The Polygamy case in TX-Defining what marriage means.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I just didn't want to get into an immigration debate in a marriage thread.

Oh, THAT can of worms. Well, I'll leave that alone too.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Why don't they charge a higher fee that would cover all of that stuff?

And in my case, there was really no reason for us to go to court except that it was required. We could have just as easily signed the papers in front of a notary public.

Because if they make the cost of a divorce prohibitively expensive, you'd have people with very little money stuck with the people they married because they can't afford a legal divorce. There are all kinds of community property issues with that, as well as tax problems.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

What it's costing us as taxpayers:

The entire cost of the divorce court system.

I'll give another perspective on this, though. As someone who handles divorces and property issues, I can tell you that divorces are much less expensive than, say, a partition action or a reulting trust action, or a breach of contract action.

Divorces, at least, provide presumptions. It's even better with no fault.

Imagine a couple who are not married, but living together for 20 years. They've got two kids and a house. Actually, HE has the house. She was unemployed as a full time mom when they bought the house 10 years ago. It was only in his name. She has remained unemployed. He leaves her.

Without the divorce laws, it's now a jury issue and a contract issue. $50k in legal fees and costs - EASY! To prove the nature of the transactions, etc. And to prove an implied contract.

How do I know this? I've handled a couple of Marvin actions here. They are expensive, time consuming, and wasteful. Marriages are far easier.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Adults should be able to have any kind of relationship and/or specialized legal contracts of partnership all they want.

Marriage is a religious term, so hijacking the word seems, to me, to be a big waste of energy for little return.

I'd just as soon not see the government involved in it at all.

i agree with this.

the government should only be concerned with things that have to do with the government.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

Quote

What it's costing us as taxpayers:

The entire cost of the divorce court system.

I'll give another perspective on this, though. As someone who handles divorces and property issues, I can tell you that divorces are much less expensive than, say, a partition action or a reulting trust action, or a breach of contract action.

Divorces, at least, provide presumptions. It's even better with no fault.

Imagine a couple who are not married, but living together for 20 years. They've got two kids and a house. Actually, HE has the house. She was unemployed as a full time mom when they bought the house 10 years ago. It was only in his name. She has remained unemployed. He leaves her.

Without the divorce laws, it's now a jury issue and a contract issue. $50k in legal fees and costs - EASY! To prove the nature of the transactions, etc. And to prove an implied contract.

How do I know this? I've handled a couple of Marvin actions here. They are expensive, time consuming, and wasteful. Marriages are far easier.

Your reply reminds me of one of my favorite quotes.

"you know what love is? Love is an illusion created by lawyer types like yourself to perpetuate another illusion called marriage to create the reality of divorce and then the illusionary need for divorce lawyers."

[Nightingale 0]

We need contract courts anyway, though. Without marriage, we wouldn't need the entire divorce court system. Many people wouldn't ever end up in court, because they'd just break up and move on, and no court would need to be involved.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Polygamy is illegal whether they want it to be legal or not. They broke the law. If they want to challange the law then fight it in court.

Because polygamy is illegal, they weren't legally married to anyone but their first spouse. If the subsequent marriages are not legally recognized, did the "crime" of polygamy actually occur?

Also, I could someone making the argument that it was the legislators themselves who broke the (Constitutional) law, and that the burden is thus on them to fight it out in court. I'm not prepared to make that argument, but on a simple gut check, it rings true to me. If I pass a law stating that all black people must be in their homes by 8 PM, is it up to the black people to challenge my law or is it up to me to try and enforce it?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[livendive 8]

Quote

Personally, I don't think marriage should be recognized by law at all. The government simply has no business regulating relationships between consenting adults. Marry in your church or in front of your community, but it shouldn't confer any kind of special status whatsoever.

What she said.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[beowulf 1]

Are these people being prosecuted for polygamy?
I haven't read much about this, but what I have noticed is that they are more concerned with the child abuse rather then polygamy.


There wouldn't be anything illegal about me living with 5 women and have concenting sex with all of them, so polygamy would be a tough law to prosecute. Although I am quite certain that I would have commited suicide within a month.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Are these people being prosecuted for polygamy?

I have not heard of any charges being brought against them for polygamy.

And most of what I've read has said that their marriages were "spiritual marriages" rather than legal ones, so I don't think that they've broken any laws by "spiritually marrying" more than one person.

I don't think that polygamy really has anything to do with this case. I'm not sure why the headlines keep saying "The Polygamists" rather than "The FLDS".... Well, except that it probably adds more drama to the news.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

A single divorce costs state and federal governments about $30,000.

How does a divorce cost the government that much?

When I got divorced, we paid the fee (I think it was around $400???).

Your tax dollars are covering the rest. In a courthouse, there's the judge's salary. And the bailiff's salary. And the Court Clerk's salary. (edit: I forgot the court reporter's salary) You've got the state bar expenses to keep track of your lawyer. You've got the expense of a taxpayer paid for, court appointed lawyer for your kids in some situations. And then there's the county recorder and records clerks that have to keep track of who's married and who's divorced. On top of that, you have the financial overhead for buildings and maintenance. Then, you have the people in the federal government working on taxes and making sure that you're not claiming your now ex spouse. You've got the expenses at the records office to change your name back to your maiden name. You've got the expenses at the DMV to change your driving records to your new name... the list goes on.

