Re: Religious Polygamy
Does anyone know how this works in the real world? In other words, how do the plural marriages actually occur, and how is it that they violate criminal bigamy laws? In the plural marriagesI know of (none of which are in a Mormon context) the group or multiple commitments are done through purely religious ceremonies (not legal). In some cases some of the partners are legally married to each other, but not in all. The only way I can think of in which these unions could violate criminal bigamy laws is if the non-legally married parties(at least one of whom was legally married to a third person)were to live in, or go to, a common law marriage state and present themselves as married (assuming that there still are common law marriage states -- that's not something I've thought much about since law school), becoming married under common law. Here's another bit that you may find interesting in the context of an exam question: I have heard that there used to be (and may still be)an interestingloophole in NJ's domestic partnership law. The law required that, for a partnership to be valid, neither party could currently be part of another domestic partnership. It mentioned nothing about currently being married to another person. -Renee ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: Religious Polygamy
Alabama also recognizes common law marriage. However, one of the requirements is that both parties have the capacity to marry. Under no circumstances would a person legally married to one spouse be found common law married to another. There are some old Alabama cases exactly on that point. All the cases I have seen on bigamy involve situations where there are state approved ceremonies (religious or not) with multiple partners and involve lying about your marital status on the license application. Joel L. Sogol Attorney at Law 811 21st Avenue Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401 ph (205) 345-0966 fx (205) 345-0971 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ben Franklin observed that truth wins a fair fight -- which is why we have evidence rules in U.S. courts. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 1:41 AM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Religious Polygamy In a message dated 8/21/05 2:17:37 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The only way I can think of in which these unions could violate criminal bigamy laws is if the non-legally married parties(at least one of whom was legally married to a third person)were to live in, or go to, a common law marriage state and present themselves as married (assuming that there still are common law marriage states -- that's not something I've thought much about since law school), becoming married under common law. The District of Columbia, for one, still recognizes common law marriages. Art Spitzer ACLU Washington DC ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: Religious Polygamy
Much of the legal action in Utah and Arizona recently against the FLDS that practices polygamy has not been for violation of the bigamy laws, but for a wide range of other kinds of violations. My blog this morning discussses an article from today's Salt Lake Tribune that reviews the recent actions. But that article reports "A jury in Utah's 5th District court convicted polygamist and former police officer Rodney Holm in August 2003 of bigamy and two sex counts for stemming from his "spiritual marriage" to a then-16-year-old girl. He served a year in jail but is appealing the conviction to the Utah Supreme Court. Holm is among the eight men now charged by Arizona." For the blog entry:http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2005/08/actions-against-flds-seen-as-part-of.html *Howard M. Friedman Disting. Univ. ProfessorEmeritusUniversity of Toledo College of LawToledo, OH 43606-3390 Phone: (419) 530-2911, FAX (419) 530-4732 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Joel SogolSent: Sun 8/21/2005 7:04 AMTo: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics'Subject: RE: Religious Polygamy Alabama also recognizes common law marriage. However, one of the requirements is that both parties have the capacity to marry. Under no circumstances would a person legally married to one spouse be found common law married to another. There are some old Alabama cases exactly on that point. All the cases I have seen on bigamy involve situations where there are state approved ceremonies (religious or not) with multiple partners and involve lying about your marital status on the license application. Joel L. Sogol Attorney at Law 811 21st Avenue Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401 ph (205) 345-0966 fx (205) 345-0971 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ben Franklin observed that truth wins a fair fight -- which is why we have evidence rules in U.S. courts. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 1:41 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Religious Polygamy In a message dated 8/21/05 2:17:37 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The only way I can think of in which these unions could violate criminal bigamy laws is if the non-legally married parties(at least one of whom was legally married to a third person)were to live in, or go to, a common law marriage state and present themselves as married (assuming that there still are common law marriage states -- that's not something I've thought much about since law school), becoming married under common law. The District of Columbia, for one, still recognizes common law marriages.Art SpitzerACLUWashington DC ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: Religious Polygamy
