Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Wedding Photos Result In Polygamy Arrest In Michigan

Posted by timothy on from the polygamy-is-fine-unless-you're-married dept.

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."

16 of 267 comments (clear)

  1. I don't get it by Nialin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:I don't get it by TheLink · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Depending on the marriage vows/contract, it could certainly be considered a breach of contract and a form of fraud.

      Because it seems the guy was being dishonest, that's always a good hint that someone is doing something wrong.

      If he just wanted to consensually have sex with multiple partners, that's not a problem in the USA, but in most states, it is generally assumed that "marriage" means you can't go around doing that.

      From an "evolution" POV it's no surprise that many humans view cheating seriously. They don't produce offspring in the millions.

      BTW committing adultery could technically get you a life sentence in Michigan, if they follow the law to the letter: http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-01-24/news/17225912_1_sexual-conduct-sentence-michigan-court

      --
    2. Re:I don't get it by LordLucless · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, concubinage isn't really that different from marriage. The difference was just that concubines, unlike wives, didn't bring a dowry into the relationship. Most societies that permitted multiple concubines also permitted multiple wives. It was just easier to attract multiple concubines, as they were generally poorer women who lacked the options available to dowered girls.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    3. Re:I don't get it by stor · · Score: 5, Funny

      Reminds me of an old joke:

      Q: What's the punishment for polygamy?

      A: Multiple wives.

      -Stor

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
    4. Re:I don't get it by snowgirl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What I find even more interesting, is due to DOMA and the weird way we treat homosexual marriages in this country, it's possible that someone could marry a person of the same sex in Massachusetts, move to Texas, and marry a person of the opposite sex, and Texas could not technically charge the person with polygamy. But then, if the person ever went on vacation (or even just had a layover in a city in a state that recognized both marriages) then they could be arrested in that state for polygamy.

      Seriously, this is the whole reason why "full faith and credit" was supposed to be in the Constitution, to keep these sorts of weird ass "am I married in _THIS_ state though?" questions from coming up. Like, there are people in Texas who have been denied a divorce for a legal marriage performed elsewhere, because another state let them get married out of state, but won't allow an out of state divorce, so they have to get divorced in the state they live in, but since Texas doesn't recognize the marriage, it won't grant them a divorce... so they're stuck being married unless they move back to Massachusetts or whatever it was.

      Seriously, FULL FAITH AND CREDIT PEOPLE... it causes a lot fewer headaches...

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    5. Re:I don't get it by cpu6502 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Violating a contract is a CIVIL matter, not a criminal one.

      Banning polygamy (or same sex marriage) is yet another example, like outlawing smoking marijuana while at home, or blocking teens from drinking with parents' permission, where the State is acting like the Church to enforce their moral values, instead of allowing individuals the Liberty to "pursue happiness" in whatever manner they choose.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    6. Re:I don't get it by ShakaUVM · · Score: 4, Informative

      >>The bible doesn't actually prohibit having multiple wives. However, it does say that monogamy is a prerequisite for certain roles in the church (deacon, bishop, etc).

      Right (1 Tim 3:2 and Titus 1:6-9 address this). A lot of people don't know that.

      Polygamy is never outlawed in the OT; in fact, Levirate marriage (basis for the ancient Jewish social welfare program) completely doesn't work in a monogamous society. Jesus uses Levirate marriage as an example in one of his parables on the afterlife (and doesn't say anything bad about it at all, to the contrary he treats it as a norm), and Paul said that you could be a polygamist and a Christian at the same time, even though he kind of hated sex in all forms. So people like Luther have grudgingly accepted polygamy as being Christian.

      The bit about a bishop needing to be a husband to "one wife" (unius uxoris vir) appears a few times in the Pauline writings. Which the Roman Catholic Church responds to by plugging their ears and yelling loudly at the top of their lungs. (Read their convoluted explaining-away here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_bfoun_en.html)

      In a nutshell, the RCC reads the requirement for a bishop to be faithful to his wife to *really* be talking about them being celibate and married to the church. Which is quite ridiculous, since those same passages talk about the bishop also needing to be a good father to his children (http://bible.cc/1_timothy/3-4.htm), but I guess once you start in on a metaphor, you can ride that train as long as you want to.

      St. Augustine, who is usually pretty good at theology, tried to explain why polygamy was fine *then* and not *now* with the following: "As the many wives of the ancient Fathers symbolized our future churches of all nations, subject to the one man, Christ, so the bishop, who is the husband of one wife (unius uxoris vir) signifies the union of all nations, subject to the one man, Christ." Which is certainly an interesting, though not particularly compelling explanation.

  2. Why is that a crime? by grumbel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Why is that a crime? by rust627 · · Score: 5, Funny

      It is a crime by law in most western countries and carries it own unique penalty as summed up by Groucho Marx.

      "Do you know what the ultimate penalty for Bigamy is ?

      2 mothers in law......"

      --
      da da da dum indeed.
  3. Re:illegal why? by muuh-gnu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > 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.

  4. Never tired of FB stories by UBfusion · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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'.

  5. Re:More? by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree with the GP and would have voted against the story had I seen it in the firehose. "Man arrested for bigamy after posting news of his second wedding in the dead tree newspaper classifieds".

    Informative? No more informative than "Britney Spears in rehab again". It doesn't affect me, nor should it you. Nothing to learn == !informative.

    Topical? How? Just another normtard doing something stupid.

    Technological? It's a damned web site! Sheesh! Now, "EMC anti-crhacking division crhacked" is informative, topical, and technological. This isn't.

    --
    Free Martian Whores!
  6. Re:illegal why? by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
  7. messed it up by sourcerror · · Score: 4, Funny

    No, it's multiple mother-in-laws.

  8. Re:Think of the children by ATMAvatar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So make the tax breaks limited to cases where a family has at least one minor dependent. That takes care of traditional married couples with kids as well as gay couples who successfully adopt.

    --
    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  9. This is NOT polygamy! by Anaerin · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.