Can Laws Against Polygamy Stand In Modern Society?

[deb1]

Let me say first that I am not defending polygamy!! I am very much against it. But I am finding it difficult to come up with a non religious reason to bann polygamy committed by consenting adults.

I was just curious, do any of you think that polygamy between consenting adults will be legal in the U.S. one day?

Just playing devil’s advocate here…we don’t have laws against three strangers deciding in a bar one night to have sex together. We don’t have laws against adultery, or premarital sex among adults either. Why should three people who decide that they want to form a committed, sexual relationship be forbidden to do so?

If three people decide to live together and call themselves married, beyond not issuing them a license, I don’t think that there is anything legal that can done to stop them.

I am hoping that some of you can come up with good, solid reasons not to allow polygamy that would appeal to a secular society. If not, do you think that polygamy-by adults- will be legal one day?

 

[Naztakuan]

I asked this same question. But I think it’s a matter of money. The governmt will not RECOGNIZE these plural unions as marriages meaning only one wife will get the benafits from the father. I’m sure it’s not illegal for three women to have asexual encounter with one man exclusively. the issue is when it comes to geverment protection. an example of this is an episode of law and order I saw once. An african man came to the united states with is family. He has three wives and children from two of those wives. He is also a witness to a heinous crime meaning his family needs to be protected under the winess protection system. Unaware of his marital situation, they only protect his first wife and her children. He laters corrects this problem stating that they must protect ALL his wives as they are his family as well. They have to bend a few rules since witness protection only protects your immediate family as defined as one spouse and any children. But legally, his other two marriages are not recognized so it would have been perfectly alright to let his other two wives fend for themselves in a foreign country. It’s a matter of economics. The government does not want plural marriages because married people get tax beaks and share insurance. These are the same benafits that gay people want. If lural marriage was legal, almost everyone would get benafits and share them with extended family as well.

 

[graceandglory]

Let me say first that I am not defending polygamy!! I am very much against it. But I am finding it difficult to come up with a non religious reason to bann polygamy committed by consenting adults.

I think you’re absolutely right. As long as Congress refuses to sign the Definition of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN, anything goes.

RIght now, without that definition, people are defining it any way they want to. ONE MAN + one man, one woman + one woman, one man + two women, one man + many women. Until Congress passes DOMA, yes, there is nothing to stand in the way of polygamy, or bigamy becoming legal.

“It might not be right for me, but if that’s what you want, who am I to say what you can or can’t do.” MORAL RELATIVISM.

The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception wasn’t officially defined in the Church at the beginning. Most people just accepted it. That was what people thought of regarding Mary’s being free of the stain of original sin.

Not until it started to be a problem and people started coming up with different scenarios, and different ideas about Mary’s sin nature, did the Church have to step up and DEFINE Mary’s Immaculate Conception.

Same deal with the Defense of Marriage Act.
Marriage has always been understood for the whole of History, that it is between one man and one woman. It never needed to be defined. Now that there are problems, CONGRESS MUST ACT, to DEFINE Marriage.

 

[Yerusalyim]

IF a legislature acts to allow marriage between homosexuals it can not defend denying marriage of multiple partnered couples as in polygamy either.

 

[Paul2274]

If I’m not mistaken there ,either recently or shortly pending, is a supreme court case in Canada about to be fought for allowing plural marriages. If they win you can bet that will fuel the debate like the gay marriage debate in this country. When will it all stop and morality come back to something respected and defended because it is God’s law.

God Bless Us All,

Paul

 

[HelenRose]

Let me say first that I am not defending polygamy!! I am very much against it. But I am finding it difficult to come up with a non religious reason to bann polygamy committed by consenting adults.

I was just curious, do any of you think that polygamy between consenting adults will be legal in the U.S. one day?

Just playing devil’s advocate here…we don’t have laws against three strangers deciding in a bar one night to have sex together. We don’t have laws against adultery, or premarital sex among adults either. Why should three people who decide that they want to form a committed, sexual relationship be forbidden to do so?

If three people decide to live together and call themselves married, beyond not issuing them a license, I don’t think that there is anything legal that can done to stop them.

I am hoping that some of you can come up with good, solid reasons not to allow polygamy that would appeal to a secular society. If not, do you think that polygamy-by adults- will be legal one day?

All the above will be even more of a legal argument if same sex marriage becomes the norm.

I am so grateful for the position the Church takes on these issues.

 

[rwoehmke]

Apparently polygamy was common enough in Old testament times and is still common in many parts of the world even among God believers. Why would we expect that a Christian point of view will continue to prevail. As far as North America goes, it isn’t exactly totally rare and unknown particularly in the West and Southwest. In any case I doubt it was Catholic Americans who had much to do with it being made illegal in the States in the first place. I would suppose that we already practice the next best thing, the serial monogamy of divorce and re-marriage.

 

[vern_humphrey]

If it is legal for two people of the same sex to get married, how can it be illegal for a half-dozen people of assorted sexes?

There are end-of-life advantages to being married – your surviving spouse does not pay the Death Tax, and your IRA or 401K automaticaly rolls over. I predict people will “marry” their children or grandchildren so as to pass on their estates intact.

 

[BioCatholic]

Haven’t we discussed this before?

The government has the power to issue marriage certificates, which allow certain benefits to the couple. Mostly in the US, that is one man and one woman.