As with almost all criminal statutes, you probably need to look at the Utah cases to see if they take the same approach as Alabama. They might define bigamy to cover more of their problem. Good luck. Joel L. Sogol Attorney at Law 811 21st Avenue Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401 ph (205) 345-0966 fx (205) 345-0971 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ben Franklin observed that truth wins a fair fight -- which is why we have evidence rules in U.S. courts. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Duncan Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 8:36 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Religious Polygamy Based upon what you all have been telling me, the religious colonies practicing polygamy in states like Arizonaand Utahare probably not violating bigamy laws. A lawfully marries B, and then A marries C, D and E in religious ceremonies but without obtaining state-issued marriage licenses.A considers himself married to B-E, and lives with each of them as a husband and has families with each of them, but A is not a bigamist under the law because he is legally married to only one woman (B). The only possible crime (assuming all parties are consenting adults)is adultery, and criminal adultery laws probably don't survive Lawrence (or do they?). Yet, Ihave seen sketchynews accountsin the last year or so about bigamy prosecutions. These must involve people who have fraudulently obtained multiple marriage licenses. But when that happens, A is charged with bigamy, not fraud. For purposes of general applicability under Lukumi(and sexual autonomy underLawrence),shouldA's right to be a husband to multiple spouses turn on whether he obtains multiple marriage licenses? Rick Duncan Joel Sogol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alabama also recognizes common law marriage. However, one of the requirements is that both parties have the capacity to marry. Under no circumstances would a person legally married to one spouse be found common law married to another. There are some old Alabama cases exactly on that point. All the cases I have seen on bigamy involve situations where there are state approved ceremonies (religious or not) with multiple partners and involve lying about your marital status on the license application. Joel L. Sogol Attorney at Law 811 21st Avenue Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401 ph (205) 345-0966 fx (205) 345-0971 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ben Franklin observed that truth wins a fair fight -- which is why we have evidence rules in U.S. courts. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 1:41 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Religious Polygamy In a message dated 8/21/05 2:17:37 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The only way I can think of in which these unions could violate criminal bigamy laws is if the non-legally married parties(at least one of whom was legally married to a third person)were to live in, or go to, a common law marriage state and present themselves as married (assuming that there still are common law marriage states -- that's not something I've thought much about since law school), becoming married under common law. The District of Columbia, for one, still recognizes common law marriages. Art Spitzer ACLU Washington DC ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) for! ward the messages to others. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone. C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. --The Prisoner Yahoo! Mail for Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: Religious Polygamy
Rick writes: The only possible crime (assuming all parties are consenting adults)is adultery, and criminal adultery laws probably don't survive Lawrence (or do they?). I'm not sure why adultery laws wouldn't survive Recall that Blackmun, in his Bowers dissent, took care to indicate that his argument didn't extent to adultery or incest. Lawrence, at least as a matter of formal analysis, inasmuch as we it is certainly rational to view adultery as a victim-creating activity and a well-substantiated threat to marriage. Those of us who support same-sex marriage (not to mention the far easier case of Lawrence) view the actions as creating no victims and, in fact, probably strengthening the institution of marriage. (Ironically, the ban on incest, at least between adults, is probably harder to defend after Lawrence.) sandy ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: Religious Polygamy
Sandy: If W consents to H's adultery with X, exactly who is the victim? Doesn't Lawrence recognize the dignity of consenting adults to define their own intimate lives? And isn't male on male anal sodomy "victim causing" in terms of AIDS and other STDs that are disproportiantely spread by this type of behavior? Cheers, RickSanford Levinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rick writes: The only possible crime (assuming all parties are consenting adults)is adultery, and criminal adultery laws probably don't survive Lawrence (or do they?). I'm not sure why adultery laws wouldn't survive Recall that Blackmun, in his Bowers dissent, took care to indicate that his argument didn't extent to adultery or incest. Lawrence, at least as a matter of formal analysis, inasmuch as we it is certainly rational to view adultery as a victim-creating activity and a well-substantiated threat to marriage. Those of us who support same-sex marriage (not to mention the far easier case of Lawrence) view the actions as creating no victims and, in fact, probably strengthening the institution of marriage. (Ironically, the ban on incest, at least between adults, is probably harder to defend after Lawrence.) sandy___To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Religious Polygamy
