise, show us a single court case taht recognizes the right of an individual to enter into two marriages at the same time.

After all Loving said marriage is a right, and oberkfell extended it to same sex marriages, where is the moral and legal rationale for stopping there?

Marriage is a right. Bigamy is not.

Plural marriage is not "two marriages", it is people wanting to enter into one marriage.

Under the law it is bigamy.

And under the law gay marriage wasn't legal until recently. You are arguing mechanics, not the underlying reasoning.

Same sex marriage wasn't legally recognized until recently. It wasn't 'illegal' as it violated no law. It was merely legally void, being unrecognized by the law.

Bigamy is illegal. And there's been no successful challenge against it. Nor is there any recognized right to bigamy.

But if 3 or 4 people love each other, who are we to judge?

 

[martybegan]

Most broken laws required an aggrieved party to press charges on someone. If the person in the first marriage is agreed to an in on the 2nd marriage, Why would any prosecutor go after them for nothing more than nulling the 2nd marriage contract?

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to show me a bigamy statute that requires deception by a party of the marriage upon a party to the marriage.

Please do so.

Considering you can only get the 2nd license via deception, its pretty much part of the act. The issue isn't deceiving the State, its deceiving one of the people involved in the marriages.

You don't have to lie to anyone within a marriage to commit bigamy. Bigamy is when you get married more than once at the same time. Your insistence that deception is required for bigamy isn't reflected in our laws.

It isn't required for it, but it is required for some prosecutor to go any further than just nullifying the 2nd marriage contract.

If deception is a lega requirement of bigamy....show me the law saying this.

If you can't, then your claims are without basis.

its required for most prosecutions beyond just nullifying the 2nd license. That has been my point from the beginning.

 

[Skylar]

As long as marriage is socially and economically advantageous there will be folks that choose it. And its still both.

Of course. Is the concept of marriage changing? Yes. Is the move towards recognizing non traditional marriages? Yes,

Polygamous marriages will happen and cannot be stopped.

Unless they don't.

Cable TV has a show called Sister Wives. It's about non traditional families in polygamous marriages. There has been no prosecution. They are all allowed to live their lives as they see fit.

The case is still in court. There were rulings on the matter only a few days ago.

The case is not in court. It has been dismissed. The state has a long held policy of not prosecuting consenting adults in polygamous marriages.

Court dismisses "Sister Wives" lawsuit - CBS News
We're you as enthusiastic about enforcing the law when the law prohibited sodomy?

The suit being 'dismissed'....was the polygamist's. Not the State's.

Kody Brown and his four wives cannot sue the state over its ban on plural marriages because the family never faced charges and prosecutors later said they would not prosecute consenting adults with multiple wives, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled.

Court dismisses "Sister Wives" lawsuit - CBS News

Thus, the States's ban on issuing multiple marriage licenses stand.

Can't you read. The state never had a case against them. You posted it. The family never faced charges. Prosecutors said they do not prosecute consenting adults with multiple wives.

Under the law Kody Brown doesn't have multiple wives. The portion of the anti-polygamy laws that were found to be unconstitutional were the cohabitation portion. Where those who were cohabitating were committing polygamy. That was overturned about 2 years ago. The 10th circuit court set aside that judgment, restoring the cohabitation restrictions to Utah law.

This afternoon, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued its decision in Brown v. Buhman, No. 14-4117, reversing the decision striking down the cohabitation provision of the Utah polygamy law.

TENTH CIRCUIT REVERSES SISTER WIVES DECISION

This from Kody Brown himself.

When the state issues a marriage license, they don't ask if there are other marriages. Read your own post. There are no state charges. There is no state case.

Bigamy is still throughly illegal in Utah. If Brown tried to marry someone else while still married, he'd be commiting bigamy.

Brown is only legally married to Meri Brown.

 

[Skylar]

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to show me a bigamy statute that requires deception by a party of the marriage upon a party to the marriage.

Please do so.

Considering you can only get the 2nd license via deception, its pretty much part of the act. The issue isn't deceiving the State, its deceiving one of the people involved in the marriages.

You don't have to lie to anyone within a marriage to commit bigamy. Bigamy is when you get married more than once at the same time. Your insistence that deception is required for bigamy isn't reflected in our laws.

It isn't required for it, but it is required for some prosecutor to go any further than just nullifying the 2nd marriage contract.

If deception is a lega requirement of bigamy....show me the law saying this.

If you can't, then your claims are without basis.

its required for most prosecutions beyond just nullifying the 2nd license. That has been my point from the beginning.

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to show me the law saying that deception is a legal requirement for bigamy.

Not having much luck, are you?