What happens to additional wives if she and her husband divorce?

[Keith Martin]

I'm really curious if this sort of thing has been brought before the US court system before. I'm sure it has because everything has but I'm curious if it held any substance. As far as I'm aware it would be a small claims most likely? When going to court you have to arrive with "clean hands." Bigamy is against the law but that would fall on the man with multiple wives. I'm curious if the additional wives could face any legal repercussions in that sense? Or if they would even have a case to begin with for their part in bigamy.

As Steve mentioned, it's only bigamy if one obtains simultaneous marriage licenses through the State. The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that cohabitation itself can't be criminalized. If a woman knowingly obtained a marriage license with a man she knew to have another marriage license still in effect with another woman, then she could potentially be prosecuted for participating in that crime -- but ten women can live with one man and all have sex with him and even each other on a regular basis, and NOTHING about that is illegal.

 

[LDremoved]

As Steve mentioned, it's only bigamy if one obtains simultaneous marriage licenses through the State. The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that cohabitation itself can't be criminalized. If a woman knowingly obtained a marriage license with a man she knew to have another marriage license still in effect with another woman, then she could potentially be prosecuted for participating in that crime -- but ten women can live with one man and all have sex with him and even each other on a regular basis, and NOTHING about that is illegal.

This must be what I was thinking of- "Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states. But Utah's law is unique in that a person can be found guilty not just for having two legal marriage licenses, but also for cohabiting with another adult in a marriage-like relationship when they are already legally married to someone else." I didn't realize it was only in Utah. So now i'm even more curious what the courts would do if an additional wife or wives decided to leave and sue for what they contributed to the household.

 

[LDremoved]

The crime of bigamy is being lawfully married to more than one wife, in my understanding.
Some families have separate marriage licenses in different states, and this would seem to qualify.
Most families only have one license with one wife, some have no legal license.
Had I to do it over, I would not have involved the government in my first marriage.

My mistake. I was confused because of this- "Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states. But Utah's law is unique in that a person can be found guilty not just for having two legal marriage licenses, but also for cohabiting with another adult in a marriage-like relationship when they are already legally married to someone else."

 

[Keith Martin]

My mistake. I was confused because of this- "Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states. But Utah's law is unique in that a person can be found guilty not just for having two legal marriage licenses, but also for cohabiting with another adult in a marriage-like relationship when they are already legally married to someone else."

And the first time a family with standing -- which means that they will have to be actually penalized in some way; some harm has to have come to them for it -- reaches the level of the U.S. Supreme Court with a case in which they've been penalized for cohabitation, Utah's law will be entirely struck down, because it stands in opposition to U.S. Supreme Court precedent. A few years ago a famous TV polygamy family from Utah took a case that high, but the Supreme Court refused to hear it because no harm had ever come to the family. They hadn't been prosecuted or even significantly discriminated against because of their lifestyle, and, in fact, had financially profited from it. So they didn't have standing. Constitutional Attorney expert Jonathan Turley represented them and awaits a case in which someone actually gets punished in Utah -- or elsewhere. And anyone who goes to Salt Lake City these days will see polygamous Mormon families walking around flaunting their relationships, even out in the suburbs. I'm not asserting that it's entirely socially acceptable to either the mainstream LDS leadership or the Starbucks-swilling hipsters who are represented in equal numbers in SLC, but it's certainly not being criminalized.

P.S. Reuters was imprecise to use the word 'Polygamy' in their assertion that it's illegal in all 50 states. The only way in which it's illegal is that it's illegal to possess multiple simultaneous marriage licenses.

What I'd like to see is a case that gets taken to the U.S. Supreme Court that simply outlaws marriage licenses. Employers are prohibited from asking about marital status during job interviews; why should it be any business of the government whether we're married?

