• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Representatives

UntoldGlory

UntoldGlory

Member
Male
Hi all, was wondering who here (especially those not actually living poly yet, since we're not "vulnerable") has actually reached out to their elected representatives with their views? This was recently brought up by someone elsewhere, and I think it's an awesome thing to do, especially with the recent ruling in Utah bring this to the forefront a bit.

Anyway, I'd encourage everyone to reach out. I'm including a copy of my own correspondence, in case you need some ideas. I'm hitching bandwagon with marriage equality to give us strength in numbers. I also made a point of highlighting my demographics because I live in a very red state. If you live in a blue state... well, I'd highlight your blue tendencies!

"Good morning sir!

I'm just reaching out to my elected officials in response to the recent ruling in Utah relating to polygamy. First off, so you know what demographic to file me under, I'm a Christian, veteran, pro second amendment, pro life, generally republican voter. Having said that, I would like to make my stance clear that I believe firmly in marriage equality, and don't feel the government has any say in who consenting adults want to spend their life with. I should point out that I've been married for 15 years now (only one woman, lol), and feel that every person should have the right to seek that same joy and happiness that I have. It really shouldn't matter the gender or really number of people who want to make that commitment to each other.

I understand there are logistical concerns, but especially in light of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, I think it's time to address this issue. I would hope that not only can we move away from persecuting loving families who are not hurting anyone, but actually enable full legal marriages, and consequently medical coverage options, for anyone in a committed, family relationship, whether those relationships be Hetero-monogomous, Homo-monogomous, Polygamous, or Polyamorus.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to hearing a response!"
 
Good point. I'm new to the site and still married to only one wife at this time. She says she understands and believes in the principle just not ready to share just yet. I think she may be hoping to hold out until she thinks I'm too old. Woops wrong rabbit hole.

To get back on track IF and that's a BIG IF, I understand the national Polygamy laws. The ruling in Utah brought it on board with he other states in the union. Utah was the only state in which it was unlawful for a man to cohabitate with and claim more than one wife. The rest of the states it is legal to live with and claim as many wives as you desire. The kicker is that you can only be "legally" married to one at a time. So in MO where I am from I can claim as many wives as my current wife will tolerate (0 at present) but I can only have 1 marriage license for 1 wife. More than 1 marriage license is ruled as bigamy.

So IF I am correct is the Utah ruling really a point to bring up? As for equalizing marriage I frequently have to explain "Morally and Biblically, I am against Gay marriage. But politically, I support gay marriage because I don't believe the government has the right to dictate who can marry who (slippery slope, because I still believe in protection of minors being regulated).

So actually shouldn't we be addressing bigamy laws instead of Polygamy laws? I had seen a loophole on a different Christian Poly site brought up. In which the pastor was talking about the difference between civil and biblical marriages and divorce. He had stated that what he had done was civilly marry his first wife, then before marrying his second wife he civilly divorced her but did not issue a "certificate of divorce" from a biblical standpoint. He then obtained a marriage license and civilly married his second wife. Then repeated the process for his third wife. Since he was biblically still married to the first two he didn't care about the civil/ legal part but it did allow all of the women to take his name.
 
Regardless of your very specific beliefs, I think it's important for our reps to know where we stand on this issue as voters.

Just as an FYI, more than just Utah has cohabitation laws and in some states the difficulty is that you aren't allowed more than one legal spouse, but co-habiting for a given number of years makes common law marriage. Thus, if you have a marriage license or not, when you live together as man and wife, the marriage becomes legal and it is illegal to have more than one legal wife.
 
In Texas intent to be married is also required to find an informal marriage, and intent can be taken out of the equation with a good cohabitation agreement.

In Nebraska there is no informal marriage, and a purported marriage performed without a license is void.

I'd be surprised if there's a state that enforces an automatic marriage after some stated period of cohabitation without some evidence that the parties intended to be married (e.g., held themselves out to the public as married, had a ceremony, applied for benefits as married, etc.). Generally, both an intent to be married and some kind of public representation or declaration are required (in addition to living together).

Agreed 100% with contacting our reps, and I'm planning to meet with ours in a couple of weeks. This is a good time to be stepping up.
 
In many cases of Christian polygyny it wouldn't be hard to find evidence that people have "held themselves out to the public as married", as we call both women wives, and given that we communicate online a lot these days there will usually be written evidence of that. Also we encourage people to have a ceremony of some sort, not all do of course. So Andrew, are you saying these would be sufficient evidence of an informal marriage?
 
Only nine states in the US recognize informal marriage, so for most folks this is not an issue. In an informal marriage state, there are shades of grey (probably not as many as 50...). Some families are really out; some families are totally closeted, and most are probably somewhere in between.

For instance, who are "the public"? If a couple has a small private ceremony for a second wife with only some family and a few close friends, and generally does not represent themselves in public social situations as married, but only use terms such as "wife" and "married" among their immediate circle of friends, that's probably not a problem. (It always depends on the local prosecutor and the judge and how much attention you're drawing to yourself in other ways, but it's probably not a problem. If you have a big social wedding and invite everyone in the community, and go around town representing yourselves everywhere as husband and wife, that's probably a problem.

-------
States that provide for informal marriage:
  • Alabama
  • Colorado
  • Iowa
  • Kansas
  • Montana
  • Rhode Island
  • South Carolina
  • Texas
  • Utah
Note that states without informal marriage will recognize and enforce informal marriages contracted in other states.
 
BikerDude78 said:
The rest of the states it is legal to live with and claim as many wives as you desire.
Click to expand...

I believe about 10 states have cohabitation laws. They are typically not enforced.
 
eternitee, the sentence of BikerDude's that you quoted is incorrect as written, but I don't understand your response. What does "cohabitation laws" mean in this context?

BikerDude, back to your original question, there's sort of a mixed answer. I think UG's on the right track that we could be capitalizing on judicial decisions such as the Brown case or the gay marriage one in Wisconsin ("traditional marriage is not one man, one woman, it's one man with one or more women") to provoke conversation with our representatives. Your observation is on point, and there are ways that Brown is not going to do as much for us as we wish it would, but I still think it's useful to help keep the dialogue going (or get it going in the first place). Does that make sense?
 
Ya, I should have researched ALL of the states before I made such a broad statement. But between the helmet laws, concealed carry, hunters rights, schools and whatever else tips my bubble, my representatives are probably surprised they haven't heard from me on this matter. So I guess I better get busy writing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top