THE PRACTICE OF POLYGYNY IN AN HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT (CALIFORNIA, FOR EXAMPLE)
COPYRIGHT (c) 1997, 2002, 07/04/2009 BY L. TYLER
San Diego, CA Boise ID
www.tapatalk.com
#1. An introduction to the laws and legal principles applicable to polygyny.
#2 Federal law and the practice of polygyny.
#3. California law and the practice of polygyny.
#4. The Biblical basis for diligent discretion in polygyny
#5. American Urban Blue Collar Polygyny
#1. INTRODUCTION OF THE LAWS AGAINST POLYGYNY
Bigamy is the "criminal offense of willfully and knowingly contracting a second marriage (or going through the form of a second marriage) while the first marriage, to the knowledge of the offender, is still subsisting and undissolved.">a Bigamy is the "state of a man who has two wives, or of a woman who has two husbands living at the same time.">a
"A married person is guilty of bigamy, a misdemeanor, if he contracts or purports to contract another marriage, unless at the time of the subsequent marriage . . . . . the actor reasonably believes that he is legally eligible to remarry." Model Penal Code #230.1 >a [>a Deluxe Black's Law Dictionary, p. 163, West Publishing Co. St. Paul, MN]
Polygamy: "A person is guilty of polygamy, a felony of the third degree, if he marries or cohabits with more than one spouse at a time in purported exercise of the right of plural marriage. The offense is a continuing one until all cohabitation and claim of marriage with more than one spouse terminates. This section does not apply to parties to a polygamous marriage, lawful in the country of which they are residents or nationals, while they are in transit through or temporarily visiting this state." Model Penal Code #230.1>b [>b Deluxe Black's Law Dictionary, p. 1159, West Publishing Co. St.
Paul, MN]
The sticky issue in the WEST/OCCIDENT is that "a married person is guilty of bigamy, a misdemeanor,"
a) if he SIGNIFIES that he is contracting another marriage while he is still married to another.
b) if he IMPLIES that he is contracting another marriage while he is still married
c) if he CLAIMS OR PROFESSES to be contracting another marriage while still married
d) if he engages in a wedding/marriage given in other than the exact words.
In the WEST/OCCIDENT, "person is guilty of polygamy, a felony of the third degree , if he marries . . . more than one spouse at a time"
a) SIGNIFYING that is exercising the right of plural marriage.
b) IMPLYING that he is exercising the right of plural marriage.
c) CLAIMING/PROFESSING to be exercising the right of plural marriage.
d) engaging in the exercise of the right of plural marriage using other than the exact words of marriage or of a wedding.
In the WEST/OCCIDENT, A "person is guilty of polygamy, a felony of the third degree , if he . . . cohabits with more than one spouse at a time"
a) SIGNIFYING that is exercising the right of plural marriage.
b) IMPLYING that he is exercising the right of plural marriage.
c) CLAIMING/PROFESSING to be exercising the right of plural marriage.
d) engaging in the exercise of the right of plural marriage using other than the exact words of marriage or of a wedding.
I understand these provisions to mean that anyone who wants to practice polygyny in the WEST/OCCIDENT must not publicly, or in writing,
a) SIGNIFY that he/she is contracting another marriage while still married to another.
b) IMPLY that he/she is contracting another marriage while still married
c) CLAIM/PROFESS to be contracting another marriage while still married
d) engage in a "wedding/marriage" given in other than the exact words (see the alternatives to the use of loaded words like "wedding/marriage" in union celebrations or union ceremonies)
e) SIGNIFY that he/she is exercising "the right of plural marriage."
f) IMPLY that he/she is exercising "the right of plural marriage."
g) CLAIM/PROFESS to be exercising "the right of plural marriage."
h) engage in the exercise of "the right of plural marriage" using other than the exact words of "marriage" or of a "wedding". (There must be no claim to the right of plural marriage in the union celebration, no claim to the right to exercise plural marriage in the union celebration, no use of synonyms for "marriage" [matrimony, wedlock, etc.] or for "wedding" [marriage, nuptials etc.]).
i) cohabit with more than one spouse at a time, SIGNIFYING that he/she is exercising the right of plural marriage.
j) cohabit with more than one spouse at a time, IMPLYING that he is
exercising the right of plural marriage.
k) cohabit with more than one spouse at a time, CLAIMING/PROFESSING to be exercising the right of plural marriage.
l) cohabit with more than one spouse at a time, engaging in the exercise of the right of plural marriage using other than the exact
words of marriage or of wedding for the relationship or event. (There must be no claim to the right of plural marriage in the cohabitation, no claim to the right to exercise plural marriage in the cohabitation, no use of synonyms for "marriage" [matrimony, wedlock, etc.] or for "wedding" [marriage, nuptials etc.] in the cohabitation.)