 

[LDremoved]

And the first time a family with standing -- which means that they will have to be actually penalized in some way; some harm has to have come to them for it -- reaches the level of the U.S. Supreme Court with a case in which they've been penalized for cohabitation, Utah's law will be entirely struck down, because it stands in opposition to U.S. Supreme Court precedent. A few years ago a famous TV polygamy family from Utah took a case that high, but the Supreme Court refused to hear it because no harm had ever come to the family. They hadn't been prosecuted or even significantly discriminated against because of their lifestyle, and, in fact, had financially profited from it. So they didn't have standing. Constitutional Attorney expert Jonathan Turley represented them and awaits a case in which someone actually gets punished in Utah -- or elsewhere. And anyone who goes to Salt Lake City these days will see polygamous Mormon families walking around flaunting their relationships, even out in the suburbs. I'm not asserting that it's entirely socially acceptable to either the mainstream LDS leadership or the Starbucks-swilling hipsters who are represented in equal numbers in SLC, but it's certainly not being criminalized.

P.S. Reuters was imprecise to use the word 'Polygamy' in their assertion that it's illegal in all 50 states. The only way in which it's illegal is that it's illegal to possess multiple simultaneous marriage licenses.

What I'd like to see is a case that gets taken to the U.S. Supreme Court that simply outlaws marriage licenses. Employers are prohibited from asking about marital status during job interviews; why should it be any business of the government whether we're married?

That's interesting! I remember that actually. Also I agree with you, i'd even go a step further. I don't much like the government involved in anything lol

 

[frederick]

That's interesting! I remember that actually. Also I agree with you, i'd even go a step further. I don't much like the government involved in anything lol

Totally agree. God never gave governments the right over marriage/family and people would do much better if they kept their family relationships out of government oversight and control. I get the impression Americans have a tendency to involve the judicial system/courts in their relationships and break-ups quite a bit but that's not the case everywhere else. As Christians we should avoid involving ungodly lawyers and judiciary (cf. 1 Cor. 6:1-8) and resolve matters among ourselves wherever possible, and that includes in a relationship breakup and divorce. If we claim to be His people and take His Name, we shouldn't be taking it in vain (Ex. 20:7).

Okay, that's my rant! Shalom.

 

[FollowingHim]

Hmm what are men charged with

Other crimes. Polygamy only seems to end up in court when people are arrested for a real crime that is something entirely different - such as statutory rape - and the context of that crime happens to be polygamy. The man is charged with the other crime, but the polygamy context gets the story into the media. But the case isn't actually about polygamy.

 

[Joleneakamama]

I have not even read all posts yet as time is short. My two cents worth?
First? what Steve said, choose your family wisely and prayerfully.
Then regarding assets. Trusts are a good way to handle many aspects of large families.....BUT as the name of the legal instrument implies, you have to have trust between the people involved.

My dear husband and I have been together over 25 years. We chose to NOT have a legal marriage in the first place. We chose NOT to buy "insurance" beyond what so called law requires.

I suggest trusting YHWH for health and provision and blessing His name even in hard times.

Faith and fear cannot coexist. Stay in faith and walk in truth. The blessing side of Deut. 28 is where LIFE is at.

 

[MeganC]

No one likes the topic of divorce but it does happen. I've always been curious about how additional wives would be treated during a divorce. My reasons are the following- Additional wives have no legal protection in case of divorce, the first wife does. If additional wives work and contribute to the household, this means her money goes toward the household, the husband has control of the finances. Also the same could be said for homemakers. She would be in a similar situation as well. As far as having no money or savings of her own.

So what happens if an additional wife wants to leave? She has no savings of her own and she has no legal protection.

Personally i'd do everything possible to avoid a "divorce" but I want that commitment to be based off the fact that I value my marriage and family. Not because I have no savings, no legal protection and no other options.

I'm curious how everyone else would handle this? I'm assuming there isn't much in the Bible regarding additional wives? None that i've found yet at least.

Before I joined my family Christie (2nd wife) had set up a Limited Liability Company (LLC) for the family. This protected the shares of the family just in case there was a problem like a divorce.

When Shari the first wife divorced Steve that meant she got her share of the LLC and that was all. Her three kids were all grown up so child support was not an issue. It also helps to live in a state with solid laws about LLCs. When Macy left us for a few years she got the same kind of shares as Shari did.

