Why is Polygamy Illegal?

[Abu3baid]

I have never been able to understand why there are laws criminalizing polygamy.  It just makes no sense to me what so ever.  Now, maybe it make sense to others and I would love to hear the arguments against why grown adults are not only not allowed under law to marry multiple partners, but are also treated as criminals for doing so?

Because of my own religious restrictions I would only be able to marry 4 wives simultaneously and there are very strict rules to do so.  The main one is a man must be able to provide for all of his wives and treat them justly.  So, for example if he bought a gift for one of the wives then he must buy a gift for all.  He must be able to provide each with their own accommodations if they so wish, and must be fair in distributing his time equally. 

I really can't come up with a good reason to prevent men from taking multiple wives..  Above, I gave my own justification of why I should be allowed to marry more than one women (not that I would because my wife would kill me, but that isn't the point), and this thread is not to discuss the religious merits of being able to take multiple wives, but rather the justification the law has to limit a man in the number of wives he is allowed to take (religious or otherwise).

Obviously with the recent supreme court decision on gay marriage the government will start having a very hard time defending its position.  Once they stopped looking at the marriage definition as 1 man married to 1 woman it will be very hard for them to sit on top of that house of cards. 

I have other things to say, but want to see what other things are out there.

[Silent]

Do you believe it should work both ways? I ask because I only see you give the example of having multiple wives. But should a woman also be allowed to have multiple husbands? And if you have 4 wives, should those wives be allowed to each have three other husbands beside you? (and those husbands can have multiple wives then also, etc. etc.) You see where I'm going with this?

[Abu3baid]

Do you believe it should work both ways? I ask because I only see you give the example of having multiple wives. But should a woman also be allowed to have multiple husbands? And if you have 4 wives, should those wives be allowed to each have three other husbands beside you? (and those husbands can have multiple wives then also, etc. etc.) You see where I'm going with this?

This thread is about polygamy.. And I am discussing it from a law perspective.  You are talking about polyandry  and something called group marriage.  

From a personal religious perspective I don't accept the other forms you mentioned, but that is a personal choice and has nothing to do with the law of the US.

Now, from a law perspective tell me what's wrong with all the other forms of marriage as well?  The Supreme Court just passed a law marrying the same sex, why are there still laws against polygymy, polyandry and group marriage?

[Silent]

This thread is about polygamy.. And I am discussing it from a law perspective.  You are talking about polyandry  and something called group marriage.  

From a personal religious perspective I don't accept the other forms you mentioned, but that is a personal choice and has nothing to do with the law of the US.

Now, from a law perspective tell me what's wrong with all the other forms of marriage as well?  The Supreme Court just passed a law marrying the same sex, why are there still laws against polygymy, polyandry and group marriage?

I can only speculate about why. And I think it's about protecting women. You can have in theory polygamy being legal, and for some people that would work perfectly fine. But I fear that in reality it means that men can marry a bunch of women, and at the same time deny their wives to execute that very same right. I think allowing a law like that it opens the door further for some kind of cults as well. Also by law a man or woman has the right not to testify against their spouse; what about a group marriage then? Everybody is protected simply because you have a lot of spouses? 

Basically I think it's not allowed by law because it opens the door more to supression and misuse. That's sad for the people with good intentions and honestly feel happy in a marriage like that.

[Abu3baid]

I can only speculate about why. And I think it's about protecting women. You can have in theory polygamy being legal, and for some people that would work perfectly fine. But I fear that in reality it means that men can marry a bunch of women, and at the same time deny their wives to execute that very same right. I think allowing a law like that it opens the door further for some kind of cults as well. Also by law a man or woman has the right not to testify against their spouse; what about a group marriage then? Everybody is protected simply because you have a lot of spouses? 

Basically I think it's not allowed by law because it opens the door more to supression and misuse. That's sad for the people with good intentions and honestly feel happy in a marriage like that.

