...not for long

[Oreslag]

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?

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.

I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with you. My basic point was that it doesn't actually matter what is written in the law if the court chooses to 'legislate from the bench' by interpreting the law in a nonsensical manner.

In regard to (2), my point was that you cannot purport to 'marry' (notice in the code this is a verb and not an adjective, so it is specifically addressing the act of marrying). Thus, unless you are taking the steps to become 'married' (notice this is an adjective in the past tense; meaning you did it) or have taken those steps under the definition specified in (1), you cannot be proven to have 'purported to marry.'

In regard to (3), the code you linked also states:

(b) For purposes of this section, "under the appearance of being married" means holding out that the parties are married with cohabitation and an intent to be married by either party.

Thus, I'm arguing that the code specifically says you have to claim to be married and have an intent to be so and cohabit to meet the definition of "under the appearance of being married." As I pointed out in my previous post, marriage has a specific definition under Texas code that includes a signed agreement. Such is not the case unless, as I described above, you are trying to become or have become legally married under the code.

I'm quite certain any judge knows this and is not confused by the words, so unless he or she ignores these truths, also in the legal code, he or she cannot conclude bigamy has obtained unless the prosecution can establish the factual chronology described in the code. In essence, I'm arguing that a legal system that finds someone guilty under this code when that someone has not done the particular things specified is a corrupt legal system. I think the code is purposely confusing, but I do not think it ambiguous; it seems pretty hard to actually be a bigamist under this code without actually having married or being in the process of attempting to legally marry another wife.

 

[FollowingHim]

I get where you are coming from now, and you do have an argument there, but it all comes down to interpretation. If correct, your argument would mean the law did not actually make cohabitation with a second illegal in most cases, so the plain intent of the legislator was not actually achieved, and the law actually meant something quite different to what they apparently tried to say. That's a very hard sell, whether true or not. You'd want a very persuasive lawyer in my opinion, I'd hate to have just that between me and jail. Much safer to divorce the first...

 

[Oreslag]

I get where you are coming from now, and you do have an argument there, but it all comes down to interpretation. If correct, your argument would mean the law did not actually make cohabitation with a second illegal in most cases, so the plain intent of the legislator was not actually achieved, and the law actually meant something quite different to what they apparently tried to say. That's a very hard sell, whether true or not. You'd want a very persuasive lawyer in my opinion, I'd hate to have just that between me and jail. Much safer to divorce the first...

Yes, I most certainly agree; much safer not to be married at all in such a state. I'd venture to guess this would be true anywhere that 'marriage' is the jurisdiction of the state.

However, I think my point has still been missed (though perhaps not). In particular, the law *does not* make cohabiting with a second woman a criminal violation (i.e. bigamy) if you're married . This is my point...the words used in the code do not say this at all. Rather, the words say that you must be married, then cohabit with another under a specific circumstance whereby you (or you and she) intend to marry. I'm not assuming anything, this is exactly what the law you linked reads. To think it says otherwise is to misinterpret it.

Regarding what the legislators that enacted this law meant, I can only guess. However, if they intended to make cohabitation with another woman a criminal violation (i.e. bigamy), then they failed miserably in writing it this way.