[dontjudgeme2]

So, before reading this I want to make it clear that I am NOT looking for any sort of judgement here just merely an answer to a question with a reference if you can cite it. I am a bisexual female, I have a husband. I also at the present time have a long term girlfriend. In instances of marriage is it considered unlawful to marry her if we wanted to do such? The legal term for bigamy is having two husbands or two wives at the same time, but this situation doesn't quite fit the category although I guess if you generalize it then it could.

[JudyKayTee]

Where? In general you cannot be legally married to 2 people, any mix of sexes. You cannot get a second marriage license if there is a valid marriage on record.

Impossible to cite reference without knowing where.

You come across as somewhat confrontational - why? I have gay and lesbian relatives. If anyone does judge you that post most likely will be removed.

[Fr_Chuck]

1. In most areas same sex can not marry to start with.
2. You state or location will be needed for exact law but?
Normally it states you can not marry a second time, it may go on the explain this in terms of two husbands or wife's, since that is the moral marriage that was in place for years.

If your state ( if in the US) says to husband or wife, you can marry and try to challenge the law, that is how they get changed, or apply for a marriage license and be denied. Then you sue, That is how new law ( case law) is made.

[dontjudgeme2]

Because there are some that would add their opinion and what they think. However I am referring to California. Thank you FrChuck, your answer was most helpful, this is sort of what I was thinking but was not entirely sure, I have read different legal definitions of what bigamy is considered and there is always reference to two husbands and two wives. But again there was probably no such thought of something like same sex marriage at the time. Leave room for dispute most certainly.

[ScottGem]

First, you do NOT dictate who can answer a question here or how. This site has rules and if someone violates those rules you can report the post and it will be checked and appropriate action taken.

Because there are some that would add their personal opinion and what they think.

When you choose to post on a site like this, you risk people making comments on what you post.

Second, the definition of bigamy is here:
BIGAMY, crim. Law, domestic relations. The willful contracting of a second marriage when the contracting party knows that the first is still subsisting; (bigamy legal definition of bigamy. bigamy synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.) Notice it says nothing about gender, but refers to a marriage.

Another from a CA attorney site:
Bigamy
Bigamy is considered a sex crime in California and takes place when a married individual marries another.
(http://www.nocuffs.com/sex_cases/charges/Bigamy.php)

So the answer to your question is yes, it would be illegal to marry her until and unless your marriage to your husband is legally ended. This, of course, assumes that you would be able to legally marry her in your area. I see no room for dispute.

Finally, I don't know what you don't want to be judged on, that you are bi-sexual? I have no problem with that. That you want to marry your girlfriend? I have no problem with that either.

But I do have a problem with you cheating on your husband. Unless he is aware of the relationship and in agreement, then you are going back on your marriage vows. You made those vows and while I can understand that your feelings have changes, then you end your marriage and then take up with another person.

[dontjudgeme2]

* rolls eyes* that is the exact kind of stupidity I was trying to avoid. Yes he is very well aware of my relationship with her as she is of my marriage with him. And while its great that you found a legal definition that does not refer to sex, this one does.

bigamy legal definition of bigamy. bigamy synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

[ScottGem]

Stupidity? First, I did qualify my comments stating "Unless he is aware of the relationship and in agreement". Second, since when is expecting someone to honor their marriage vows "stupid"?

Now, if we want to talk stupidity, how about someone posting the SAME link I gave them and claiming that counters my answer. There is nothing in that link that could be construed as making it legal for a person to have two standing marriages just because one is a same sex marriage. And how about someone, who posts on a site where members clearly do more that just answer questions, but often offer their opinions in addition and expect people to not do that. Or someone who would even think they could get away with bigamy over language that is anachronisitic.

You should have quit while you're behind. But I do congratulate you on having sexual partners liberal enough to not object to the other because they are different sexes. However, while CA is very liberal, they are not that liberal as to permit bigamy or polygamy.

[Fr_Chuck]

It is not the dictionary meaning of pural marriage, many states wrote them in response to the Mormon issue, and others just from religious moral values.

But it is what the California law says, the exact wording of their law.


If I got the right state to pop up, it is not very loving for you,

as it just states Every person ( does not say man or women) who having a husband or wife, so it allows for a person to have either. So it has been re-written since the gay marriage, or it was looking in advance in case.

281. (a) Every person having a husband or wife living, who marries
any other person, except in the cases specified in Section 282, is
guilty of bigamy.
(b) Upon a trial for bigamy, it is not necessary to prove either
of the marriages by the register, certificate, or other record
evidence thereof, but the marriages may be proved by evidence which
is admissible to prove a marriage in other cases; and when the second
marriage took place out of this state, proof of that fact,
accompanied with proof of cohabitation thereafter in this state, is
sufficient to sustain the charge.



282. Section 281 does not extend to any of the following:
(a) To any person by reason of any former marriage whose husband
or wife by such marriage has been absent for five successive years
without being known to such person within that time to be living.
(b) To any person by reason of any former marriage which has been
pronounced void, annulled, or dissolved by the judgment of a
competent court.



283. Bigamy is punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand
dollars ($10,000) or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding
one year or in the state prison.

[dontjudgeme2]

Well seems as though that would answer it, I might be interested in talking to an attorney just in case, I see a lot of gray areas in the interpretation of the laws in various states, and quite realistically we may not stay in California so. In any event, it is worth some looking into for me so I may further check it out.

[Fr_Chuck]

And of course you may find a civil rights attorney, who will allow you to apply for a license, be denied and then sue.

