Does "one man/one woman" legalize polygamy?

[BR_Parkway]

Or at the least, make it impossible to prosecute?

The 'crime' of polygamy is marriage to more than one spouse (normally a man with multiple wives). To convict beyond a reasonable doubt, the State would have to prove that the man was married to more than one person at a time.

But if State Constitutions have been amended to Marriage in the _______ State shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. - then the State can't recognize the 2nd (or more) marriage, or gain a conviction against it.

Perhaps during the next "it's ok to hate gays into the Constitution" we should be pointing out that voting Yes for the amendment is voting yes for Polygamy. After all, someone has to think of the children...

[Warpy]

1. It can be construed to mean that states don't have to

recognize ANY marriages. The wording is convoluted, to say the least.

This sucker's going to get struck down eventually. It's hideous.

[Xipe Totec]

2. What about divorce?

Does that mean that once married, you can never marry again?

Then there's that "till death" bit. Does this mean that you can't remarry, even if your spouse dies?

hmm... :think:

[TheWraith]

3. I don't think it works that way

As far as I know, the states already don't recognize any additional marriages if you're already married, so that doesn't impact prosecution.

[KansDem]

4. Legalizes incest...

Doesn't specifically describe what "man" or "woman." Could be sibling, first cousin, etc...

[flamin lib]

5. Here in Texas all marriages have been annulled.

The Marriage Protection Amendment to our Constitution defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. Then the wording gets squirrelly.

Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

The key is "may not . . . recognize any legal status identical . . . to marriage."

This is what it is, now do not recognize it as legal.

How dumb is that?

[flamin lib]

6. Gotta' separate legal from religious.

Polygamy has been hard to prove because most of the time only one spouse is married legally, ie, with a legal rendering filed with the state. The "secondary" marriages are faux marriages performed in a religious service but no filings with the state.

'Course in states like Texas there is the "common law" marriage that could make trouble for the polygamist. Here if two people hold themselves out to be married to anyone, they can be considered married with or without a filing with the state, with or without changing names.

[tocqueville]

8. exactly, it has to do with Church/State separation

in what name should a person who isn't a civil servant has the right to perform a binding legal act ? Religious marriage should only be a spiritual act, at the choice of the person.

[johnlal]

7. How about this Marriage Amendment from KY?

"Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized. "

Not only are gay marriages invalid, but so is a "legal status SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR to that of marriage".

So, what about a partnership? Here's what I would like to see:

A citizen of Kentucky gets sued by a partnership in Kentucky. He moves to dismiss the lawsuit claiming that a partnership is substantially similar to a marriage, and thus cannot be given status in the Courts. In support of the motion, he attaches a copies of every marriage manual and self-help book that likens marriage to a partnership. Who wins?