Talk:Polygamy in North America

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scope of article[edit]

A significant proportion of the history of polygamy in the US is that of the Mormon movement. One cannot ignore that history, even if it renders the article "one sided" or imbalanced. The main discourse to date has involved their philosophy. By all means expand it to make reference to other, non-LDS groups. That is why I'm reverting the historical deletion.

Do you have any refernces that polygamy in the US started with Mormons? I have never read that, it may be there, but you will need to demonstrate it by providing it. Also, there is no need to repeat the development of polygamy within Mormonism since that would just be a regurgitation of another article. Does this make sense to you? Also, when you edit on the discussion page, sign by typing four ~. --Storm Rider (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polygamists outside Latter Day Saint movement[edit]

Please note that some polygamous groups in the United States are not, and have never been, affiliated with the Latter Day Saint movement. See the relatively modern Christian polygamy movment [3]. Their practice and legal experiences should be reflected here as well.

As for the name usage in this article, please see the LDS project here for proper use of names and historical references to the Church's identity. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints) WBardwin (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article, given its title, should be much broader than the groups affiliated with the FLDS or from LDS history. That article has already been written and this should not be a redundant article. I deleted a great deal of material because it overbalanced the article with too much focus on the early LDS Church. Focus on the title and expand on it.
Being a genealogist I am aware that after the Civil War it was common to see a man with more than one wife in the south. However, I don't see this covered often. It would be interesting to see if this has been studied to support that with references.
Also, I do not believe that polygamy was started by Mormons. That practice has been around since man began to live in communities. I think you will find that Mormons did not start the practice in the US.
I would be curious to find out how many Muslims practice polygamy in the US today; does anyone have any facts in this regard? Several religions teach polygamy today and they should all be covered if it is practiced in the US. --Storm Rider (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's also House of Yaweh. — Val42 (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim visitors and immigrants[edit]

What is the legal status in the U.S. of Muslim visitors or immigrants who have become parties to a polygamous marriage in a country where this is widely accepted, or Americans holding dual citizenship who have entered into such marriages abroad? Wnt (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are alluding to a difficult situation; finding reputable references for these topics. I would think that we could find some expert that has looked at this issue, but we need to begin looking for references for much of what this article should say. --Storm Rider (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried looking this up on the Web once.... that's why I asked here. ;) Wnt (talk) 05:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Muslims who are willing to openly state that they are in polygamous marriage(s) are denied entry into the US as permanent immigrants. As to other status categories, I don't know about work visas or education visas. However, I believe polygamous Muslims, and those in traditional cultures that have polygyny, can enter the US on a visitor's visa. I would think that US sites on immigration and visas could have some information. WBardwin (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few references below that describe polygamist Muslims in the U.S. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several (15?) years ago, I watched an interview of a federal immigration bureaucrat on CBC television here in Canada in which he acknowledged that Canada does admit polygamous Muslim families. The government wants immigrants of means with wealth to invest. Commonly, it is the wealthier Muslims who keep more than one spouse, not the poor ones. So at some point they began to allow that polygamous unions contracted before immigration would be recognised and allowed to stand. I myself have seen large families of Muslims (man, two women, 6 to 8 kids) moving through shopping malls and other public spaces. No one harrasses them, but they are noticeable. 70.51.89.9 (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information for possible inclusion[edit]

  1. Federal judge strikes down Utah anti-polygamy law: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/12/16/sister-wives-defeat-polygamy-law-in-federal-court — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.208.217 (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was searching for information on polygamy in the United States today and ran across a few interesting articles:

  1. USA Today address the legal contradictions of polygamy in the US today
  2. Religion today offers a number of books as references; unfortunately they all focus on Mormonism and do not appear to address the practice of non-Mormons.
  3. Slate discussed polygyny among Muslims in the United States and why they are comfortable not striving to legalize polygyny in the United States.
  4. A blog, not a reputable source, discusses polygamy among Muslims in the US. In skimming it seems like the blog refers to other sources for the story.
  5. There is a group of Christians that practice polygamy and its legality within Christianity.
  6. Here is an informal list of polygamist sects in the U.S.
  7. Here is another article on U.S. Muslims practicing polygamy.
  8. Islamic teaching of polygamy.

