Why is it illegal to take more than one wife?

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 1 - 20 of total 73 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

JuanDeFuca

Big Wall climber

Stoney Point

Topic Author's Original Post - Feb 20, 2006 - 12:52am PT

If we are so open to freedom of religion why is it against the law to take more than one wife in USA?

In Iraq, Turkey, or Iran a man can have as many as 4.

Juanito

Holdplease2

Big Wall climber

Yosemite area

Feb 20, 2006 - 12:56am PT

In the good 'ol USA you can buy as many women as you can afford and are *not required* to make them your wife.

So...what are you complaining about, again?

-Kate.

Ouch!

climber

Feb 20, 2006 - 01:02am PT

With state and frederal health services subsidizing big retailers,we just can't afford all the extra little crumb crunchers waddling around.

JuanDeFuca

Big Wall climber

Stoney Point

Topic Author's Reply - Feb 20, 2006 - 01:07am PT

If I am willing to pay the bills what are the negatives?

I do not see any.

I only see positives for all concerned.

Juanito

JuanDeFuca

Big Wall climber

Stoney Point

Topic Author's Reply - Feb 20, 2006 - 01:18am PT

If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with them, then only one" (Quran 4:3).

http://convertingtoislam.com/

WoodyS

Trad climber

Riverside

Feb 20, 2006 - 02:33am PT

If one were to examine this rationally, it would be better for all concerned to practice polyandry.

James

Social climber

My Subconcious

Feb 20, 2006 - 02:43am PT

"Polygamy is having one wife too many
Monogamy is having one wife too many."
-Oscar Wilde

Bob Jones

Trad climber

san luis obispo

Feb 20, 2006 - 03:09am PT

hell, who even wants one?

happiegrrrl

Trad climber

New York, NY

Feb 20, 2006 - 10:31am PT

If we are so open to freedom of religion why is it against the law to take more than one wife in USA?

In Iraq, Turkey, or Iran a man can have as many as 4.

Firstly, the USA does provide freedom to travel, so if you find the desire to have 4 wives a paramount objective, feel free to head over to Iraq, turkey or Iran and try your luck there. As a bonus, you'll even be able to delude yourself with the belief that, because they are foreign, they are somehow on a subservient level to yourself.

But, more importantly, you should understand that this idea that men hold dominion over women is also a delusion. Through machinations and misuses of justice, throughout time, a fraction of the male of our species have wangled a semblance of power and tried - tried, not succeeded - in subordinating the female populations.

You see, though the US constitution states "all men are created equal, it was only a matter of time before the whimpering cowards had to fess up to the fact that they had tried(again - that word "tried") to pull one over with the creation of a legal loophole. When push came to shove, the nineteenth amendment passed and the rest is history.

But I get ahead of myself.... Back to the writing of the Constitution. Luckily, not all the men who worked on the thing were misogynists. They brought this issue to their female confidantes, asking for advise in how to handle the problem, and the women told them to let it slide. In due time, nature would take her course, they assured them. Thankfully, too, because the "all men" clause was one sticky wicket, and had it not been glossed over, our fledging country would have fallen flat on it's face! The civil war would have gone down in history as "Civil War Redoux," because the first one would have been these guys fighting over the "all men" clause!

It's a game which can't be won, of course. Remember the old margarine commercial? "It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature!" Oh, no, no, no, no, no. It's certainly not. For she knows alllll about Father Time.......

Had the "all men" clause not been put in it's rightful perspective, by now some idiot surely would have tired to slide polygamy, as a constitutional right, through the courts just the way that some are trying to get the concept of Intelligent Design through as we speak.

Knowing - and make no mistake, Mother Nature knows all - that the 19th Amendment was going to be a done deal, this simply couldn't be allowed to occur. You see, the problem wouldn't have been with men having multiple wives; it would have been the turned tables, where gender equality would have provided for women to take multiple husbands, as well.

Mother knew that men would have lost their minds, unable to handle the delay of gratification while having to wait their turn for assistance in finding the aspirin while staring into the open medicine cabinet, and other such mundane crisis which seem to occur to guys with alarming regularity.

She also knew that, while men relished the fantasy of a harem - a different woman each day, or multiple partners fawning all over them simultaneously - the tables turned would pose a bigger conundrum. Women wouldn't so much be intrigued with having the new face beside them each morning, but the wild ride of the night with two, three, or.....well....you get the picture, I assume.

