Utah's Anti-Polygamy Law Is weakened

[AGBF]

Utah's Anti-Polygamy Law has been weakened by a court decision. Strangely enough, it was a reality television show, "Sister Wives" (which we have discussed on Pricescope), which started the suit. The right to privacy was invoked. What do you think? Is it anyone else's business how a person lives if he not deceiving others about his marital status? Or was there a reason to ban polygamy in the first place? Is there a difference between the current situation under the law and the "old" polygamy?

article...http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/us/a-utah-law-prohibiting-polygamy-is-weakened.html?_r=0

Deb/AGBF

 

[Tekate]

One is allowed to co-habitate but not marry.. so it's weakened but people co-habitate all the time.. non issue to me.

 

[yennyfire]

One is allowed to co-habitate but not marry.. so it's weakened but people co-habitate all the time.. non issue to me.

I couldn't read the article, but I agree with Tekate.

 

[innerkitten]

If a guy can have 15 wives why can't a woman have 15 husbands?
Not that I'd want was multiple husbands.

 

[perry]

What the court said was that the legal restriction on only being officially married to one person is valid. The official definition of what most people consider as polygamy (technically "Polygyny") is marriage to more than one person.

I don't have time to did up the references at the moment (really solid research studies - and if I have time later I will find the references for you); but, approximately 10% of the population (male and female) have multiple sex partners at the same time in any given year; which really is a form of polygamy. People have been living together in poly-amours relationships for a long time (without getting married).

I believe it is a stretch to claim that Utah's Anti-polygamy Law was weakened. The court confirmed it - solidly. What the court did say was that the state could not outlaw people consensually living together (and having sex) that were not legally married. I cannot imagine another state in the US who would have passed such a law.

Have a great day,

Perry

 

[JulieN]

Or was there a reason to ban polygamy in the first place?

Utah could not become a state until they banned it.

 

[Lady_Disdain]

Personally, I wish marriage was a civil contract between willing participants. As long as everyone involved is able to consent (legally of age, able to understand what they were signing, etc), I don't think it is anyone's business. As with any contract, it should be clear how assets are divided if it breaks up and any other necessary legal provisions.

That leaves each couple (or multiples) to marry as they like, who they like. Each person can add the religious ceremonies and meaning of their faith, with others pushing their own on them or vice versa. If a faith doesn't believe in a certain pairing, they can say "not here" but the government doesn't have the right to decide who can marry who.

 

[craighnt]

Harems, concubines this is nothing new, only it used to be reserved for the very rich and powerful. Of course, the women were more like property but on the other hand, you don't have to deal with him on a daily basis if you don't want.

I am curious though. How would a divorce work in terms of money in such a poly-amorous relationship? Lets say you have one man and 6 wives. One of the wives who has been there the longest say ten years wants out. Is she only entitled to 1/6 of his income? Dose she get more then the new wife only married a month? If thee of the wives work and contribute to the household, dose she get some of that? How much of her income if she works is up for debate since the man is enjoying income from multiple sources? Dose he have to buy 6 engagement rings? Imagine if they are not all around the same size!

Legal nightmare or bonanza depending on what side of the argument you are on. Just saying. But whatever floats your boat, I say.