I found this article and thought it was worth sharing. I hope this is the right place. If not I am sure someone will make a suggestion...
I was looking for the legalities of "cohabitation" and I went off on a rabbit trail. This is from an attorney in TX about the FLDS arrests made. This article didn't answer my question but I found some valuable info.
https://www.johntfloyd.com/a-texas-bigamy-defense/
Now as far as cohabitation in TX if you collaborate with someone for two consecutive years, refer to him or her as your spouse, have established domicile you are married by common law. So from my understanding of you live with more than one person more than 2 years common law marriage has been established for each person and is now considered polygamy and illegal.
Does anyone have a different understanding?
Well-known U.S. Constitutional expert attorney and GWU professor Jonathan Turley is convinced that it's simply a matter of time and the right set of circumstances before polygamy among consenting adults is decriminalized. He has pointed to how the establishment of gay marriage will likely either lead directly to decriminalization of polygamy (through what's known as the right-to-love argument) or indirectly through challenges that will be pushed by bisexuals who will inevitably assert that requiring them to be married only to someone of one gender is discriminatory and prejudicial, not to mention preventing them to exercise their right to love who they love. And once bisexuals can marry two people, the walls are going to come tumbling down.
I believe attorney Floyd makes his case, albeit after a lengthy, belabored set-up. I wondered where he heading for most of it, and even started wondering if I'd made the right decision by moving to Texas, but in the end he makes a perfunctory but valid argument for using Texas's common-law statute as a basis for fighting for the right to be committed to more than one woman in the Lone Star State. I'd be interested in how
@andrew would weigh in on this,
@Patricia C.
Returning to my reference to Jonathan Turley, the Holm case detailed in the link you supplied wouldn't meet the requirements of the kind of case Turley asserts could advance the cause, beginning with the fact that Holm impregnated one of his wives twice prior to her being of legal age to be married. Holm also made numerous specious arguments, basically throwing all the spaghetti at the wall hoping at least one piece of it would stick.
If one reads between the lines of the responses cited from both Utah and Texas law, those states are indicating that, while they would love to continue to prohibit homosexuality, they have been boxed out from doing so and are currently committed to holding the remaining ground they continue to hold in their quest to defend Antisexuality to the death. In so doing, they have done two things:
- Enshrined intimate homosexual behavior as possessing more legal freedom than intimate heterosexual behavior. They not only demand that their right to legislate against polygamous heterosexuality is righteous because to permit anything beyond monogamy would interfere with their freedom to intervene in regard to various ramifications of heterosexual behavior (most especially in regard to children produced). This is on its face an entirely ludicrous claim, because there is nothing stopping any state from passing laws worded so that they hold both parents responsible for what they do or don't do with their children. In fact, such laws already exist in Utah and Texas and have been strengthened in both states in the wake of the Lawrence v. Texas decision. Which leads me to how they have . . .
- Enshrined the systems of rewards and punishments inherent in laws related to intimate relationships such that those who make commitments will be punished more and rewarded less than those who either simply engage in what's known as 'casual' intimate sexual behavior or cohabit with members of the opposite sex (remember, the current state of the law now almost entirely exempts homosexual unions from such government interference) without commitment. Conversely, those who treat their sexual partners like disposable handkerchiefs are more likely to be left alone by government authorities and other busybodies and far, far less likely to be punished for the cavalier approach they take to their lovers than are individuals who choose to make long-term commitments to their spouses and any emergent children. Which is just (excuse my French) f***ing stupid, because every legitimate study ever enacted has demonstrated that the very best environment for children is one led by opposite-sex adults committed to staying with each other until at least after the children are raised (this is a concept once known as an Intact Family, a phrase that is rapidly becoming verboten in public and private education, from pre-K to post-grad).
It's salient to note that Texas law concerning common law marriage is actually rather strict when it comes to defining something as common law marriage, replacing the previous standard from years gone by in most states in which the definition just came down to, if you've lived together for X amount of time (most commonly 3-6 months), then by law you were married and had to get a legal divorce if you wanted to split up. Texas apparently requires that those who are married by common law are pretty much required to make it obvious that they intend to be married rather than just temporarily shacking up. The couple has to intend to be married, they have to live together, and they have to present themselves as married to other people before it becomes a common law marriage.
A lot of water has gone under the anti-polygamy and anti-sexuality bridges in the 12 years since attorney Floyd wrote his blog, and I believe the vast amount of that water has more likely been eroding the foundations of those bridges than it has to fortify them.
I also note that in section 1(e) of the Texas Bigamy Statute, as noted on johntfloyd.com, it is a third-degree felony to violate the statute, unless the person being married is 16-years-old or older (in which case it's a second-degree felony, which is worse) or under 16-years-old or older (in which case it's a first-degree felony, which is even worse). I guess the geniuses who devised this pack of nonsense didn't notice that they've entirely prevented anyone from qualifying for the third-degree-felony designation, unless it's reserved only for ageless individuals (maybe dead folks, which wouldn't surprise me, because if we're going to elevate freedoms for gays over straights, we may as well go even further and reward people
even more for having intimate relations with the dead).
Thanks for posting this,
@Patricia C. Maybe we Texans could schedule a sort-of-related-to-Biblical-Families gathering purposed specifically to brainstorm about this particular proposition.