"The showing of minimal numbers of prosecutions does not establish an abandonment of the State's laws or an irrational revival of them here. . . . . Mere failure to prosecute other offenders is no basis for a finding of denial of equal protection." (See U.S. v. Salazar, 1983. P. 107) The courts follow the waves and tides of society. Right now it is neither important , popular or cost efficient to prosecute bigamy/ polygyny cases now. The tide can turn at any time.
Whatever the scenario, we who believe in polygyny, and especially those who practice it need to think defensively and think survival in a world that grows colder, harder, more insensitive and more evil day by passing day. If I were practicing polygyny, especially if I were raising children in polygyny, I would take every precaution, every defensive measure and exercise every discretion to protect my loved ones and my home from the packs of wolves and hyenas that are out there waiting for us to make an unnecessary mistake that would expose and our loved ones to their fangs, to the great pain and loss of our loved ones. We must be wiser than serpents and foxes, yet harmless as doves and sheep, remembering how easy doves and sheep die. Thank God that we are doves and sheep indwelled and shepherded by the Lord Jesus Christ, the thankful possessors of eternal life and the hope of living eternally with the God who is Unselfish and Compassionate
Cherishing, Truth, Light, Life and the Way.
#2. FEDERAL LAW AND THE PRACTICE OF POLYGYNY
Federal Law (Federal Reporter, 2d Series, #760, pp. 1065-1071):"Utah was justified, by compelling interest, in upholding and enforcing ban on plural marriage to protect monogamous marriage relationships." (U.S.C.A. Const. Amends 1,14)
In Reynolds v. U.S., 98 US (8 otto) 145, 25, L.ED. 244 (1878; p. 1068), "the Supreme Court affirmed a criminal conviction of a Mormon for practicing polygamy, and rejected the argument that Congress' prohibition of polygamy violated the defendant's right to the free exercise of religion."
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878) - Court finds that the federal law prohibiting polygamy, which was challenged by a Mormon defendant, to be constitutional. Polygamy was outlawed. In the 1972 Yoder case, "The Supreme Court has recognized the continued validity of [the] REYNOLDS [case]."
“Reynolds v. United States was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1879. . . . . (98 U.S. [1879]). The Reynolds decision distinguished between religious opinions and religious practices, leaving the former free while allowing for government regulation of the latter (see Civil Rights; Legal and Judicial History of the Church).”
The Edmunds-Tucker ANTI-POLYGAMY ) Act of 1887 makes illegal in every Territory of the U. S. the act of polygamy. That law is still in force. It was passed by both houses of congress by a majority vote..”the Edmunds law of 1882 was passed - which made unlawful cohabitation a crime.” It established legal precedent for the illegality of polygamy. “In 1882 Congress passed the Edmunds Act, which was actually a series of amendments to the Morrill Act. It restated that polygamy was a felony punishable by five years of imprisonment and a $500 fine. Unlawful cohabitation, which was easier to establish because the prosecution had to prove only that the couple had lived together rather than that a marriage ceremony had taken place, remained a misdemeanor punishable by six months imprisonment and a $300 fine. . . . Because the Edmunds Act was unsuccessful in controlling polygamy in Utah, in 1884 Congress debated legislation to plug the loopholes. Finally, in 1887, the "hodge-podge" Edmunds-Tucker Bill passed. It required plural wives to testify against their husbands, . . “
[http://historytogo.utah.gov/historyofpolygamy.html]
1890 P / B U.S. Davis v Beason, 133 U.S. 333 Basically part of the overall Mormon cases Bigamy polygamy cases followed the Reynolds reasoning i.e., civil law. (cited 5 times in The Myth of Separation)
“U.S. Supreme Court
DAVIS v. BEASON, 133 U.S. 333 (1890)
133 U.S. 333
DAVIS v. BEASON, Sheriff.
February 3, 1890
“Mr. Justice FIELD, after stating the facts as above, delivered the opinion of the court.
SNIP
“Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho. . . . To call their [133 U.S. 333, 342] advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the common sense of mankind. If they are crimes, then to teach, advise, and counsel their practice is to aid in their commission, and such teaching and counseling are themselves criminal, and proper subjects of punishment, as aiding and abetting crime are in all other cases.
SNIP
“However free the exercise of religion may [133 U.S. 333, 343] be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country, passed with reference to actions regarded by general consent as properly the subjects of punitive legislantion.
