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?
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"
Perjury probably. One of the things you're asked to swear to when you get married is that you're not married to anyone else.
And monogamy has a long history outside of Judeo-Christian writings. In general, societies enforced monogamy because otherwise men would marry a whole bunch of women, have a whole bunch of kids with them, be unable to support them, kick the mothers out, and carry on with the younger girls. You could argue that with mandated child support, and women in the workforce we've outgrown the need for that, but ask any single parent and they'll tell you it's much harder solo.
You really should actually investigate things instead of just dumping everything on the scapegoat of the moment.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
And polygamy is illegal why, exactly? (assuming that all involved are ok with it)
.
And why is the state even involved in regulating marriage?
Set your phasers on "funky"!
> In general, societies enforced monogamy because otherwise men would marry a whole bunch of women
and leave back an army of unmarried angry young man. As to my knowledge the ban of polygamy was primarily to prevent a few wealthy old men marrying dozens of young women off the market and leaving hordes of young men without a way to reproduce, leading to explosive social unrest. The Bible had nothing to do with it, the Old Testament, on which the model of the Mormon practices and scriptures was based, was highly polygamous itself.
Because if 25% of the men had 4 wives 75% would have none.
Think of the social unrest if only the rich and powerful had wives.
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'.
> 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.
Perjury probably. One of the things you're asked to swear to when you get married is that you're not married to anyone else.
Not being a US resident, nor being married, I cannot help asking if the oath in question does not depend on the ritual itself? That is, not all rituals have an explicit question of other marriages. Or is it a part of the mandatory paperwork?
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
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.
And why is the state even involved in regulating marriage?
Because marriage has legal status and benefits attached to it and stop people from abusing those benefits.
The question is why marriage should have any legal status at all.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
A solution to that is to allow women to have multiple husbands as well.
I'm not a US resident myself, but when I got married in Australia, I had to sign a statutory declaration prior to the wedding itself. It wasn't requested by the church, it was required by the state. I assume that it's similar in the US.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
"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!
Well, if you ignore the rest of my post in which I address that, yes.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
No, it's multiple mother-in-laws.
While I agree with that point, I believe not all women are whores who will marry for financial status alone. People do still marry for love. And since women are supposed to be equal and have jobs of their own, think about a three-way marriage. Two people working, one staying at home will be much better off than a couple with only 50% income (compared to the two thirds).
Another underlying problem: I personally believe that a three-way relationship can only work if everyone in it has a relationship with both other participants. A 'V' Structure just has less chance to work compared to a triangle. Again, only my belief. But going from there, what does it mean? Gay marriage will have to be allowed before three-way marriage (and more) could be discussed.
Or from another POV: Marriage, before the law, is about being able to make decisions for your spouse (in case of medical issues and such) and having claim to their property in case of their death. In a polyamourous situation, everyone involved should have the same claims. So sexuality doesn't even come into play at this point and still same sex marriages need to be equal to old-school marriage.
It's all not quite that easy from a social POV.
I guess it depends. In many societies, there was a glut of unmarried women - men having a much higher mortality rate due to general risk-taking behaviour, and of course, war. The mortality rates changed post-marriage, when women's mortality rates jumped due to childbirth.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
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?
If a man could marry n women, and each of these women could marry n men, each of which in turn could marry other n-1 women, wouldnt this allow for a possible situation where every man is married to everyone, or connected to everyone through a chain of marriages? (Which would, by the way, basically lead to a redefinition of the Kevin bacon number to through how many marriage nodes somebody is married to Kevin Bacon.) (And to a renaming of Facebook to be a "marriage network", etc.)
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.
Uh, cite? Seriously, I mean it... :)
You'd actually be hard-pressed to find prohibitions against polygamy in the bible. During the periods of time that "goat herding" were prominent economic activities it was actually fairly mainstream for the well-off.
Yep :)
Btw, that's how the marriage system works for the Denobulan species from Star Trek Enterprise.
...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.
Not being a US resident, nor being married, I cannot help asking if the oath in question does not depend on the ritual itself? That is, not all rituals have an explicit question of other marriages. Or is it a part of the mandatory paperwork?