I'm the legal wife now and basically that means I have a right to say things for Steve if he gets sick or stuff like that. Someone in the family needs to be the legal wife just for this reason. But Cyd and Amy have the protection of the LLC. Macy already took her shares out so she's not going to be put back in the LLC.

There are other families that do similar things mostly with trusts. The thing with a trust is it is more likely to be challenged in a family court while an LLC is less likely to be challenged at all. Trusts are about families and LLCs are business.

 

[Bartato]

Before I joined my family Christie (2nd wife) had set up a Limited Liability Company (LLC) for the family. This protected the shares of the family just in case there was a problem like a divorce.

When Shari the first wife divorced Steve that meant she got her share of the LLC and that was all. Her three kids were all grown up so child support was not an issue. It also helps to live in a state with solid laws about LLCs. When Macy left us for a few years she got the same kind of shares as Shari did.

I'm the legal wife now and basically that means I have a right to say things for Steve if he gets sick or stuff like that. Someone in the family needs to be the legal wife just for this reason. But Cyd and Amy have the protection of the LLC. Macy already took her shares out so she's not going to be put back in the LLC.

There are other families that do similar things mostly with trusts. The thing with a trust is it is more likely to be challenged in a family court while an LLC is less likely to be challenged at all. Trusts are about families and LLCs are business.

Thanks for the valuable information. I hadn't really considered that LLC option. That makes a ton of sense. I know lots of people with farms or other businesses that put most of their assets into a corporate structure like that. Those folks aren't even polygynous. They just have family businesses, and that structure works for them.

 

[LDremoved]

Before I joined my family Christie (2nd wife) had set up a Limited Liability Company (LLC) for the family. This protected the shares of the family just in case there was a problem like a divorce.

When Shari the first wife divorced Steve that meant she got her share of the LLC and that was all. Her three kids were all grown up so child support was not an issue. It also helps to live in a state with solid laws about LLCs. When Macy left us for a few years she got the same kind of shares as Shari did.

I'm the legal wife now and basically that means I have a right to say things for Steve if he gets sick or stuff like that. Someone in the family needs to be the legal wife just for this reason. But Cyd and Amy have the protection of the LLC. Macy already took her shares out so she's not going to be put back in the LLC.

There are other families that do similar things mostly with trusts. The thing with a trust is it is more likely to be challenged in a family court while an LLC is less likely to be challenged at all. Trusts are about families and LLCs are business.

That's interesting. I didn't even consider that option. Was it something the second wife thought of on her own or did your church advise something like that?

 

[LDremoved]

I have not even read all posts yet as time is short. My two cents worth?
First? what Steve said, choose your family wisely and prayerfully.
Then regarding assets. Trusts are a good way to handle many aspects of large families.....BUT as the name of the legal instrument implies, you have to have trust between the people involved.

My dear husband and I have been together over 25 years. We chose to NOT have a legal marriage in the first place. We chose NOT to buy "insurance" beyond what so called law requires.

I suggest trusting YHWH for health and provision and blessing His name even in hard times.

Faith and fear cannot coexist. Stay in faith and walk in truth. The blessing side of Deut. 28 is where LIFE is at.

I can definitely see the value in what you're saying and appreciate a different perspective. However I see no reason why people can't just do both. If anything I would trust someone more if they had a plan in place for when things like that arise. I'm not suggesting your way is wrong, just a different preference. Also I think it's lovely even if I disagree.

Additional wives seem to hold more of a risk. I feel it's a little different if you're the first wife, legal or not because you should be considered common law after a certain amount of time (in some states/areas). Thus meaning you would be protected. If I'm correct?

 

[Keith Martin]

I'm including a link to another thread started today by @NickF, because I think the whole concept of the folly of attempting to minimize suffering is worthy of consideration in the midst of all this heavy emphasis on protection from unwanted outcomes as opposed to the ongoing real protection a woman generally ends up receiving in between taking the leap and whatever potential long-term outcome arrives: https://biblicalfamilies.org/forum/threads/beautiful-story.16152/

 

[Preacher]

No one likes the topic of divorce but it does happen. I've always been curious about how additional wives would be treated during a divorce. My reasons are the following- Additional wives have no legal protection in case of divorce, the first wife does. If additional wives work and contribute to the household, this means her money goes toward the household, the husband has control of the finances. Also the same could be said for homemakers. She would be in a similar situation as well. As far as having no money or savings of her own.