SNIP
“ . . . So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. . . . “
Cleveland v. United States, 329 U.S. 14 (1946) - Court rules that transporting a woman across state lines to enter into a plural marriage, even if motivated by a religious belief is illegal.
U.S. Supreme Court
MUSSER V. UTAH , 333 U.S. 95 (1948)
333 U.S. 95
MUSSER et al.
v.
STATE OF UTAH.
No. 60.
Reargued Jan. 5, 1948.
Decided Feb. 9, 1948.
“ The crucial question, which the case was brought to this Court to review, is [333 U.S. 95 , 99] whether the state supreme court has construed the Utah statute to authorize punishment for exercising the right of free speech protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution. . . .
the charge was not restricted to a claim that appellants had conspired to urge particular violations of the law. Instead, the information as construed by the state court broadly condemned the conspiracy to advocate and urge the practice of polygamy.
. . . The Utah statute was construed to proscribe any agreement to advocate the practice of polygamy. . . . The Constitution requires that the statute be limited more narrowly. At the very least the line must be drawn between advocacy and incitement, and even the state's power to punish incitement may vary with the nature of the speech, whether persuasive or coercive, the nature of the wrong induced, whether violent or merely offensive to the mores, and the degree of probability that the substantive evil actually will result. See Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252 , 262, 263, 193, 194, 159 A.L.R. 1346. . . . But the other extreme position, that the state may prevent any conduct which induces people to violate the law, or any advocacy of unlawful activity, cannot be squared with the First Amendment.”
[ Footnote 8 ] 'But even advocacy of violation, however reprehensible morally, is not a justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on.' Mr. Justice Brandeis, concurring in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 at 376 at page 648.
[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=333&invol=95]
In YODER (p.1069), the court cited REYNOLDS in support of the proposition that it "is true that activities of individual's, even when
FOR THE REST OF THIS GO TO https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...-polygyny-in-an-hostile-environment-t430.html
www.tapatalk.com
COPYRIGHT (c) 1997, 2002, 07/04/2009 BY L. TYLER
San Diego, CA Boise ID
Biblical Marriage Polygyny Divorce and Remarriage-THE PRACTICE OF POLYGYNY IN AN HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT
THE PRACTICE OF POLYGYNY IN AN HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT (CALIFORNIA, FOR EXAMPLE) COPYRIGHT (c) 1997, 2002, 07/04/2009 BY L. TYLER San Diego, CA Boise
www.tapatalk.com
#1. An introduction to the laws and legal principles applicable to polygyny.
#2 Federal law and the practice of polygyny.
#3. California law and the practice of polygyny.
#4. The Biblical basis for diligent discretion in polygyny
#5. American Urban Blue Collar Polygyny
#1. INTRODUCTION OF THE LAWS AGAINST POLYGYNY
Bigamy is the "criminal offense of willfully and knowingly contracting a second marriage (or going through the form of a second marriage) while the first marriage, to the knowledge of the offender, is still subsisting and undissolved.">a Bigamy is the "state of a man who has two wives, or of a woman who has two husbands living at the same time.">a
"A married person is guilty of bigamy, a misdemeanor, if he contracts or purports to contract another marriage, unless at the time of the subsequent marriage . . . . . the actor reasonably believes that he is legally eligible to remarry." Model Penal Code #230.1 >a [>a Deluxe Black's Law Dictionary, p. 163, West Publishing Co. St. Paul, MN]
Polygamy: "A person is guilty of polygamy, a felony of the third degree, if he marries or cohabits with more than one spouse at a time in purported exercise of the right of plural marriage. The offense is a continuing one until all cohabitation and claim of marriage with more than one spouse terminates. This section does not apply to parties to a polygamous marriage, lawful in the country of which they are residents or nationals, while they are in transit through or temporarily visiting this state." Model Penal Code #230.1>b [>b Deluxe Black's Law Dictionary, p. 1159, West Publishing Co. St.
Paul, MN]
The sticky issue in the WEST/OCCIDENT is that "a married person is guilty of bigamy, a misdemeanor,"
a) if he SIGNIFIES that he is contracting another marriage while he is still married to another.
b) if he IMPLIES that he is contracting another marriage while he is still married
c) if he CLAIMS OR PROFESSES to be contracting another marriage while still married
d) if he engages in a wedding/marriage given in other than the exact words.