It's the paperwork. The marriage ceremony is, well, ceremonial. Without a government issued marriage license, the government generally does not recognize that the marriage exists (which means that for the purpose of taxes, social security, etc, the two people are still single).
(there are "common law marriages", which are still legally valid in some states in the US, that require no marriage license, but these are becoming rarer and rarer - only 9 states still allow them).
Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
Why cant you have several bitches? You can have several cars, several children, several houses.. What about freedom..
Because the supply of bitches is limited and the rich guys would get them all. Children, houses, and cars can be made in unlimited amounts, but not bitches.
On the average, for every bitch that's born, a mofo is born. And every mofo wants at least one bitch (that is if he isn't gay, of course). Do the math.
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.
No it is not. Two words: Leah and Rachel.
That may be true, but it still shouldn't be a criminal matter. It should be civil.
"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.
You are a bigoted piece of shit. I hope you die painfully and slowly.
Neither the Bible, nor the Koran, prohibit polygamy. Modern Jews refrain due to Rabbinic enactments* and Moslems still practice it in countries which allow it (see Iran).
* And even these only apply to European Jewry of Ashkenazic descent. I don't know if any Sephardi communities have similar bans.
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).
It is not that easy, yes. But, wealth has correlation to finding a mate. Sorry, I don't have a link in English available but social studies have shown that women tend to marry above "their level" (counting both social status and wealth) and men do the opposite - even in societies which are highly rated on man-woman equality. This leads to the fact that there are more single wealthy females than males and more single poor males than females. There of course are other factors in the play - it is not clear-cut but it is proven that women tend to "marry up" and this is amplified in polygamous societies where it is more than common that the man with the most social and financial power has the most number of wives.
>>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.
Monogamy stems from the Roman tradition.
Not from the ancient polygamist goat-herders that you hate so much. You'll find nothing in the holy book outlawing polygamy. To the contrary, really.
But don't let facts get in the way of your good rant.
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.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
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.
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.
... That's bigamy.
No, it was related to why society would want to discourage it - ie. make it illegal
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Polygamy was practiced by many early Christians and essentially endorsed by the Bible. The Puritanical influence in the US was anti-sex and a cult running from England because they were considered nutjobs there formed the core morality for the US. It isn't Christianity that's against it. It's the Puritanical remnants still dominating US morality.
The goat herders would take as many wives as they could afford (somewhere between 0 and 1 being the usual number).
Learn to love Alaska
And, maybe, because it's not our country?
I mean a lot of the world hates the way we bully them into accepting laws that are favorable to us - ACTA for instance - woe be it for us to enforce our ideas of sexuality on countries with entirely different backgrounds and social norms.
I call dibs on the inheritance.
Yeah, bitches. I got it first.
.
I love these articles, it reminds me that the best reason for using Facebook is the impending arrest.
I am a Christian and I actually bothered to read the book. It's very informative and it shows just how full of hot air and bullshit most evangelists/preachers are.
Nice talking to you. I'm a militant atheist and I've actually bothered to read that book. And I'm 100% with Pen&Teller: More people should read the bible - we need more atheists. "3rd grade literature" would be lauding it.
Lastly: government should get the fuck out of the business of marriage since it is first and foremost an expression of faith, and by dictating who can or cannot marry whom, government is restricting the free expression of religion. It is a first amendment issue.
Errr... what???
Marriage is an expression of faith??? My condolences to whoever you're married to or plan to marry some day. I'd have thought a life-long commitment to someone would first and foremost be an expression of love.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
And why is the state even involved in regulating marriage?
Power.
If you can regulate the things that people worry about the most, you have power over them.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Yes.
I've actually talked to some of those dirty muslims in their home countries (been to Egypt twice, for example), and the rationale that they propose (having multiple wives is allowed, but most men can't afford it, so monogamy is the norm) is that it's actually for the good of the women. You see, women have little rights in those countries. If their husband dies, they are left with little to nothing, and no way to earn a living. The most common multiple-wives case amongst the regular population is that a brother of the deceased takes in his family, by marrying the widow.
Again, this is according to common people who live there. I don't know if it's true or not, but they seem to believe it.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I've never noticed a shortage.
Well, in the first place, "bitches" are no longer considered property. And most "bitches" tend to insist on an exclusivity contract before giving up the coochy.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
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.