And the funny thing I find, the largest person against multiple marriage ( not gay) is the religious and esp the Christian groups. But the funny thing, there is nothing against pural marriage in the bible, ( except for people who want to be a religious leader but not for regular people) In fact many people in the bible, even major leaders have multiple wives.

[ScottGem]

Well seems as though that would answer it, I might be interested in talking to an attorney just in case, I see a lot of gray areas in the interpretation of the laws in various states, and quite realistically we may not stay in California so. In any event, it is worth some looking into for me so I may further check it out.

Nowhere in the US would you be allowed to legally marry until you legally dissolve your marriage to your husband. The "gray areas" are only wishful thinking on your part.

Please feel free to consult an attorney who will tell you the same thing.

[dontjudgeme2]

I hadn't thought of that, but I like the idea and very well may seek out a civil rights attorney. And yes you are right about the whole bible thing. No where in there does it say that you cannot have multiple spouses.

[ScottGem]

And of course you may find a civil rights attorney, who will allow you to apply for a license, be denied and then sue.
.

I hadn't thought of that, but I like the idea and very well may seek out a civil rights attorney.

I'd like to be a fly on that wall when you are laughed out the office.

The Mormons tried to use that argument for polygamy and you see how that worked (see Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. (8 Otto.) 145 (1878)). I doubt if even a Mormon lawyer would touch this. And I think the gay and lesbian groups would be dead set against it because it makes them look bad.

Yes, the Bible does not prohibit polygamy and in fact, many biblical figures were polygamists. But we are not living in biblical times. It is banned everywhere in the US. Sect. 5352 of the Revised Statutes (precursor to the US Civil Code), which stated:
'Every person having a husband or wife living, who marries another, whether married or single, in a Territory, or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, is guilty of bigamy, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500, and by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.'

You have a husband living, therefore it is illegal for you to marry again until the first marriage is dissolved. Since the Supreme Court has already ruled on the constitutionality of the law, I can't see any lower court challenging it. Especially not with a situation like this.

Apparently, you have found 2 people willing to share you. If all three of you are happy with this arrangement then who am I to object. My only objection was if you were secretly involved with another person while married. But if you think you will be able to legalize your second relationship in addition to your first one, you are sadly mistaken. What's worse is that, by pursuing this, you will hold up yourself and your partners to public ridicule and abuse.

[dontjudgeme2]

Wait I'm sorry why do you continue to try to argue your point? Clearly I will do as I wish

[dontjudgeme2]

I am going to put the effort into it, because it means something to me, at one point in time same sex marriage was not even a thought of being legal but it now is, once upon a time women and races of color didn't have rights but now do, laws get overturned that is why people fight for civil rights. To bring about change. So whatever opinion you have it's noted. You are now beating a dead horse at this point, I've heard what you have to say and really don't care, both parties know. And while it may not ever become legal at least I gave it a look.

[Fr_Chuck]

Laugh as much as you want, but pural marriage is legal in some nations and was long before gay unions or relationships were.

If you had asked anyone ( OK 99 percent) in 1950 or 1960 in the US is gays would marry and you would have been laughed at or even harmed for even suggesting such a evil satan filled question. If the case before the Federal Courts where most gay rights came from had been heard in 1960 they would not have even been heard, If Gay right people had tried to compare their discrimination to that of Blacks in 1960 or 1970 they would have had a outlash of abuse from the Black community.

To many in the "right wing" pural marriage of various kinds is what they see as the next step once gay rights are fully established, will it happen this year, most likely not, this decade, I personally doubt it,

But will it happen I am fully sure it will as personal desires and personal desires are given the same status as human rights. How soon will it be that we hear (and don't we already on here) but I love both men or I am in love with both women, I am having sex with him but he is married.

So is not pural relationships already happening. It is just not legal to make them or give them any legal content. What about the soon to hear I am sure, It is my mental make up to love more than one person at a time.


Yes the Mormons lost the case, but they got their case heard, back then gays would not have even got the case heard most likely.

Soon you will be considered non progressive or worst a bigot if you don't accept plural marriage, just like people today are considered bigots or homophobic if they talk against gay marriage.

So perhaps we can coin a new phrase, pluralphobic where someone is afraid of people wanting plural marriage

And to be honest if I was a civil rights attorney, I would jump on this type of case, I would expect to lose this time around, but do you know the press I could get from this most likely


*** and before of course I am rose to greatness as a defender of gay or plural marriage I am morally against both, but this is in the legal section and addressing it from a legal standpoint where I see it going

[AK lawyer]

... And yes you are right about the whole bible thing. No where in there does it say that you cannot have multiple spouses.

Actually, it does, with respect to church leaders. And Fr_Chuck correctly referred to that. But the Bilble doesn't have an example of a homosexual marriage either (or, for example, a marriage between a man and a duck or a tomato); probably because the concepts didn't even occur to anybody back then.

[ScottGem]

wait im sorry why do you continue to try to argue your point? clearly i will do as i wish

Argue what point? There is no argument. The law is clear and while I respect Chuck's point that someday this may fall, I don't see that happening any time soon.

I cannot see the Supreme Court even hearing this case even if you were able to get it that far. There is no public support, no change in american values that would support it.

As for your continued attempts to disparage me, they will not be tolerated. I've given you specific cites to support my point. If you want to waste your time and money pursuing this (in the unlikely event that you could find a lawyer to help), feel free to do so. But I would make sure your partners support your quixotic campaign, because it will greatly affect them as well.

[dontjudgeme2]

You know I had that conversation once about the bible and homosexuality and how it didn't even exist at the time. Needless to say it was quite enlightening, and thank you for the insight.