In the WEST/OCCIDENT, "person is guilty of polygamy, a felony of the third degree , if he marries . . . more than one spouse at a time"
a) SIGNIFYING that is exercising the right of plural marriage.
b) IMPLYING that he is exercising the right of plural marriage.
c) CLAIMING/PROFESSING to be exercising the right of plural marriage.
d) engaging in the exercise of the right of plural marriage using other than the exact words of marriage or of a wedding.
In the WEST/OCCIDENT, A "person is guilty of polygamy, a felony of the third degree , if he . . . cohabits with more than one spouse at a time"
a) SIGNIFYING that is exercising the right of plural marriage.
b) IMPLYING that he is exercising the right of plural marriage.
c) CLAIMING/PROFESSING to be exercising the right of plural marriage.
d) engaging in the exercise of the right of plural marriage using other than the exact words of marriage or of a wedding.
I understand these provisions to mean that anyone who wants to practice polygyny in the WEST/OCCIDENT must not publicly, or in writing,
a) SIGNIFY that he/she is contracting another marriage while still married to another.
b) IMPLY that he/she is contracting another marriage while still married
c) CLAIM/PROFESS to be contracting another marriage while still married
d) engage in a "wedding/marriage" given in other than the exact words (see the alternatives to the use of loaded words like "wedding/marriage" in union celebrations or union ceremonies)
e) SIGNIFY that he/she is exercising "the right of plural marriage."
f) IMPLY that he/she is exercising "the right of plural marriage."
g) CLAIM/PROFESS to be exercising "the right of plural marriage."
h) engage in the exercise of "the right of plural marriage" using other than the exact words of "marriage" or of a "wedding". (There must be no claim to the right of plural marriage in the union celebration, no claim to the right to exercise plural marriage in the union celebration, no use of synonyms for "marriage" [matrimony, wedlock, etc.] or for "wedding" [marriage, nuptials etc.]).
i) cohabit with more than one spouse at a time, SIGNIFYING that he/she is exercising the right of plural marriage.
j) cohabit with more than one spouse at a time, IMPLYING that he is
exercising the right of plural marriage.
k) cohabit with more than one spouse at a time, CLAIMING/PROFESSING to be exercising the right of plural marriage.
l) cohabit with more than one spouse at a time, engaging in the exercise of the right of plural marriage using other than the exact
words of marriage or of wedding for the relationship or event. (There must be no claim to the right of plural marriage in the cohabitation, no claim to the right to exercise plural marriage in the cohabitation, no use of synonyms for "marriage" [matrimony, wedlock, etc.] or for "wedding" [marriage, nuptials etc.] in the cohabitation.)
"The showing of minimal numbers of prosecutions does not establish an abandonment of the State's laws or an irrational revival of them here. . . . . Mere failure to prosecute other offenders is no basis for a finding of denial of equal protection." (See U.S. v. Salazar, 1983. P. 107) The courts follow the waves and tides of society. Right now it is neither important , popular or cost efficient to prosecute bigamy/ polygyny cases now. The tide can turn at any time.
Whatever the scenario, we who believe in polygyny, and especially those who practice it need to think defensively and think survival in a world that grows colder, harder, more insensitive and more evil day by passing day. If I were practicing polygyny, especially if I were raising children in polygyny, I would take every precaution, every defensive measure and exercise every discretion to protect my loved ones and my home from the packs of wolves and hyenas that are out there waiting for us to make an unnecessary mistake that would expose and our loved ones to their fangs, to the great pain and loss of our loved ones. We must be wiser than serpents and foxes, yet harmless as doves and sheep, remembering how easy doves and sheep die. Thank God that we are doves and sheep indwelled and shepherded by the Lord Jesus Christ, the thankful possessors of eternal life and the hope of living eternally with the God who is Unselfish and Compassionate
Cherishing, Truth, Light, Life and the Way.
#2. FEDERAL LAW AND THE PRACTICE OF POLYGYNY
Federal Law (Federal Reporter, 2d Series, #760, pp. 1065-1071):"Utah was justified, by compelling interest, in upholding and enforcing ban on plural marriage to protect monogamous marriage relationships." (U.S.C.A. Const. Amends 1,14)
In Reynolds v. U.S., 98 US (8 otto) 145, 25, L.ED. 244 (1878; p. 1068), "the Supreme Court affirmed a criminal conviction of a Mormon for practicing polygamy, and rejected the argument that Congress' prohibition of polygamy violated the defendant's right to the free exercise of religion."
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878) - Court finds that the federal law prohibiting polygamy, which was challenged by a Mormon defendant, to be constitutional. Polygamy was outlawed. In the 1972 Yoder case, "The Supreme Court has recognized the continued validity of [the] REYNOLDS [case]."