If people are being denied their right they always have the options to end their relationship.. The same way a woman who is mistreated or beaten in a single marriage has the choice to leave that marriage or call law enforcement or what ever.  Simply, I have to disagree that a law would pass to protect from something happening (i.e. man denying wives from executing same right) while majority who practice it and are happy doing it.

Then you also didn't answer the part about the polyandry.. is there a fear that the woman would deny the husband from executing his very same right as well?

Also, I doubt that there is a demand right now from people who want group marriages anyway.. Let us get back to the basics.. Marriage has been defined as the union between 1 man and 1 woman.  Now that definition has been changed to be the union between 1 consenting adult to another (i'm making up that definition as I don't know what it is now), so on what basis could someone tell 3 consenting adults (i.e. 1 man and 2 women) that they are not allowed to be married?

[Silent]

If people are being denied their right they always have the options to end their relationship.. The same way a woman who is mistreated or beaten in a single marriage has the choice to leave that marriage or call law enforcement or what ever.  Simply, I have to disagree that a law would pass to protect from something happening (i.e. man denying wives from executing same right) while majority who practice it and are happy doing it.

Then you also didn't answer the part about the polyandry.. is there a fear that the woman would deny the husband from executing his very same right as well?

Also, I doubt that there is a demand right now from people who want group marriages anyway.. Let us get back to the basics.. Marriage has been defined as the union between 1 man and 1 woman.  Now that definition has been changed to be the union between 1 consenting adult to another (i'm making up that definition as I don't know what it is now), so on what basis could someone tell 3 consenting adults (i.e. 1 man and 2 women) that they are not allowed to be married?

You'll have to excuse me, I didn't know what that was and apparently was to lazy to google it. I did now  To answer that question: no, I don't think that fear is very real, but if you have that fear with polygamy and you don't allow that by law, I guess that automatically means you don't allow polyandry as well. Equal rights and so...

About the last, I did answer that and gave my opinion on why I think it's against the law. You just don't agree with that, that's fine. I think it's about protection (surpression, financially etc.) and the fact that by law men and women are equal, but in reality it's experienced by a lot of people as unfriendly to women. I don't say they are right or I agree with that, I'm just saying that I think that is the thought behind that law.

[SavvySwede]

Trick question. Marriage never made sense from a legal standpoint. Why treat people differently under the law just because they're in a committed relationship? 

[Valleygolfer]

I am sure it has to do with utilization of resources, people control and a religious undertone. Most laws are loosely about protecting people and more about being able to control revenue and police the people.

For example, marriage here, for a long time gives you certain tax breaks and insurance benefits for your spouse. Bullshit to "punish" a single person for not getting married imho....but that's another thread.

[Gregoryhouse]

Being so hard to bear one wife I can't imagine why someone would marry more than one......

Just kidding.....

In my home country (Argentina) poligamy is both illegal and a crime. Being a judge myself (not in family matters) I think it has to do with the idea of family as the union of one man and one woman with the purpose of procreate. This concept made difficult to legalize gay marriages and led to a complete reform of Civil Laws, but not in the poligamy issues.

I hope you get the answer you're looking for

[Mike Boatright]

Why is this on golf talk here?

[mcanadiens]

Very basically, it is the belief that a spouse and that couple's children deserve to have a husband/father (or wife/mother) that is solely dedicated to the family. Notice that part of what @Abu3baid mentioned was that the man has to be able to support all his wives. Our custom just takes it a bit further in that, a spouse and that couples children have the right to not have their share of the marriage assets shared with others.

Consider how divorce is handled in the U.S. (and probably many other countries). Courts take into account what the community property is and start splitting it. 

Gay marriage may very well lead to some things we've never even thought of. I doubt polygamy will be one of them.

[Abu3baid]

Why is this on golf talk here?

It is actually in the "Grill Room" which is the only place on the forum where you can discuss things that are not golf related if you so wish.

Very basically, it is the belief that a spouse and that couple's children deserve to have a husband/father (or wife/mother) that is solely dedicated to the family. Notice that part of what @Abu3baid mentioned was that the man has to be able to support all his wives. Our custom just takes it a bit further in that, a spouse and that couples children have the right to not have their share of the marriage assets shared with others.

