- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 10,987
- Reaction score
- 5,421
- Location
- Southeast Michigan
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
I'm torn on it. I have no moral issues with polygamy, so that side of things doesn't bother me. What does though, is that we would have to rewrite a LOT of laws to deal with marriages among more than two people. And that would all have to happen at the taxpayers' expense.
Take the trio in the OP's example. The article said that the man married the two women. Does that mean that the two women aren't considered married to each other? Or are they? What if one of them wants out later on. How would the divorce be handled? Would two of them still be considered married? Or would the whole trio be divorced? Our laws can't handle questions like that at the moment because they're only designed with marriages between two people in mind. Almost every law on the subject of marriage that we have would have to be changed.
And I'm just not sure that enough people would want to take advantage of polygamous marriage to justify the effort and expense.
Take the trio in the OP's example. The article said that the man married the two women. Does that mean that the two women aren't considered married to each other? Or are they? What if one of them wants out later on. How would the divorce be handled? Would two of them still be considered married? Or would the whole trio be divorced? Our laws can't handle questions like that at the moment because they're only designed with marriages between two people in mind. Almost every law on the subject of marriage that we have would have to be changed.
And I'm just not sure that enough people would want to take advantage of polygamous marriage to justify the effort and expense.