Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Wedding Photos Result In Polygamy Arrest In Michigan
An anonymous reader writes "Police in Michigan have arrested 34-year-old Richard Leon Barton Jr. on charges of polygamy, thanks to incriminating wedding photos on Facebook. The man unfriended his first wife on the social network before marrying his second wife, but unsurprisingly that wasn't enough."
Blah blah FACEBOOK blah ARREST blah!
Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
So he unfriended his first wife, but are they still brother and sister?
... I thought polygamists got more than one.
It makes no sense to me that something like polygamy is an arrestable offense. Aside from the mediocre tax breaks you get from marriage, what are the benefits that you can glean from multiple marriages that would cause it to be inherently illegal?
Ok, why exactly is that a crime in the first place? Has that something to do with tax evasion or whatever or is that just moral code enforced by law?
They're talking about locking this guy up for four years because he didn't fill out some paperwork. Don't they have better things to do?
had to happen? we've much more important things to do than explode ourselves, & everybody else. otherwise, 'cranky', & 'just not themselves', may take on a whole new dimension for us?
And polygamy is illegal why, exactly? (assuming that all involved are ok with it)
Oh yes, because it's written in that holy book from an ancient goat-herders culture that we somehow think still applies to live in a world that is so radically different.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
war protesters? we are not at war? we have no (0) declared enemies (feel the love?)? they must be jailed. simple.
ALL MOMMYS....
I still think that it's rather funny that the country enforces a single marriage lifestyle. In reality, people should be allowed to do damn near whatever they want as long as it doesn't negatively affect the rights of others or the environment (too seriously).
To me, the 'single spouse' law would be like a 'single car' law, which pretty much wouldn't affect me at all but I could still laugh about and have debates about from time to time. On one hand, I'll never have two spouses/two cars. On the other hand, I feel that people SHOULD be able to have two spouses/two card.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
But I thought that unfriending was the same as a divorce.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
If yes, then why the hell is it a crime?
I call BS.
Bet neither Barton or his first wife was on Facebook in 2004 (after the wedding), making atleast part of the story untrue.
They don't really strike me as Ivy league types.
"In 2004, Barton reportedly married a Rhode Island woman, whom he’d met about a year earlier online. Not long after their wedding, Barton mysteriously removed his new bride from his Facebook account"
they're just floating by, why waste them, they say?
Contrary to some comments here, I am all about learning new FB horror stories. These stories provide me useful real-life evidence that I use when advising my friends (and my students) why they shouldn't ever post things that might get used against them. Think 10 times before hitting 'submit'.
My dad always said "divorce never... murder, quite likely" & he had just the one wife. I've been there before and have a great kid outta it but seriously, only a freakin sadist would want 2 or more. Hey, I'm not knocking it, & see no reason why anyone shouldn't have multiple wives, each to their own and all, it's just that I'm not yet prepared to be THAT miserable.
I can only echo the comments of others
"And polygamy is illegal why, exactly?"
> The man unfriended his first wife on the social network before marrying his second wife, but unsurprisingly that wasn't enough
Reminds me of an episode in The Office where Michael Scott screams "I declare bankruptcy"... The accountant had to tell him that it was not enough to just say it.
lucm, indeed.
Polygomy is illegal in all 50 states.
It's that simple.
Why is it illegal? Have no idea, but it comes down to government sticking their noses into people's lives.
Polygomy, Gay marriage, whatever ....
Remeber that Mormons the next time you fight against a same sex marriage bill. If you allowed it, you might have been able to leagalize your polygomy - short sighted bigoted morons.
There, I said it.
"Drop those wives, and come out with your hands up!"
So how does Michigan deal with religions that permit polygamy? Do they have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy? And yes, I would consider posting stuff on Facebook "telling."
Why not try this when making introductions to the new neighbors:
"This woman is my wife. This woman is my housekeeper. This woman is my cook, etc."
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
No, it's multiple mother-in-laws.
Rhode Island recognizes common law marriage. Assuming that it was a common law arriage, hasn't the accused a reasonable expectation to be divorced after unfriending his wife on Facebook, and generally stopping interacting with her?
are they terrorists? just what is their problem? fortunately, their right to remain silent has been maintained/enhanced?
Why cant you have several bitches? You can have several cars, several children, several houses.. What about freedom..
...whatever that means.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Monogamous relationships seem to be a basic part of stable human societies. Polygamous societies have, by definition, a shortage of suitable mates for young men; young men need to "prove" themselves to have a chance at a mate, which tends to involve violence, aggression, etc. That is oversimplified, but the pattern is clear to see: societies with widespread polygamy tend to be economic disasters with frequent civil wars.
With a broad brush: most of Africa is traditionally polygamous, and most of Africa is a mess. Most of the Middle East is polygamous, and is a mess. Asia is a mixed bag: those countries that are doing well economically are mostly or entirely monogamous (China, Japan, India, etc.); those doing poorly tend to be polygamous (e.g., Bangladesh).