Consider how divorce is handled in the U.S. (and probably many other countries). Courts take into account what the community property is and start splitting it. 

Gay marriage may very well lead to some things we've never even thought of. I doubt polygamy will be one of them.

Consenting adults have the right to decide who and how they want to spend their lives do they not?  Let us look at from another stand point and not call it marriage.

It is perfectly fine for people like AP (Adrian Peterson) to go around and impregnate different women (and pay child support and alimony and what ever) however it is against the law for him to just have 3,4,5 as many women as he wants as wives and take care of them and his children to the best of his ability?  [I am only giving one example even if it is a bad one because of what he has done recently, but there are many others like that.. Tom Brady is another]

Which would you rather have.. people who commit to a family even if they are splitting their time 50% / 50% or ones that just impregnate and pay a paycheck each month with absolutely no other responsibility emotionally or otherwise.

p.s. I realize you might just be trying to explain and this might not be your view point, but I am only giving counter arguments for discussion.

[Gator Hazard]

I don't know that it should be criminalized, Silent did bring up a good point however, equality being one of them.  Heck a wife could agree to be one of a number of wives to a polygamist one day and later on decide she wants to have another husband, and if that is the case, how could we in this day and age say that is wrong.  

Perhaps a bit off topic:

That is a few too many headaches for me, I love my wife dearly.  Honestly, I don't think I could ever love another woman the way I love her, and that has a lot to do with the fact that she loves me and chose me.  I couldn't imagine Christmas morning with three or four wives with a few kids each, or trying to take summer vacation.  Think about trying to remember everything special about each one, special moments, 4 anniversaries to remember, etc. I think it would cheapen the experience for me.  We talk about stuff and one of them is end of life circumstances, my wife is a bit younger than me and I told her she has so much love to give that if she got married again if I died young I could understand it but I could never marry another woman if it was the opposite.

Besides, if they are western wives you can just forget about golfing again, ever.  3 or 4 permissions at the same time, all in agreement.... pppbbbttt!

[mcanadiens]

It is actually in the "Grill Room" which is the only place on the forum where you can discuss things that are not golf related if you so wish.

Consenting adults have the right to decide who and how they want to spend their lives do they not?  Let us look at from another stand point and not call it marriage.

It is perfectly fine for people like AP (Adrian Peterson) to go around and impregnate different women (and pay child support and alimony and what ever) however it is against the law for him to just have 3,4,5 as many women as he wants as wives and take care of them and his children to the best of his ability?  [I am only giving one example even if it is a bad one because of what he has done recently, but there are many others like that.. Tom Brady is another]

Which would you rather have.. people who commit to a family even if they are splitting their time 50% / 50% or ones that just impregnate and pay a paycheck each month with absolutely no other responsibility emotionally or otherwise.

p.s. I realize you might just be trying to explain and this might not be your view point, but I am only giving counter arguments for discussion.

Sure. Once you go outside of the context of marriage, the law falls short. Aside from our severely problematic child support system, there isn't much for children born outside of marriage. It's a sort of historical presumption that proper people don't have children out of wedlock. 

I'm not trying to preach morals to anyone here. My response was geared more towards why we have the laws we do. 

 

[Patch]

I always thought it was because to allow polygamy would be discriminatory against women who wanted more than one husband. That, and many, many decades ago American laws were based on Christianity, which forbid multiple wives. those laws although a bit antiquated are still on the books. 

Another reason I think polygamy is illegal, is to keep some "sister wives" of to young of an  age from becoming some old geezers next wife. 

Personally although completely happy having just one wife, I really don't care if a man has several wives as long as the family can support itself. By the same token I wouldn't care if a women had multiple husbands. Fair is fair. I am even for same sex marriages for the same reason. Folks have private lives and American freedoms to live those lives. 

Any society/culture is going to have a part of that population that thinks with their Johnson. Such is the case with the example of Peterson used above. Just a few fries short of a complete happy meal with regards to morals. On the other hand there will always be a percentage of  women who get knocked  out of wedlock, who  allowed it to happen because of the wealth of their benefactor. 