She knew that, while some men have no issue at all with sharing, these aren't the men who will be the procreationists of the world. Within time, there would be a continental divide bigger than any landmark on the map! The lack of offspring would have doomed the world eventually, but way before that had a chance to evolve, a a much larger chaos would ensue.

I leave it to your imaginations, gentle male reader, to decipher what your part in such a scenario might be, but I rest assured - should you fathom for a few seconds what your lot might have been like - you are most likely thanking your lucky stars that Mother Nature was a kind and benevolent force, and she swayed the winds to save your......well, your....ummm, not your face, if you know what I mean.

JuanDeFuca

Big Wall climber

Stoney Point

Topic Author's Reply - Feb 20, 2006 - 01:52pm PT

When did it become illegal to take more than wife in the United States. Is this right not granted? Pursuit of Happiness?

Juanito

JuanDeFuca

Big Wall climber

Stoney Point

Topic Author's Reply - Feb 20, 2006 - 01:54pm PT

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

paulj

climber

utah

Feb 20, 2006 - 02:15pm PT

I am reminded of a saying I heard more than once during my two-year Peace Corps stint in West Africa:

One wife, one problem
Two wives, two problems

And though it may be illegal in the US (and against LDS church doctrine) polygamy remains an issue in other areas of Utah besides the Colorado City/Hilldale pocket...just google the "Kingston Clan".

TradIsGood

Trad climber

Gunks end of country

Feb 20, 2006 - 02:37pm PT

United States Code Title 1, Chapter 1

Sec. 7. Definition of "marriage" and "spouse"

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any

ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative

bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage"

means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband

and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the

opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

JuanDeFuca

Big Wall climber

Stoney Point

Topic Author's Reply - Feb 20, 2006 - 04:35pm PT

So does the US Constitution disallow more than one wife.
Has this ever been challenged?

Juanito

Dave

Mountain climber

the ANTI-fresno

Feb 20, 2006 - 04:51pm PT

1862 July 8, Morrill Anti-Bigamy Law, signed by Abraham Lincoln.
First basic federal legislation by the Congress of the United States that was designed "to punish and prevent the practice of polygamy in the Territories of the United States".
Bigamy punishable by a $500 fine and imprisonment not exceeding five years.
All acts passed by the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Utah "pertaining to polygamy and spiritual marriage" were annulled.
A limit of $50,000 of real property that a religious or charitable organization could hold in a territory of the United States.
Any amount exceeding the value of $50,000 was to be forfeited and escheated to the United States.

1879 January 6, in the first constitutional challenge to interpret the First Amendment to the Constitution, the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision of the territorial court and declared that every civil government had the right to determine whether monogamy or polygamy should be the law of social life under its jurisdiction.

Thus the Morrill act of 1862 was declared valid, any additional plural marriages were clearly breaking the law of the land. (Larson, pp. 78-79.)

"The constitutions of the States of Arizona, Idaho, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Utah to this day contain provisions stating that polygamy is "forever prohibited." See Ariz. Const., Art. XX, par. 2; Idaho Const., Art. I, 4; N. M. Const., Art. XXI, 1; Okla. Const., Art. I, 2; Utah Const., Art. III, 1. Polygamists, and those who have a polygamous "orientation," have been "singled out" by these provisions for much more severe treatment than merely denial of favored status; and that treatment can only be changed by achieving amendment of the state constitutions."

JuanDeFuca

Big Wall climber

Stoney Point

Topic Author's Reply - Feb 20, 2006 - 06:48pm PT

All these laws were before Islam became widespread in this country. I think all the laws are unconstitunal.

dirtineye

Trad climber

the south

Feb 20, 2006 - 07:01pm PT

The increase in problems arising from the doubling, tripling, etc, of wives, girlfriends, mistresses or other bodily engaged full time female companions, is exponential, not linear, as some poor fools seem to think.

It is illegal to have more than one simply because society would crumble, not from the pale excuse of alleged immorality, rather from the undue stress the males of society would undergo as a result of having not one, but 2, 3, or more women nagging them constantly.

Einstein felt that the 6th force, the NAG force, should be kept to a minimum if the world was to survive, and wrote to then president FDR expressing his concerns.