These are some quick references that we should review and determine what could/should be added to the article. I know there is more, but this seems like a good stepping stone. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are interesting tidbits, but fall short of a full explanation. From one of the blogs I took the word nikah, which leads me to Wikipedia's information on the Islamic Marriage Contract and a good reference.[4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wnt (talk • contribs) 15:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major restructuring proposal[edit]

A major restructuring proposal for all polygamy articles related to Mormonism has been made at Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy#Series and Restructuring proposal. Please visit and give your two cents. --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be renamed[edit]

The title of this article is inappropriate, since the article covers Canada and Mexico as well. It needs to be renamed, probably to Polygamy in North America. I have to say I am somewhat peeved for another reason: I wrote some of the bits about the legal situation in B.C., for another article, but now those sections are in this article and yet my name is not in the edit history. --Mathew5000 (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was this edit by Ewawer on May 5, 2008, that incorporated my work (and that of many others) with no attribution. --Mathew5000 (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you so worried about having your name in the edit history? Is not Wikipedia a collaborative effort? By definition, the article is owned by the community as a whole. Maybe I just don't get it...--Descartes1979 (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a collaborative work and everyone is entitled to attribution. --Mathew5000 (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the "culprit" for the transfer of the material, I would like to say that it was also my understanding that once material is incorporated it does not "belong" to anyone. As it has been written, imitation is the best form of flattery. It was copies because it had relevance.Ewawer (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have not claimed that my contributions belong to me. Just that I have the right to attribution under GFDL. --Mathew5000 (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I posted about this matter[5] at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. --Mathew5000 (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Information hosted at Wikipedia actually belongs to the contributors, who license it for re-use under certain conditions, including the retention of authorship credit (this is all part of the GNU free documentation license). Wikipedia is bound by the same restrictions other sites and publications have in reusing its own content, which is we must provide a direct link to the source. Material can be duplicated using a process similar to that set out at WP:SPLIT: "To conform with §4(I) of the GFDL, the new page should be created with an edit summary noting "split content from article name". (Do not omit this step or omit the page name.) A note should also be made in the edit summary of the source article, "split content to article name", to protect against the article subsequently being deleted and the history of the new page eradicated." The fact that material was incorporated into this article from another needs to be noted in the edit summaries of both pages. In this case, it would probably be more appropriate to utilize text like "duplicated content from [[article name]]" and "duplicated content to Polygamy in the United States. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mathew5000, I've had a brief glance at your history, but it's extensive. If you can tell me which article was the source of this information, I'll follow through on repairing the GFDL issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←Never mind. I found it. I've indicated in the edit summaries of both articles that the split took place, with wikilinks, and made a note at the talk page of the source article. It seems to me that Ewawer intended to be upfront with his (or her) actions, as edit summaries (and here) make clear. There's a just specific steps to follow. :) Ewawer, if you have split content to other articles, please make notes in the edit summaries of those, too, so that we can make sure we're up with GFDL. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for sorting this out, Moonriddengirl. --Mathew5000 (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any objections to renaming this article from Polygamy in the United States to Polygamy in North America? --Mathew5000 (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At times changing article titles are contentious actions; however, in this instance I did not see any need to delay your action. Being bold, I changed the title. Cheers.--Storm Rider (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polygamy defined and US Laws[edit]

This section "Polygamy defined" currently has some problems. Here is how it is currently written:

Polygamy is defined as the practice or condition of knowingly having more than one spouse, especially wives, at the same time. It is now illegal in all 50 states, as defined by the Model Penal Code section 230.1, which states that a person is guilty of the third-degree felony of polygamy if he or she marries or cohabits with more than one spouse at a time in purported exercise of the right of plural marriage. The crime is punishable either by a fine, imprisonment, or both, according to the law of the individual state and the circumstances of the offense[3].

Problems:

  1. Since it it is talking about crimes it should mention that in many jurisdictions one is guilty of bigamy even if you marry a second person while reasonably (but wrongly) believing that you're no longer married to your previous spouse. Such as reasonably believing you are divorced from your last spouse or that s/he is dead -- but if you're wrong and you married a new person you could be found guilty of bigamy.)
  2. It's not true that all 50 states have adopted the exact language of the Model Penal Code. In very few state is it illegal to cohabit.

I'm going to change it to something like:

Polygamy is defined as the practice or condition of having more than one spouse at the same time.

And add a new section: Polygamy and bigamy laws in the US:

Bigamy is the act or condition of a person marrying another person while still being lawfully married to a second person. Being legally married to more than one person is now illegal in all states and territories of the US. The crime is punishable either by a fine, imprisonment, or both, according to the law of the individual state and the circumstances of the offense.[1].

Interestingly, the Model Penal Code section 230.1 defines bigamy as a misdemeanor and and polygamy as a felony. It gets bumped to a felony if it is done "in purported exercise of a plural marriage..." According to Joel Feinberg in Moral Limits of the Criminal Law: "Righteously, flaunting ones illicit relationships, according to the Code, is apparently a morally aggravating circumstance, more punishable than its clandestine and deceptive counterpart."[2]

The Model Penal Code allows people to use an honest and reasonable but mistaken belief that they are only married to one person as a defense against a charge of bigamy. But many US courts (e.g., Turner v. S., 212 Miss. 590, 55 So.2d 228) treat bigamy as a strict liability crime. Meaning that in some jurisdictions you can be convicted of a felony even if you reasonably (but wrongly) believe that you are only married to only one person. For example, if a person has the mistaken belief that their previous spouse is dead or that their divorce is final -- many courts won't allow a reasonable mistaken belief as a defense against a charge of bigamy.[3]