So what happens if an additional wife wants to leave? She has no savings of her own and she has no legal protection.

Personally i'd do everything possible to avoid a "divorce" but I want that commitment to be based off the fact that I value my marriage and family. Not because I have no savings, no legal protection and no other options.

I'm curious how everyone else would handle this? I'm assuming there isn't much in the Bible regarding additional wives? None that i've found yet at least.

How about ... Let the wife not leave her husband ... Only men are given the right to divorce ... Also I'm a first wife and I don't have "legal protection" not want it. We don't need the government permission to marry nor does my husband have to pay them a cheap fee for me to be his ride. The govt doesn't own me. Having those "legal rights" is feminist to begin with because our government is pushing that agenda and because it is there so it can encourage the woman to rebel and be independent and do as she pleases because she's always got the law to call on. Scripture teaches us not to go to the legal defense of the world for our problems. Men should not give the government or a woman that kind of power over them. Power to take everything, the children, the house, half the income ... How about women learn to be dependant on their husbands and a helper to them instead of thinking so much about what they want. I'm not trying to sound harsh. Just trying to be straight to the point.

 

[LDremoved]

How about ... Let the wife not leave her husband ... Only men are given the right to divorce ... Also I'm a first wife and I don't have "legal protection" not want it. We don't need the government permission to marry nor does my husband have to pay them a cheap fee for me to be his ride. The govt doesn't own me. Having those "legal rights" is feminist to begin with because our government is pushing that agenda and because it is there so it can encourage the woman to rebel and be independent and do as she pleases because she's always got the law to call on. Scripture teaches us not to go to the legal defense of the world for our problems. Men should not give the government or a woman that kind of power over them. Power to take everything, the children, the house, half the income ... How about women learn to be dependant on their husbands and a helper to them instead of thinking so much about what they want. I'm not trying to sound harsh. Just trying to be straight to the point.

I don't think you're being harsh. I actually like your opinion. However I'm also realistic to the fact that the additional wives are the ones that have everything to lose (if she contributes a fair amount to the marriage.) First, the husband has the right to divorce only. So he could divorce her, where would she go? And with what? Because he then gets to decide what she leaves with. So everything she put into her family (regardless how pure her intentions were) could be taken away from her because her husband says so.

Also the legal aspect is more in reference to how the first wife is legally protected as opposed to the additional wives. This means if something happens to the husband, the first wife then legally has control over the fiances that the additional wives may have contributed to. This not only makes you vulnerable to your husband but also literally makes you vulnerable to another woman- his first wife.

If we're being real and getting the point. Then we have to acknowledge that the additional wives are the ones that have everything to lose regardless of our feelings about the law/government.

 

[Preacher]

I see what you are saying. Good topic. We should all be very cautious. Yah will have our back too if we honor him and he can rebless a woman again with anything she needs if that happens.

 

[CatieF]

Getting married is a risk, period. You have to let go of self, learn to trust and be vulnerable, and spend every day striving to be more like Christ. If your focus is on how you can help your husband, submit yourself completely to your husband, reverence your husband, die to self, and serve the Lord, I can pretty much guarantee that your marriage will be awesome. Whether you’re a first, second, etc wife. Work on making yourself as awesome of a wife you can be and, unless you married an absolute a-hole, your husband will not want to divorce you. Men willing to do biblical poly are not afraid of commitment and won’t kick a woman out just because he’s tired of her. Women leave way more than men do. I think Keith mentioned divorce statistics somewhere that said women divorcing their husbands is a higher percentage than men divorcing their wives. So, if you’re focus is on how to make yourself the best wife you can possibly be to your man, you should never have to worry about the possibility of divorce. Divorce and what would happen if your husband divorced you, shouldn’t be your focus. Rather, it should be on how can I help him, how can I serve him, how can I love him, how can I bring him joy? If that’s your goal and focus, he would be an absolute idiot to divorce you. And most men aren’t idiots. He can be married to an absolute ugly dog but, if she’s doing those things… he’s happy.