“Reynolds v. United States was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1879. . . . . (98 U.S. [1879]). The Reynolds decision distinguished between religious opinions and religious practices, leaving the former free while allowing for government regulation of the latter (see Civil Rights; Legal and Judicial History of the Church).”
The Edmunds-Tucker ANTI-POLYGAMY ) Act of 1887 makes illegal in every Territory of the U. S. the act of polygamy. That law is still in force. It was passed by both houses of congress by a majority vote..”the Edmunds law of 1882 was passed - which made unlawful cohabitation a crime.” It established legal precedent for the illegality of polygamy. “In 1882 Congress passed the Edmunds Act, which was actually a series of amendments to the Morrill Act. It restated that polygamy was a felony punishable by five years of imprisonment and a $500 fine. Unlawful cohabitation, which was easier to establish because the prosecution had to prove only that the couple had lived together rather than that a marriage ceremony had taken place, remained a misdemeanor punishable by six months imprisonment and a $300 fine. . . . Because the Edmunds Act was unsuccessful in controlling polygamy in Utah, in 1884 Congress debated legislation to plug the loopholes. Finally, in 1887, the "hodge-podge" Edmunds-Tucker Bill passed. It required plural wives to testify against their husbands, . . “
[http://historytogo.utah.gov/historyofpolygamy.html]
1890 P / B U.S. Davis v Beason, 133 U.S. 333 Basically part of the overall Mormon cases Bigamy polygamy cases followed the Reynolds reasoning i.e., civil law. (cited 5 times in The Myth of Separation)
“U.S. Supreme Court
DAVIS v. BEASON, 133 U.S. 333 (1890)
133 U.S. 333
DAVIS v. BEASON, Sheriff.
February 3, 1890
“Mr. Justice FIELD, after stating the facts as above, delivered the opinion of the court.
SNIP
“Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho. . . . To call their [133 U.S. 333, 342] advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the common sense of mankind. If they are crimes, then to teach, advise, and counsel their practice is to aid in their commission, and such teaching and counseling are themselves criminal, and proper subjects of punishment, as aiding and abetting crime are in all other cases.
SNIP
“However free the exercise of religion may [133 U.S. 333, 343] be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country, passed with reference to actions regarded by general consent as properly the subjects of punitive legislantion.
SNIP
“ . . . So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. . . . “
Cleveland v. United States, 329 U.S. 14 (1946) - Court rules that transporting a woman across state lines to enter into a plural marriage, even if motivated by a religious belief is illegal.
U.S. Supreme Court
MUSSER V. UTAH , 333 U.S. 95 (1948)
333 U.S. 95
MUSSER et al.
v.
STATE OF UTAH.
No. 60.
Reargued Jan. 5, 1948.
Decided Feb. 9, 1948.
“ The crucial question, which the case was brought to this Court to review, is [333 U.S. 95 , 99] whether the state supreme court has construed the Utah statute to authorize punishment for exercising the right of free speech protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution. . . .
the charge was not restricted to a claim that appellants had conspired to urge particular violations of the law. Instead, the information as construed by the state court broadly condemned the conspiracy to advocate and urge the practice of polygamy.
. . . The Utah statute was construed to proscribe any agreement to advocate the practice of polygamy. . . . The Constitution requires that the statute be limited more narrowly. At the very least the line must be drawn between advocacy and incitement, and even the state's power to punish incitement may vary with the nature of the speech, whether persuasive or coercive, the nature of the wrong induced, whether violent or merely offensive to the mores, and the degree of probability that the substantive evil actually will result. See Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252 , 262, 263, 193, 194, 159 A.L.R. 1346. . . . But the other extreme position, that the state may prevent any conduct which induces people to violate the law, or any advocacy of unlawful activity, cannot be squared with the First Amendment.”
[ Footnote 8 ] 'But even advocacy of violation, however reprehensible morally, is not a justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on.' Mr. Justice Brandeis, concurring in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 at 376 at page 648.
[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=333&invol=95]
In YODER (p.1069), the court cited REYNOLDS in support of the proposition that it "is true that activities of individual's, even when
FOR THE REST OF THIS GO TO https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...-polygyny-in-an-hostile-environment-t430.html
Biblical Marriage Polygyny Divorce and Remarriage-THE PRACTICE OF POLYGYNY IN AN HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT
THE PRACTICE OF POLYGYNY IN AN HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT (CALIFORNIA, FOR EXAMPLE) COPYRIGHT (c) 1997, 2002, 07/04/2009 BY L. TYLER San Diego, CA Boise
www.tapatalk.com