[saevel25]

I have never been able to understand why there are laws criminalizing polygamy.  It just makes no sense to me what so ever.  Now, maybe it make sense to others and I would love to hear the arguments against why grown adults are not only not allowed under law to marry multiple partners, but are also treated as criminals for doing so? 

You basically answered your own question with this response, 

From a personal religious perspective I don't accept the other forms you mentioned, but that is a personal choice and has nothing to do with the law of the US.

This is why it's illegal in the United States. First, we never had the religious culture that supports it. As such it's been built into our laws because culture defines the laws. Given how much we claim freedom of religion we are still a culture based on Christianity. 

Now, from a law perspective tell me what's wrong with all the other forms of marriage as well?  The Supreme Court just passed a law marrying the same sex, why are there still laws against polygymy, polyandry and group marriage?

Because the law only recognizes marriage to one other person. It doesn't say you can't marry. I think this argument will be hard to win even with the recent ruling from the Supreme Court. The reason being that in Roberts stated that,

"The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation."

The ruling had nothing to do with the number of people you can marry, but the fact who you can marry who you want not biased against sexual orientation. Now if you want to have a religious argument over this that is fine. You would have to prove that it is religious law and a practice of your faith that requires you to take more than one wife.  If it is just a cultural aspect then you are out of luck. There is nothing unconstitutional about making it illegal to marry more than one person.

Which would you rather have.. people who commit to a family even if they are splitting their time 50% / 50% or ones that just impregnate and pay a paycheck each month with absolutely no other responsibility emotionally or otherwise.

It's not what we would rather have. It's want the law supports and why it does. In our culture there is no support for polygamy. I don't see that changing. 

An interesting thought is polygamy only becomes illegal when you perform an act to marry a person. Lets say you marry a woman through the state. Then you marry 3 other woman through your religion. 

Yet if you have an open relationship, never marry any of them but make sort of a contract defining your relationship then that is legal? From what I have read it sounds like Polygamy is only if you actually try to marry more than one woman. I thin you would skirt the law on this. Depending on the state laws to. US law is way too complex. 

---

edit: Just thought of another thing

With your Peterson example, that is an extreme outlier situation. In most cases the more wealthy you get as a nation the less children you have. As more and more countries become developed and income increases the need to have children decreases.  

http://www.gapminder.org/videos/dont-panic-the-facts-about-population/

 In most cases having multiple kids with multiple women does not happen with people who can typically support multiple wives and kids. 

 

Edited October 7, 2015 by saevel25

[newtogolf]

Most likely because this country was founded on Judeo Christian principles and values, polygamy was not permitted by either religion.  At this point though other religions will likely push for polygamy given the definition of marriage has been expanded to include same sex.

[saevel25]

Most likely because this country was founded on Judeo Christian principles and values, polygamy was not permitted by either religion.  At this point though other religions will likely push for polygamy given the definition of marriage has been expanded to include same sex.

Not really agreeing with that when the term was mostly used at describing the religious culture in the USA in the 1920's during a rise of anti-Semitism in America. A more accurate description would be to say the country was founded by Protestants. 

Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders. Of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, 49 were Protestants, and two were Roman Catholics (D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons).^[18] Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 28 were Church of England (or Episcopalian, after the American Revolutionary War was won), eight were Presbyterians, seven wereCongregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists.^[18]

A few prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical Christians such as Thomas Jefferson,^[19][20][21] who constructed the Jefferson Bible, and Benjamin Franklin.^[22] Others, notably Thomas Paine, who challenged institutionalized religion in The Age of Reason,^[23] were deists, or held beliefs very similar to those of deists.^[24]

Historian Gregg L. Frazer argues that the leading Founders (Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Wilson, Morris, Madison, Hamilton, and Washington) were neither Christians nor Deists, but rather supporters of a hybrid "theistic rationalism".^[25]

 

Edited October 7, 2015 by saevel25