0

Polygamy, as explained by dictionaries, means "married to more than one person at the same time".

In nations where polygamy is deemed illegal, laws often include terms preventing a person from running multiple marriages in parallel. However, there is a difference between parallelism and concurrency. And I'm wondering if people can legally run multiple marriages concurrently in these nations.

For example, can someone have 7 spouses named Sunday, Monday, ..., Saturday and rotate (divorce and remarry) at midnight each day? Is this violating any laws governing monogamous relationships?

(Clearly this once-per-day example is contrived and only meant to explore a technical possibility.)

3

Yes ...

... apart from the impracticality of it. Basically, the bureaucratic process of marriage and divorce doesn't fit within a 24-hour cycle. For example, in it is a requirement to notify the state one month before you intend to marry and divorce is a legal process that takes as long as it takes - typically years. But, assuming those obstacles did not exist, your scheme would not fall foul of the law.

In general, you can remarry a person you previously divorced. [apparently]1 says enough is enough after the third time.

Unless adultery is illegal (as it is in much of the Muslim world) there is no law against polyamory so long as no one person in the relationship is married to more than one other person.

Your headline of "Concurrent Polygamy" is wrong - what you describe is "Consecutive Monogamy".

|improve this answer|||||
  • The Kentucky marriage law is quite interesting. So there is indeed some limit in certain jurisdictions. – Cyker Jul 1 '19 at 1:24
-2

can someone have 7 spouses named Sunday, Monday, ..., Saturday and rotate (divorce and remarry) at midnight each day?

No.

  • That is impractical and not even feasible, since courts are not open 24/7 and the proceedings take much longer than overnight.
  • It runs afoul of the legal meaning of marriage. For instance, Black's Law Dictionary defines marriage as

Marriage [...] is the civil status, condition, or relation of one manand one woman united in law for life, [...]. A contract [...] by which a man and woman [...] mutually engage with each other to live their whole lives together in the state of union which ought to exist between a husband and a wife.

  • A person's number or frequency of marrying and divorcing leads to questioning his mental/legal capacity or intent to keep entering additional akin contracts. See for instance Michigan MCL 551.2 "marriage is a civil contract [...] to which the consent of parties capable in law of contracting is essential" (emphasis added).

  • A person's high frequency of marriages and divorces is likely to prevent him from keep commencing the requisite proceedings on grounds of him being a vexatious litigant.

|improve this answer|||||
  • 1
    That definition is not helpful at all since it inherently precludes divorce. Also, getting repeatedly married and divorces does not involve litigation so vexatious litigant is not relevant to the question. – George White Jul 1 '19 at 18:03
  • @GeorgeWhite The fact that marriage by definition precludes divorce should hint to you on the deceit/nonsense in getting married when the intent beforehand is to get divorced the very next day. Since you deny that divorce involves litigation, you should explain how is it that all the pleadings in the U.S. regurgitating MCL 552.6(1) are "not" litigation, or how is it that lawyers' fraud in family court is denounced in reports like this. – Iñaki Viggers Jul 1 '19 at 19:13
  • A definition of marriage that precludes divorce is counter factual. May states have a no-fault divorce with much less mechanism involved than in Michigan. – George White Jul 1 '19 at 22:22
  • @GeorgeWhite "A definition of marriage that precludes divorce is counter factual". Black's Law Dictionary was not drafted by me, so you can tell the authors they are wrong. On behalf of the author(s) of that dictionary, I will mention that being counter factual is not a good reason to strike a legal definition. That would be tantamount to repealing enacted law just because a judge deliberately disavows it, or because that legislation is "counter factual" insofar as criminals commit crimes. – Iñaki Viggers Jul 1 '19 at 23:00
  • You are saying divorce does not exist? – George White Jul 1 '19 at 23:22

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.