Divorce isn't cheap.

this sounds like bureaucratic goldplating, Kris. Double and quadruple counting effort already being made. Amortizing fixed costs that already have to exist. The exception is the court appointed professionals, which didn't apply the the $400 divorce.

And are they counting all the income taxes paid by family lawyers?

DMV charges you for that record change. $22 to do simple data entry and mail out the new license.

[Lindsey 0]

ADULTS should be allowed to choose their marriage or sexual partners, as long as all involved are adults. Adults do not have the right to marry or have sex with children, whether or not it is "consensual." That's the big issue here, imho. If parents marry off their daughters when they hit puberty, then those parents as well as the men the girls are given to, should be held accountable. I don't think the children are necessarily being harmed by polygamist lifestyle (though I do find it kinda distasteful myself...ick), but they're being harmed by being raped.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Nightingale 0]

A lot of those "fixed costs" wouldn't exist if it weren't for marriages and divorces.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

We need contract courts anyway, though. Without marriage, we wouldn't need the entire divorce court system. Many people wouldn't ever end up in court, because they'd just break up and move on, and no court would need to be involved.

Here is where I see a pragmatic difference. Interpersonal relations should not be treated like commercial transactions.

Can you imagine "efficient breach?" "She was HOT!"

Or how about the defense of "meretricious sexual contract?"

"THe terms of the contract appear to be parol in nature."

"Said contract violates the Statute of Frauds." "But performance is an exception." "Partial performance."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Nightingale 0]

Personal relationships are treated like commercial transactions, with contracts, prenups, and all kinds of other legal rules.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

A couple of things:

1) Marriage is a legal privilege conferred by state law. Consent to enter into marriage is not enough to constitute a marriage. In every state, I believe, there is the requirement for a license and a solemnization.

12 states including Colorado recognize Common Law Marriage. In Colorado, a common law marriage exists when the parties present themselves as husband and wife provided they're adults and not already married.

No license or solemnization required.

[lawrocket 3]

That what we in Cali now call a Marvin action. California did not recognize "common law marriage." "Marvin" was the actor Lee Marvin.

They are tremendously expensive sine the presumptions are AGAINST community.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Erroll 80]

Quote

There wouldn't be anything illegal about me living with 5 women .....

Although I am quite certain that I would have commited suicide within a month.

Now that would be illegal!

[happythoughts 0]

One of the aspects of getting a gay marriage recognized in one state is that it will have to be recognized in the others.

So, if someone has a valid polygamist marriage and moves to the US ?

There used to be a Florida jumper who was a Saudi national. He had one wife, but was allowed by Muslim law to have up to four. Some of his friends had two.

So, if a person from another country with multiple wives moves to the US, the issue will have to be confronted.

[thirdworld19 0]

Quote

So, if someone has a valid polygamist marriage and moves to the US ?

There used to be a Florida jumper who was a Saudi national. He had one wife, but was allowed by Muslim law to have up to four. Some of his friends had two.

So, if a person from another country with multiple wives moves to the US, the issue will have to be confronted.

This is exactly what Turkey is going through. They would very much like to be part of the EU, but because of the Muslim population that allows for multiple wives, things are a bit tricky.

Kind of funny though, the Bible doesn't forbid multiple wives. Why is the US so hung up on that? Many cultures allow for multiple wives. Some (very few) even allow for multiple husbands.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Kind of funny though, the Bible doesn't forbid multiple wives. Why is the US so hung up on that? Many cultures allow for multiple wives. Some (very few) even allow for multiple husbands.

Because the US is hung up on anything having to do with sex?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Kind of funny though, the Bible doesn't forbid multiple wives. Why is the US so hung up on that? Many cultures allow for multiple wives. Some (very few) even allow for multiple husbands.

Because the US is hung up on anything having to do with sex?

The majority of these cultures that have multiple spouses (usually women) don't consider that gender equal. I have a problem with that.

Bigamy itself - as long as all parties are consenting, so be it. However, I don't feel like I should subsidize it with more tax incentives - it's bad enough just with the binary couples out there. That question would need to be addressed to fix the matter.

[masterrig 1]

I think, the whole point of the case with the polygamists here in Texas, has been missed. It is not the fact they have more than one wife. the fact of the matter is, marriages between older men... well over 18, are marrying little girls! 12 - 13 yr. old girls are made to marry older men and thus, having babies. That's what this is all about. It's not like Texas is trying to 'define' marriage.


Chuck

[thirdworld19 0]

Quote

Quote

Kind of funny though, the Bible doesn't forbid multiple wives. Why is the US so hung up on that? Many cultures allow for multiple wives. Some (very few) even allow for multiple husbands.

Because the US is hung up on anything having to do with sex?

I agree. Why is it that you can see any kind of violence on the news, but a bit of flesh puts everyone into a panic. Very sad. Everyone likes it, but no one wants to admit it. Silly.

[labrys 0]

Since the OP made this statement:

Quote

I agree that the underage marriage is illegal but if we were dealing with adults should their definition of marriage be respected?

It's not clear to me why you think any points have been missed. He addressed this point right off the bat.

Owned by Remi #?