Someone is going to say that correlation is not causation. That may be true, however the correlation alone is enough: if you want a reasonably peaceful, successful society, choose one that is monogamous. This is a non-religious reason for governments to regulate the marriage practices of the societies they govern.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
The question is why marriage should have any legal status at all.
It shouldn't. At least not marriage itself. It's the family that needs legal protection. Think of the children.
The only logical reason for regulated marriage is to create a stable environment for raising children. Otherwise it would be a civil contract like any other.
You can have a partner for whatever purposes you both agree to. You can start a business, a charity, a club, a scientific society, or you can just agree to live together. That's why I think this "gay marriage" thing is so stupid. Unless you intend to raise children it's just a contract like any other.
Until greed comes along. What gay partners want is not recognition, they are after the pensions and tax benefits that were created for families. It's one thing to give a tax break so you can pay for your kids education, it's a totally different thing to give a tax break so you can sustain a grown man who should be working for himself.
that's a damned good question. turns out, A LOT of us got sex-Ed from the clergy, relatives, other folks we tried to trust, butt it was NEVER discussed, so our anonymity was spared, thank god, etc...?
good thing for (most of) us, babys rule now. "upside down kingdumb". as it was written?
no, it's WAY old. way too old. newclear power, & better math are kicking in everywhere. see you there? babys rule. that's an absolute.
"Oh yes, because it's written in that holy book from an ancient goat-herders culture that we somehow think still applies to live in a world that is so radically different."
Understandable knee-jerk, but all lifetime of biblical study finds all kinds of condemnation of homosexuality, all kinds of condemnation of adultery, all kinds of condemnation of fornication, but the only scrap of anti-polygamy I can find in the bible is one line in Timothy where it is recommended that an ideal church leader "should only have one wife".
If our laws really were based on judeo-christian morals, we would have more support for polygamy than for homosexuals; the opposite is the case.
It strikes me that the ultimate question that underlies all these "issues" surrounding things like marriage is this: is there such a thing as moral behavior or not?
Most people debate the follow-on instead: "given the assumption that there is such a thing as moral versus immoral behavior, should the government regulate that behavior?"
I would argue that people behave as if that there is indeed some kind of inherent moral code, although there is much debate over what is immoral and what is immoral. Even relativists which claim "do whatever you feel is right" or "do whatever makes you happy" don't actually live this way; they always try to put caveats on things "do whatever you want, except that which infringes upon other's rights." That latter statement always interests me, because what it says is that the core value is upholding others' rights. (I'm not going to go into the fact that this is a logical pitfall, because you're left with figuring out what a "right" is, and if you say some things are inherent rights then you are claiming an absolute; this is not really relativism.)
So ultimately I'd believe that pretty much every person believes that there is some moral absolute. Given that everyone behaves this way (if they didn't, then nobody would complain about "fairness" all the time - for something to be "fair" you have to be comparing to some absolute), it makes sense that the government should have as one of its responsibilities upholding those morals. After all, we have no problem allowing the government to monitor theft or violence, which ultimately are indeed moral issues. So if the government is accepted and expected to regulate those moral facets, why are people upset about it regulating other moral behaviors, such as what constitutes marriage, or abortion, or what video games you can sell to a person of some arbitrary age?
An honest debate on this subject must address the core issue, rather than get caught up in the particular headline issue like polygamy or homosexual marriage. Until society quits dallying around and actually addresses this core issue, it will have problems. Even worse, I'd say that society has gone the other way, trying to act like there is no such thing as a moral absolute, and it shows: people do whatever they want and are somehow succeeding at removing all enforced consequences for their actions. Society cannot be sustained on this worldview: we already see this with the worldwide rise of the plutocracy, the refusal of leaders to change their ways, the desire of people to force others through law to pay for their desires, and the like.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Oh, dear foreigner, how quaint; you assume that in the United States are laws are reasonably applied and rationally carried out. I am afraid to break it to you, but our justice system does neither of these. The laws that forbid polygamy don't have any such thing as tax structure as their logical basis. If anything, the basis outlawing such things is religious and perhaps even biological (if somewhat gray-area between bonobos and gorillas).
Once you are charged with a crime, you are guilty of that crime automatically (unless you are wealthy, a celebrity, an attractive blond woman, etc.). The law will be applied in whatever sense will result in such an outcome. You are then sent to Crime School, a hundred-thousand dollar-a-year tax-player-funded peer-learning teaching system where we as a society teach you how to terrorize and brutalize your neighbors, so when released you are likely to commit more crimes and keep our large class of lawyers and government workers dutifully employed.
If we really didn't like crime of course we would of course do the exact opposite of what we do. That is, we would put a criminal with a large amount of non-criminals in a healthy environment, and he would over time mirror their ethical actions.
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
Why is polygamy illegal?
Lawyers haven't found a way to exploit it yet.
See, if 2 people get a divorce, then there's half of everything, and that's a big chunk for the lawyer to work with.
