• 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.

...not for long

Scarecrow

Scarecrow

Member
http://www.newswest9.com/story/17281342/west-texas-polygamist-trials-draw-national-attention

"Regardless of people's opinions on polygamy, the law remains absolute."

I certainly hope that Wendell Nielsen will appeal to a higher court and see things through.

I see this as the first step toward having the Bigamy and Anti-Polygamy laws overturned as unconstitutional. I think it will happen when it reaches the Texas Federal court.

While I don't agree with the FLDS religious beliefs and many of their practices, Wendell Nielsen didn't take any underage wives. I think this is the case that will actually finally make progress.

 
I find it disturbing that they are so focused on the underage marriages of Warren Jeffs when they are talking about Wendell Neilson. If that is the focus every time a polygamist is discussed in the media it will never been seen as a separate issue.Obviously the underage marriages are wrong, but I was under the impression that Wendell Neilson didn't have any underage wives. Also in the article they mention "Anderson told NewsWest 9 what he finds most disturbing is that the wives that testified don't show any sign of being forced into their lives." This article hardly gives me confidence that the legal issue is getting any better.
 
I would be interested in how they proved he was married to them. If you only get one legal marriage, aren't you in pure legal terminolgy, cheating and/or having an adulterous affair with the rest of them?
 
It is evil by design:
Bigamy is being legally married to more than one person
Polygamy is claiming to be married to more than one person
...at least that was my understanding

1) If you even claim at any time to be "married" then you meet their definition.
2) If you simply have a collection of girlfriends it is perfectly legal.
3) It is not illegal to live with an ex-wife...so he should have legally married one then divorced her then married another then divorced her, and so on...

In other words...as long as you don't follow biblical principals* you can roam about and do anything you want legally.

* I personally believe a "legal" marriage is supplanting God's authority with the government. For unbelievers that is fine, but for me it is not ok.
 
The problem is the very broadly-worded Texas legislation. Just did a bit of poking around in the legal documents instead of the media hype.

Nielsen has been convicted of three counts of bigamy, NOT of polygamy. The jury indictment is here:
http://www.childbrides.org/INDICTMENT_2_WENDELL_LOY_NIELSEN.pdf

This conviction is possible under Texas law because of their broad definition of marriage for the purpose of this charge - you just have to say or even look like you are married.
25.01. BIGAMY. (a) An individual commits an offense if:
(1) he is legally married and he:
(A) purports to marry or does marry a person other than his spouse in this state, or any other state or foreign country, under circumstances that would, but for the actor's prior marriage, constitute a marriage; or
(B) lives with a person other than his spouse in this state under the appearance of being married
Click to expand...
Full legal wording here: http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/25.01.00.html

This definition is far broader than in other jurisdictions. For instance, for the same crime in New Zealand requires a true legally recognised marriage (or "civil union", which is our legal gay marriage thing).
(1) Bigamy is—
(a) the act of a person who, being married, goes through form of marriage or civil union in New Zealand with a third person ...
(2) For the purposes of this section,—
(a) a form of marriage is any form of marriage recognised by the law of New Zealand, or by the law of the place where it is solemnised, as a valid form of marriage:
Click to expand...
Full legal wording here: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM329753.html

This shows to me that it is absolutely essential that anybody contemplating this lifestyle looks carefully at the relevant legislation in their country of residence, and makes sure that whatever they do is done in such a way as to not fall foul of it. Just do an internet search, most is online these days. It's harder to avoid breaking that law in Texas since it is so broadly defined, but it would not be impossible - and there are certainly other places with more tightly worded laws you could move to.

Come join us in New Zealand for instance! Particularly if you're a single woman... :lol:
 
Just not marry in the first place, one cannot be convicted of bigamy without one lawful marriage.

Simples.....
 
FollowingHim said:
and there are certainly other places with more tightly worded laws you could move to.

Come join us in New Zealand for instance! Particularly if you're a single woman... :lol:
Click to expand...

NZ is not all that easy for us to get into without a tie to the place, I am checking out the essential skills list but I doubt being very opinionated is on there. Besides, immigrating is a big deal, you are not only leaving extended family, safe (for some) jobs and their culture behind.

B
 
In many places just claiming to be married or husband and wife is enough to find you guilty...so even if you were never married but claimed to have two wives you could be tried and found guilty. This even includes living in the same residence. If you cohabited with a woman in one house and with another in another house you could still be convicted even if never married to either of them. The laws vary but the intent is one man one woman only.
 
lol..dusting off the cobwebs and knowledge is coming back to me that I had long forgotten.

I was once told that in Texas if you check into a hotel and spend overnight in the same room as someone of the opposite sex, then that actually counts as a common law marriage. You can use that as evidence to file a joint tax return for example, which would then constitute a legal marriage. To dissolve the marriage you would need to go through the legal system and get a divorce. I am assuming that these are the laws they are using to prosecute this case.

So then the next question is - does anyone know of a resource where the laws are posted state by state? We all know Utah has very strict anti-polygamy laws (I heard it is against the law to commit adultery in Utah? but don't quote me), but there are other states where the standard to be married is a lot higher and presumably it would be harder to prosecute polygamy.

Eternitee
 
poly2_2011 said:
"Anderson told NewsWest 9 what he finds most disturbing is that the wives that testified don't show any sign of being forced into their lives."
Click to expand...
Just part of the American cultural experience: wisdom-of-youth, worship-of-the-popular, narrow-open-minded, persecute-those-that-aren't-different-in-our-perverse-fashion. Same Kool-Aid, different flavor.
 