In a message dated 8/21/2005 1:30:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Lawrence, at least as a matter of formal analysis, inasmuch as we it is certainly rational to view adultery as a victim-creating activity and a well-substantiated threat to marriage. I might simply be unaware of the exact nature and enforcement of laws prohibiting adultery, but I suspect they prohibit adulterous relations whether or not the spouse consents. If so, in some cases at least, the spouse is not a victim; nor is the adulterous relationship a threat to that marriage. In this case, laws prohibiting adultery are much more like laws criminalizing same-sex intimacy or incest between adults. If that's right, liberalsmust seek another justification for laws prohibiting adultery than victimhood. Indeed, some of us believe the state has no role to play in policing marriages in this manner, and that it is inconsistent with the general liberal imperative in favor of personal autonomy to insist that laws against adultery are justifiable because there's a victim.Sure, laws are justifiable when a spouse fails to fulfill obligations forspousal or child support. But the fact that a spouse feels betrayed byadulterous conduct doesn't seem to warrant theintrusion of the criminal law. Moreover, I think it simply flies in the face of the experience of those abhorring same-sex marriage to say no one is harmed or victimized by same-sex marriage. There are kinds of harm--challenging the integrity of someone's "normative environment"--that occur everyday and are genuine harms. Theproblem for those opposed to same-sex marriage is that these kinds of harm cannot be the basis for law in a democracy.An overly materialist, consumerist society threatens (harms) my aesthetic lifestyle. That's a genuine harm especially when you throw into the mix that Iwant to protect my child from materialism. Yet, it would be preposterous to say that this harm justifies passing a law against materialism. Democracy is messy and requires us to endure (be harmed by) many value systems of our fellow citizens. So, in my view, democracy cannot tolerate proscribing or not permittingsame-sex marriage. But it simply doesn't follow that opponents of same-sex marriage are do not suffer a cognizable harm if the exclusivity condition in traditional marriage is eliminated. Bobby Robert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: Religious Polygamy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Rick Duncan Sent: Sun 8/21/2005 1:15 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Religious Polygamy Does Sandy now agree with me that male on male anal sodomy is victim-causing behavior? I don't think it violates minimum rationality so to hold. The question in Lawrence, as Rick himself suggested in his last posting, is ultimately whether minimum rationality is good enough, or whether there is indeed a fundamental right to intimate relationships, which therefore would require that state-imposed limitations pass strict scrutiny, including being the least-intrusive means. To take the easiest example, it seems to me that two HI-negative males should have a constitutional right to express themselves sexually with each other however they wish. If Rick is sincere in shifting the argument from moral grounds alone to some instrumental justification, then I don't see how he could avoid this conclusion. (And it also seems to me, as I suggested earlier, that all heterosexual couples, including husbands and wives, could be subjected to the same duty to take HIV tests in order to be free of the state's criminal law.) sandy winmail.dat___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: Religious Polygamy
Back to the evidence: CDC studies show that condoms alone are at least 90% effective in preventing the spread of HIV when one partner is HIV positive. The 90% was calculated on the basis of 9 out of 10 of the couples had no spread of the disease, not that 1 out of every 10 acts was infective. There remain some areas where information and education are still our best tools against disease. Ed Darrell DallasRick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does Sandy now agree with me that male on male anal sodomy is "victim-causing" behavior? If so, then the law could rationally go after this problem without going after other types of sexual behavior. Indeed, since this particular form of sexual intimacy is disproportionallyassociated with the spread of AIDs,as well as many other STDs, I assume it would be rational to single this behavior out for criminal liability. Of course, Texas defended its sodomy laws on moral grounds alone and Lawrence merely holds that morality alone is an insufficient state interest to justify criminalizing consensual sexual conduct. Suppose Texas enacts a ban on homosexual anal sodomy and defends it as a health measure. Now the Court would have to decide whether there is a fundamental right of sexual autonomy, and whether it applies to all consensual sexual activities or only to some. It is not helpful to say it protects only "non-victim-causing" sexual conduct, because all sexual conduct has 3d party consequences--pregnancies, disease,etc. Indeed, sexualconduct is a kind of behavior that has some of the most profound effects