 

[Bartato]

I don't think you're being harsh. I actually like your opinion. However I'm also realistic to the fact that the additional wives are the ones that have everything to lose (if she contributes a fair amount to the marriage.) First, the husband has the right to divorce only. So he could divorce her, where would she go? And with what? Because he then gets to decide what she leaves with. So everything she put into her family (regardless how pure her intentions were) could be taken away from her because her husband says so.

Also the legal aspect is more in reference to how the first wife is legally protected as opposed to the additional wives. This means if something happens to the husband, the first wife then legally has control over the fiances that the additional wives may have contributed to. This not only makes you vulnerable to your husband but also literally makes you vulnerable to another woman- his first wife.

If we're being real and getting the point. Then we have to acknowledge that the additional wives are the ones that have everything to lose regardless of our feelings about the law/government.

I don't know that the second wife really is the one with the most to lose. Under our current family laws, men are severely disadvantaged.

Thinking about my own situation, my wife and I have lived carefully during our twenty plus years of marriage. We are debt free, including a paid off house, and have a fair amount of assets in savings, retirement accounts (401K, IRA, etc),.PM's, etc.

There is a young woman who is a dear friend of ours that I would seriously consider marrying. She is also a financially responsible individual, but being 15+ years younger than my self (andy wife) she hasn't yet accumulated nearly the assets that we have.

Were I to marry her, would it be reasonable for her to instantly assume ownership of one third of our total assets? Is that fair to my wife who has carefully helped me build our net worth?

Were I to marry this woman, I would certainly add her name to our bank accounts. Also, down the road, I think her name should also be on the property.

Still, from a financial aspect, it seems to me that I and my wife would be taking the greater financial risk.

It goes to show that we should all be very careful in choosing whom to marry. The risks are high for everyone.

I was extremely blessed to marry my wife. She is a virtuous woman, and my heart trusts her.

I also believe our friend to be a very honorable woman, and that is why I am interested in her as well.

 

[LDremoved]

I see what you are saying. Good topic. We should all be very cautious. Yah will have our back too if we honor him and he can rebless a woman again with anything she needs if that happens.

I actually think your view is lovely and I have complete respect for it. It takes a lot of strength to trust your husband that much. I can only imagine it's a very peaceful and comforting feeling. Personal preferences aside.

Also I shared some of the same thoughts to myself before asking this question to begin with. I asked myself "Why be so worried? God will provide." At the same time, God allows me to question him. If he's gracious enough to respond to me with love and patience then why is having a simple discussion with my husband and family about finances such a display of untrust in the eyes of some people.

 

[Bartato]

Getting married is a risk, period. You have to let go of self, learn to trust and be vulnerable, and spend every day striving to be more like Christ. If your focus is on how you can help your husband, submit yourself completely to your husband, reverence your husband, die to self, and serve the Lord, I can pretty much guarantee that your marriage will be awesome. Whether you’re a first, second, etc wife. Work on making yourself as awesome of a wife you can be and, unless you married an absolute a-hole, your husband will not want to divorce you. Men willing to do biblical poly are not afraid of commitment and won’t kick a woman out just because he’s tired of her. Women leave way more than men do. I think Keith mentioned divorce statistics somewhere that said women divorcing their husbands is a higher percentage than men divorcing their wives. So, if you’re focus is on how to make yourself the best wife you can possibly be to your man, you should never have to worry about the possibility of divorce. Divorce and what would happen if your husband divorced you, shouldn’t be your focus. Rather, it should be on how can I help him, how can I serve him, how can I love him, how can I bring him joy? If that’s your goal and focus, he would be an absolute idiot to divorce you. And most men aren’t idiots. He can be married to an absolute ugly dog but, if she’s doing those things… he’s happy.

Very well said