FollowingHim said:
The problem is the very broadly-worded Texas legislation. Just did a bit of poking around in the legal documents instead of the media hype.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, even if the legal code seems clear on the matter, overzealous prosecution coupled with a failure of the courts (as is common in the US) can lead to conviction anyway. I just scanned the Texas code as well and find that a marriage is not actually valid unless by witnessed written agreement (as far as the words used in the legal code indicate anyway), yet the subject individual was prosecuted. In particular, "Family Code, Title 1, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter B, Section 1.108 indicates:
PROMISE OR AGREEMENT MUST BE IN WRITING. A promise or agreement made on consideration of marriage or nonmarital conjugal cohabitation is not enforceable unless the promise or agreement or a memorandum of the promise or agreement is in writing and signed by the person obligated by the promise or agreement.
Click to expand...
Though I'm not aware of the details in this case (perhaps he signed a marriage agreement with each wife?), it seems that this section should limit the definition of "purport to be married", for how does one purport to be married if part of the marriage is such an agreement and one didn't make a written agreement? Actually, the whole idea of "purporting to be married" confuses me because, presumably, one could jokingly say 'she's my wife' and be prosecuted under such a definition. Prevention of such governmental stupidity is the function of the court, but once again we come around to the complete and utter failure thereof.

In any case, I agree that broad definitions are dangerous. However, narrower definitions in large bodies of law whereby the "entire witness" of law is not compelled by the court can still be quite dangerous.

Waiting for Jesus to return and set us all straight....
 
eternitee said:
So then the next question is - does anyone know of a resource where the laws are posted state by state? We all know Utah has very strict anti-polygamy laws (I heard it is against the law to commit adultery in Utah? but don't quote me), but there are other states where the standard to be married is a lot higher and presumably it would be harder to prosecute polygamy.

Eternitee
Click to expand...

Try this, and see if it is of any use... http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united ... ndex.shtml
 
Oreslag said:
I just scanned the Texas code as well and find that a marriage is not actually valid unless by witnessed written agreement (as far as the words used in the legal code indicate anyway), yet the subject individual was prosecuted. ... Though I'm not aware of the details in this case (perhaps he signed a marriage agreement with each wife?), it seems that this section should limit the definition of "purport to be married", for how does one purport to be married if part of the marriage is such an agreement and one didn't make a written agreement?
Click to expand...
The New Zealand law behaves as you describe here - you need a valid legal marriage to be married, and you need two of them to be a bigamist. The Texas law is odd, and that's the issue I was bringing up. Read the section on bigamy again (linked to in my last post). You can be prosecuted for bigamy if you (1) get a second legal marriage, (2) purport (pretend?) to have a second marriage, or (3) live with a second woman as if you were married to her. You are correct that you need a written agreement for (1) to apply, but they have added categories 2 and 3 which allow them to prosecute you under even broader circumstances.

Basically, if you live in Texas, you'll need to divorce your first wife before becoming a polygamist, as living with a legal wife and an unmarried woman is illegal, but living with two unmarried women is perfectly ok. I have no idea why Neilson didn't just do that. I agree it makes no sense - but that's the stupid law.
 
Froggie said:
eternitee said:
So then the next question is - does anyone know of a resource where the laws are posted state by state?
Click to expand...
Try this, and see if it is of any use... http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united ... ndex.shtml
Click to expand...
That is a very confusing page to read, and it only covers the USA, but the rest of that website has some great discussion of the issue from an Islamic perspective. There are a lot of Muslim resources out there on this issue that we could potentially make more use of.

I think it is more reliable to just do an internet search for the actual law in your country. For instance, searching for "bigamy law utah" will give you the actual statute, which is very brief and readable:
A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.
http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_07_010100.htm
Click to expand...
The fascinating thing about the Utah law is that it is not technically bigamy to have a second legal wife - just to "purport" to be married to her or to cohabit with her. So technically you could try marrying a second woman but never saying you were married or living together, and you mightn't be prosecuted - but that's a bit pointless really!

The Utah law is the complete opposite of the New Zealand law - in NZ you can't legally marry a second woman but you can live wih her, in Utah it's the living with her that is illegal.
 
I believe a number of states including Georgia have a cohabitation type clause... clever legislators... I hope to see these laws struck down by the USSC in the next 5 years. Not sure if there is anything I can do to assist in that process. I have been following the case in Utah regarding the family from the Sister Wives tv show. Will be interesting to see what comes of it.
 
Georgia:
A person commits the offense of bigamy when he, being married and knowing that his lawful spouse is living, marries another person or carries on a bigamous cohabitation with another person.
http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-6/16-6-20/
Click to expand...
You're right, very sneaky. Again as Bels pointed out there is no case if you are not actually married, so you can always avoid it that way, through divorce if necessary. You could probably also argue the definition of "bigamous cohabitation" if you had a good lawyer, but that could get very expensive and risky, particularly as the MINIMUM penalty in Georgia is 1 year in jail.

Nobody ever considers the effects on children of these punishments when they write their personal morality into law.
 
FollowingHim, thank you for posting the link. I looked it up a few weeks ago but didn't think to post it for other's benefit last night. I will work on being a better sharer of info! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top