There are no currently enforceable laws that prohibit, however, a married couple from cohabitating with other men and/or women. They cannot though, apply for other marriage certificates, or claim the other people are legal, civil spouses. That’s where you can get into trouble.

You can have one civil wife, and 10 other “spiritual” wives whom you marry in purely religious ceremonies. As long as you don’t claim the new “wife” on taxes or legal documents, you are fine.

The FLDS however, made its fatal error in marrying off likely underage girls. Had all of those girls been 18 or over when married or pregnant, Texas would not have a single conceivable reason to take their children. Not one. You can’t take a couple’s children simply because they have an open or polyamorous marriage. Otherwise child protective services would patrol down Craigslist at other dating sites looking to remove children from all married couples looking for “other”.

As long as people in polygamous relationships do not attempt to gain civil benefits among other spouses than their legal one, there’s nothing the government can do about their living situation.

 

[deb1]

If it is legal for two people of the same sex to get married, how can it be illegal for a half-dozen people of assorted sexes?

There are end-of-life advantages to being married – your surviving spouse does not pay the Death Tax, and your IRA or 401K automaticaly rolls over. I predict people will “marry” their children or grandchildren so as to pass on their estates intact.

I hope your prediction doesn’t come true.

 

[deb1]

Apparently polygamy was common enough in Old testament times and is still common in many parts of the world even among God believers. Why would we expect that a Christian point of view will continue to prevail. As far as North America goes, it isn’t exactly totally rare and unknown particularly in the West and Southwest. In any case I doubt it was Catholic Americans who had much to do with it being made illegal in the States in the first place. I would suppose that we already practice the next best thing, the serial monogamy of divorce and re-marriage.

I think that a very effective argument for plural marriages would be that societies condoned the practice before ‘that repressive Christianity changed everything.’

Yes, I have heard that the cycle of marriage, divorce and remarriage called serial monogamy. Could you see a argument made for polygamy on the basis that without some sort of religious annulment then many of these people are actually still married to their first spouse!!

How are women normally treated in cultures that practice polygamy? I might be wrong, but I was always under the impression that in societies practicing polygamy women are not highly valued.

 

[deb1]

Haven’t we discussed this before?

I don’t know. I hadn’t read the thread if it existed. Maybe the discussion came up in a thread on a different subject though.

There are no currently enforceable laws that prohibit, however, a married couple from cohabitating with other men and/or women. They cannot though, apply for other marriage certificates, or claim the other people are legal, civil spouses. That’s where you can get into trouble.

You can have one civil wife, and 10 other “spiritual” wives whom you marry in purely religious ceremonies. As long as you don’t claim the new “wife” on taxes or legal documents, you are fine.

I keep hearing news reporter say over and over 'but polygamy is illegal." I see no way that polygamy laws are enforcable as long as it is in done between consenting adults and they call it a spiritual marriage, not a legal one.

I could imagine a situation in which polygamists go to court to get legal recognition of their alternative lifestyle. All it takes is one sympathatic, normal looking, polygamist family to begin making the rounds on Oprah and Dr. Phil.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I hope your prediction doesn’t come true.

The question is, how can it not?

As I said, if two people of the same sex can marry, how can it be illegal for a half dozen people of assorted sexes to marry?

If you have a business you spent your whole life building up, and you see that the tax man will take a huge chunk on your death, would you not think it wise to go to the clerk of court with your adult children, get a marriage license, and make them your spouses?

The government needs to think long and hard before they open this can of worms.

 

[CapIV]

polygamy will soon be legal.

 

[Jerusha]

It is an alternative lifestyle. They can have it “blessed” in their own church, if that church approves of it, the same as homosexual “marriage”. If they want legal protection, I would think that a contract between them, pledging to hold all thier possessions in common, would do. Sounds blasphemous, but just like the Religious Orders in our Church. Whether or not sex is involved, it is merely a legality.

IMHO

 

[vern_humphrey]

We have two different positions here – on the one hand, we have marriage, where the partys intend to live together and procreate (assuming they are heterosexual). On the other hand we have simply a legal union, where no such thing is contemplated, and the intention is to nullify a repressive tax.

I think the latter course will become popular.

 

[graceandglory]

On the other hand we have simply a legal union, where no such thing is contemplated, and the intention is to nullify a repressive tax.

I think the latter course will become popular.

**Then PLEASE, don’t call it “Marriage.” **

 

[deb1]

**Then PLEASE, don’t call it “Marriage.” **

Can someone give me a good definition of marriage. It seems that we have gotten to the point in our society were the old definition no longer serve.

 

[vern_humphrey]

**Then PLEASE, don’t call it “Marriage.” **

It’s not my choice.

Think of it like this. We’re in a canoe, floating down the river, and I say, “See that straight line across the water in front of us? That’s a waterfall. If we don’t put ashore right now, we’ll be swept over.”

And someone says, “PLEASE don’t call it a waterfall.”

And I say, “It don’t **matter **what I call it. If we keep going like we are, we’ll be swept over.”

 

[Jerusha]

I wouldn’t call it marriage. It is a compromise between us and those who want to enter into contracted relationships and want them to be identical to a true marriage. At least the parties have legal protection.

If this is the compromise we need to yield to in order to protect true marriage, then this is what we will have to do.