Hoping To Help (talk) 08:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Here is the Model penal code referring to bigamy and polygamy: MPC 230.1 Bigamy and Polygamy

Bigamy. A married person is guilty of bigamy, a misdemeanor, if he contracts or purports to contract another marriage, unless at the time of the subsequent marriage:

The actor believes that the prior spouse is dead; or The actor and the prior spouse have been living apart for five consecutive years throughout which the prior spouse was not known by the actor to be alive; or A Court has entered a judgment purporting to terminate or annul any prior disqualifying marriage, and the actor does not know the judgment to be invalid; or The actor reasonably believes that he is legally eligible to remarry

Polygamy. A person is guilty of polygamy, a felony in the third degree, if he marries or cohabits with more than one spouse at a time in purported exercise of the right of plural marriage. The offense is a continuing one until all cohabitation and claim of marriage with more than one spouse terminates. This section does not apply to parties of a polygamous marriage, lawful in the country of which they are residents or nationals, while they are in transit through or temporarily visiting this State. Other Party to Bigamous or Polygamous Marriage. A person is guilty of bigamy or polygamy, the case may be, if he contracts or purports to contract marriage with another knowing that the other is thereby committing bigamy or polygamy. [4]

Hoping To Help (talk) 08:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [[1]]West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Eds. Jeffrey Lehman and Shirelle Phelps. Vol. 8. 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2005. 26-28. 13 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Thomson Gale. Brigham Young University - Utah. 11 Dec. 2007
  2. ^ Feinberg, Joel (1986), Harm to Self (Moral Limits of the Criminal Law, Vol 3), Oxford University Press, USA, ISBN 978-0195059236
  3. ^ Loewy, Arnold H. (1975), Criminal Law in a nutshell 2nd Ed, West Publishing Co., p. 131
  4. ^ [[2]]

Mormon polygamy[edit]

It is inaccurate to imply that the Mormon Church abandoned polygamy in 1890. Many, perhaps most, Mormons continued to believed that polygamy was a fundamental doctrine but was temporarily abandoned in the United States. Hundreds of polygamous marriages were performed in Mexico and Canada, and many polygamous marriages continued to be performed in the U.S. with the full knowledge and approval of the Presidency of the church, not withstanding public denials and perjured testimony of church officers. Veritas1932d08 (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem lies in the absence of reliable, verifiable sources. :( Binksternet (talk) 02:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about native cultures?[edit]

Two sentences is far too little about dozens of cultures with thousands of years of history. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Polygamy in North America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Polygamy in North America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has the Edmunds act been repealed?[edit]

The article had claimed that the Edmunds act was repealed in 1983, and thus that there were no US laws against polygamy at the federal level. I have found no evidence of the repeal of the Edmunds act. Is it possible that the repeal of the Edmunds-Tucker act in 1978 was misinterpreted by the editor that added that text to this article? If not, could someone find a source for the repeal of the Edmunds act? Also, I think Gregory Brower's testimony in the source cited for there being no federal laws against polygamy mas misunderstood. By my reading (and not finding any evidence for repeal of the Edmunds act), I think he was just saying that the existence of state laws in all 50 states makes polygamy prosecution a non-issue at the federal level--not that there are no federal laws at all. I've made changes accordingly. And if someone can show that I'm wrong, more power to you. Jbening (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lots missing here[edit]

This article seems to focus 99% on the Mormons and their Polygamy in the US, while only covering small parts of their practise in Canada and like one mention about Mexico. There is almost nothing about Tribal Nations or Muslim practises here either.★Trekker (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of coverage of polygamy on Tribal land, https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=twlj https://books.google.se/books?id=gVTODwAAQBAJ&pg=PT546&dq=indian+tribal+polygamy+united+states+law&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjp64GRv53sAhVypYsKHdk7DC4Q6AEwAHoECAYQAg#v=onepage&q=indian%20tribal%20polygamy%20united%20states%20law&f=false https://books.google.se/books?id=wNPP3FxP2KEC&q=indian+tribal+polygamy+united+states+law&dq=indian+tribal+polygamy+united+states+law&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjp64GRv53sAhVypYsKHdk7DC4Q6AEwBHoECAMQAg .★Trekker (talk) 13:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding to the Mexico section, focusing on polygamy previous to Spanish colonization, how Spanish colonization changed the practice of polygamy in Mexico and how Mormonism made its way to Mexico/the implications that had on polygamy. Isabellavrj (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Honors World Religions[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Isabellavrj (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Sfgadsden.

— Assignment last updated by Jad Mada (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy_in_North_America&oldid=1209808538"