on third parties and on society. Cheers, RickSanford Levinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that "consensual adultery" should indeed be protected. But that is obviously a very tiny subset of the behavior subsumed under laws prohibiting adultery. So is Rick defending the criminalization only of male-on-male anal sodomy, but not, say, the criminalization of fellatio or cunninlingus? Actually, I assume he would defend the criminalization of all anal sodomy, including heterosexual (and between married couples, unless the married couples had passed HIV tests, but it that is enough to save heterosexual anal sodomy, then why wouldn't sodomy between men who were both HIV negative be equally all right). sandy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Rick DuncanSent: Sun 8/21/2005 12:41 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Religious Polygamy Sandy: If W consents to H's adultery with X, exactly who is the victim? Doesn't Lawrence recognize the dignity of consenting adults to define their own intimate lives? And isn't male on male anal sodomy "victim causing" in terms of AIDS and other STDs that are disproportiantely spread by this type of behavior? Cheers, RickSanford Levinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rick writes: The only possible crime (assuming all parties are consenting adults)is adultery, and criminal adultery laws probably don't survive Lawrence (or do they?). I'm not sure why adultery laws wouldn't survive Recall that Blackmun, in his Bowers dissent, took care to indicate that his argument didn't extent to adultery or incest. Lawrence, at least as a matter of formal analysis, inasmuch as we it is certainly rational to view adultery as a victim-creating activity and a well-substantiated threat to marriage. Those of us who support same-sex marriage (not to mention the far easier case of Lawrence) view the actions as creating no victims and, in fact, probably strengthening the institution of marriage. (Ironically, the ban on incest, at least between adults, is probably harder to defend after Lawrence.) sandy___To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that ar
Re: Religious Polygamy
Title: Re: Religious Polygamy Utah's bigamy law defines bigamy as either purporting to marry or cohabiting with one person while married to another. Holm was convicted under both prongs, with the purported marriage based on his participation in a religious ceremony. Holm was legally married to his first wife. In another Utah case (State v. Green), the defendant was not currently married to any of his spiritual wives, but the State had him declared married to one of the wives under Utah's adjudication of marriage statute, and he was then convicted of bigamy under the cohabits prong of the bigamy law. Kathy Wyer on 8/21/05 8:05 AM, Friedman, Howard M. at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Much of the legal action in Utah and Arizona recently against the FLDS that practices polygamy has not been for violation of the bigamy laws, but for a wide range of other kinds of violations. My blog this morning discussses an article from today's Salt Lake Tribune that reviews the recent actions. But that article reports A jury in Utah's 5th District court convicted polygamist and former police officer Rodney Holm in August 2003 of bigamy and two sex counts for stemming from his spiritual marriage to a then-16-year-old girl. He served a year in jail but is appealing the conviction to the Utah Supreme Court. Holm is among the eight men now charged by Arizona. For the blog entry: http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2005/08/actions-against-flds-seen-as-part-of.html * Howard M. Friedman Disting. Univ. Professor Emeritus University of Toledo College of Law Toledo, OH 43606-3390 Phone: (419) 530-2911, FAX (419) 530-4732 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Joel Sogol Sent: Sun 8/21/2005 7:04 AM To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: Religious Polygamy Alabama also recognizes common law marriage. However, one of the requirements is that both parties have the capacity to marry. Under no circumstances would a person legally married to one spouse be found common law married to another. There are some old Alabama cases exactly on that point. All the cases I have seen on bigamy involve situations where there are state approved ceremonies (religious or not) with multiple partners and involve lying about your marital status on the license application. Joel L. Sogol Attorney at Law 811 21st Avenue Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401 ph (205) 345-0966 fx (205) 345-0971 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ben Franklin observed that truth wins a fair fight -- which is why we have evidence rules in U.S. courts. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 1:41 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Religious Polygamy In a message dated 8/21/05 2:17:37 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The only way I can think of in which these unions could violate criminal bigamy laws is if the non-legally married parties (at least one of whom was legally married to a third person) were to live in, or go to, a common law marriage state and present themselves as married (assuming that there still are common law marriage states -- that's not something I've thought much about since law school), becoming married under common law. The District of Columbia, for one, still recognizes common law marriages. Art Spitzer ACLU Washington DC ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
