Yes I am actually saying what the language of the contract would be. A marriage. Do you not know what that means?
The idea was that since he was already legally married to one woman but was also living with and claiming a second and a third woman as his wives, the state would first use common law marriage to establish the legal marital status with the 2nd and 3rd wives, and then charge him with bigamy, even though they had never sought to obtain that legal status themselves. The family actually took the issue to court. Initially they won with the lower courts ruling that the state could not impose that status on someone who already possessed the legal status and didn't purposefully seek any subsequent ones, especially not for the purposes of then charging them with crimes thereafter. A higher court over turned the case, not because the lower courts were incorrect about the ruling per se, but because the case should never have come to court in the first place. The state never actually charged the family, so they had no right to challenge those laws in court. They were supposed to use the legislature unless and until they actually we're charged.
The wink was a clue that I was commenting tounge in cheek. In D&D deities have various spheres they influence. War, Healing, Animal, Fire, Destruction, etc. Depending on the version, they are also called Domains. So if a deity was one who included the Law Domain, then it might well be interested in everything being done legally. Again, it was an attempt at humor, as per the wink, but obviously fell short. Besides, who are we to truely know why a given deity does what they do.
Wow! Way to play pot and kettle. That's no different than when you asked for the benefits and he just said all the legal benefits.
No the contact would be a marraige. I'm not going to recite to you what a marriage is if you don't know you shouldn't be in this discussion.
So you don't know what a marriage is either? As far as the language of the contract that would be between the people entering it. If you want boilerplate I'm sorry.
Marriage is the joining of two or more things or people. Beyond that, one needs context to be more specific. As to contract language, noting that each one can vary depending upon what is agreed upon is a hell of a lot more informative that what you put out before.
For the second time, if you want boilerplate, I can't help you. Nobody asked me about the contract document. I just figured that was what you were getting at. It's a stupid question anyway because contracts are designed by the contractors and contractees. That's like asking me what is in a sales contract. It depends on what you are selling, who you are selling it to and what the agreed upon price is. If you want to know what should be in a contract, talk to a lawyer.
No. The members of the contact would decide on terms. Are you seriously asking me this, have you never contacted someone before?
That's all marriage is now but you have to ask the government for permission. If not explain how it's different.
I agree that that's all marriage is now, the difference being government involvement, but I don't understand this 'permission' thing. When would the government NOT permit two people to marry?
Right, so then the only people who are charged with bigamy are those who are already married, but have at least one common law marriage. It seems that anyone who wants to live with multiple partners while avoiding being charged with bigamy, should make sure that any additional partners never use the address that they reside for anything so that the state can't know where they reside. Otherwise they have to expect that the state will find out.
Consanguineous relationship within a certain degree or a similar legal relationship even if there is no blood tie. And again, this is the legal marriage only. They can't stop any other type.
No not the only people. There are those who go and get two or more different marriage license from as many states who are charged with bigamy if found out. This was an example of how a state could use common law marriage to impose an illegal conditions on someone who only ever sought and held one license. And they could do so if there is a poly family with no license as well. The courts found, and it is highly likely to be upheld if a state ever actually tries it, that the state can't impose the legal status or the express purpose of causing another to be in violation of another law. As for avoiding even the chance, live in a state without common law marriage, such as I and my 3 spouses do. I think someone already mentioned that only 18 states still have such on the books.
To my knowledge, no state has actually used common law marriage to allow them to make a bigamy charge. However, there was talk in Utah about doing it which is what prompted the family to take the case to court, before they could be charged. It made the news. I'm pretty sure that Utah won't bother now, given how their courts see it. You don't have to be Mormon to be poly. It's not uncommon among the pagans, and is rising even among Christians. The poly community is a lot larger than you probably realize, and in more forms than you probably expect.