But, if 3 people get a divorce, that's only a 3rd of everything per lawyer.
This continues ad nasuem: if you have a rockstar with 100 wives, that's only 1% of his wealth sniped by a gold digger. What kind of tabloid headline would that make? "Golddigger wants divorce, wins 1% of Brad Pitt's fortune!"
So you see, preposterous. If it bucks the trend of lawyers taking all the money, it ain't gonna happen.
You can get 15 minutes of fame, but you can go down in history for infamy.
The ZDNet story is quite different from the linked MLive story. http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/03/alleged_grand_rapids_polygamis_1.html is a followup story with more details. ZDNet has the timeline and details all messed up.
P.S. The wedding was in Muskegon County, the same place as the Musician Jailed Over Prank YouTube Video story.
If you read the linked MLive "source" story and its followup, all the Facebook stuff happened early- to mid-2010. The estranged first wife got back in touch with the man (to let him know that their 6 year old son had autism) via Facebook about a year ago. He unfriended her a few weeks later, which they describe as a few months before the second wedding (which was in July 2010).
who would have thought he would get caught at all the precautions he took :D
Given that neither wife knew about the other, this is definitely not polygamy. Polygamy is defined as "a marriage which includes more than two partners", and as the "partners" were in separate, distinct, relationships, this does not count.
What we have here is a clear-cut case of Bigamy on the man's part. Nothing unusual about that, as there have been many cases over the years.
Why, it would be big of you, too!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
There was an old fellow of Lyme
Who lived with three wives at one time.
When asked, 'Why the third?'
He replied, 'One's absurd,
and bigamy, sir, is a crime.'
-- William Cosmo Monkhouse
Have gnu, will travel.
The state/society/culture has an imperative to perpetuate itself by ensuring the creation of the next generation of human beings. As such, the only accepted social institution for the creation of children is marriage. Marriage is not about love, or social benefits, or curing loneliness. It's about procreation. This is why we have such a stigma about unwed mothers or dead beat dads, or divorce in U.S. society. These actions interfere with the proper raising of children, thus they are traditionally discouraged by social pressure and if necessary by law.
Religion's role like the state/society/culture is also easy to understand. The point of a religious movement is to perpetuate itself. Any behavior which threatens the perpetuation of the religion is condemned as heretical/blasphemy/sinful. Folks use religion as an excuse to condemn same sex marriages because it does not result in their minds in the creation of children who will follow the true faith and thus cannot be tolerated. What makes the intolerance fascinating from a sociological point of view is which religious movements tolerate homosexuals and which do not, in some cases, violently so.
However in the last 60 years or so, as a consequence of a strong belief in the individual and not the family as the basic core unit of U.S. society, the number of restrictions against divorce have been weakened and the stigma of an out of wedlock birth is not what it used to be. Also, tolerance of same sex marriages has increased in some parts of the U.S.
Is this helpful?
IANAL, but I think it's clear: defriending someone on Facebook does not count as a divorce or annulment.
Unless you're Krieger.
MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.
Google is your friend.
Layman's terms: Knowingly using a falsified/forged document.
... That's bigamy.
In the U.K., muslims claim benefits for multiple wives.
Immigrants `not working` figures by country of origin
Institute for Public Policy Research 2007
Somalia 81% (muslims)
Turkey 59% (muslims - EU membership endorsed by Labour)
Bangladesh 56% (muslims)
Pakistan 55% (muslims)
Iran 48% (muslims)
Cyprus 32% (EU)
Jamaica 31%
China 31%
Portugal 30% (EU)
India 29%
Poland 15% (EU)
Austrailia 11%
Council/social housing taken by immigrants
Somalia 80%
Turkey 49%
Bangladesh 41%
Portugal 40%
Jamaica 35%
Iran 33%
Zimbabwe 20%
Cyprus 16%
Pakistan 15%
China 9%
Poland 8%
Australia 5%
So why would we want millions of these people in our countries?
White people have the right to have their own countries.
That'll minimize the MIL problem.
I can understand why the government wouldn't want to recognize polygamist marriages. But why do they go and arrest people because they have a party and decide to call themselves husband and wife?
I love these articles, it reminds me that the best reason for using Facebook is the impending arrest.
Seriously, we did away with most of the sodomy laws.
Why should the government be involved? And arrest over such an offense...
Granted, if the polygamy was non-consenting among all parties. Than sure, take it to court. Get a divorce. Sue for wrong doing and assets. But I find it so odd in a culture that constantly harps on our need to remove the laws preventing gay marriage, that we still cling to anti-polygamy laws.
Seriously, one could even argue that such rights infringe individuals religious belief as both Muslim and Mormon religions support polygamy. And in certain situations it can even be necessary for the survival of a species.
The real problem is that .gov should be out of the marriage. You shouldn't need a license from government to marry. It should be between you and whoever according to your beliefs and mores. And respected merely by those who share similar views.