Making polygamy legal by stages

[EnchantedLife]

I suggest that polygamy be made legal, but only for those 40 years old and over. Such a proposal overcomes many of the objections of those who oppose polygamy.

The youngest wife in such a legal polygamous marriage must be at least 40, so it will not be possible for a polygamous husband to marry, legally, a 20 year old woman, while having one or two older wives.

Those 40 and over are likely to have reliable jobs and to have financial assets, and may own a business, so the financial position of such polygamous marriages is likely to be good.

Those 40 and over are likely to be more stable in their attitudes to marriage.

The ratio of women to men rises in older age groups.

Such polygamous marriages may work better than monogamous marriages, so the image of polygamy improves, and society might consider, at a later date, lowering the marriage age for polygamy to 30.

I am taking a purely secular approach to polygamy. Existing divorce legislation applies only to monogamy, polygamy being illegal. I suggest that divorce legislation for polygamy should be different, and there is no need to change divorce legislation for monogamy. I see divorce legislation for polygamy specifying modest limits on a lump sum a wife can claim, no matter how rich the husband.

 

[Isabella]

You know, I would be a little bit out of sorts, I am not yet 40!

I think from a legal pov, strictly speaking you are quite right, if people see the public faces of Polygamy as rather stable 40+ more people would think it not so bad. However, I am pretty sure that the vast majority of people would continue in the illegal relationships and you have a fair few men over 40 (even on here) that would prefer younger wives who will have loads of kids.

B

 

[steve]

as a 59 yr old i am happy to step up to the plate
(it just seems so unfair to all of those youngsters out there, but hey, they will get their chance if YHWH tarries)

as far as divorce (let it never be named among us!) a proper ketuba should provide protection for all parties.

 

[CecilW]

Feel free to wait until you are past 40 to enter PM, and set an age limit for those whom you are willing to consider qualified to enter into your family.

But if you don't want folks prescribing for you, perhaps it would be best to not prescribe for others.

Besides, just how would that work, anyway? How would it be realistically enforced?

And what would you suggest for the 32 yr old single mother of three who might be offered a home and stable family by, say, a 38 yr old man? Or 45 yr old? Maybe even 50?

Not quite trolling college campuses in search of dewy eyed freshmen to ensnare...

 

[EnchantedLife]

Strange how people complain about the State forbidding polygamy, but as soon as a compromise, or half way house, is suggested, suddenly those who want PM block the road. Politics is the art of the possible, so half a loaf is better than none. So my proposal isnt perfect. What of it? There is a minimum age for monogamous marriage, why not a minimum age for PM?

I am no position to dictate or prescribe anything. That is not the point. I am suggesting a political compromise, which if accepted by American voters (I am not one) may be made more favorable in the future.

One effect of my proposal is that monogamy can come to be seen as analogous to learner drivers, and PM analogous to advanced drivers. Improving the image of PM is a good thing.

 

[CecilW]

Sounds good. But since we don't accept the government's right to proscribe PM in the first place, what you are suggesting is that we all institute and accept a government control which does not currently exist.

No thanks.

True, the US government does not currently recognize PM. But court cases have already been decided which clearly make the laws against it unconstitutional, and the legal system knows it. That's why they won't prosecute on that basis.

So why would we want to give them something new to throw at us? Now you are an underage polygamist?

Sorry, it is NOT the same thing as marrying underage children.

 

[steve]

the point is to get out from under the government control or sanction of marriage.
not to find a compromise. that presumes that the goverment has rights in your relationships.