This decision is not surprising but it seems interesting in other aspects . . . Utah appeals court hands down polygamy decision . . .
The Utah Court of Appeals has ruled against a common-law marriage claim by a plural wife of a polygamist. The appeals court found that Janice Ririe Kunz could not file a declaration of "unsolemnized marriage" after Richard Kunz’s death because he was legally married to another woman. The appeals court also agreed with a lower court that Janice Kunz did not file her petition within the one-year limit per Utah law. Janice and Richard Kunz were married in June 1953 and later decided to embrace the practice of plural marriage. The Kunzes divorced in 1961 so Richard could legally marry another woman, Rachel, who died in 1994. Court documents said that in 1999, Richard began a marriage-like relationship with Lillie Spencer but they were not legally wed. That same year, Richard legally married Lynne Kunz, court documents said. Despite having divorced, Janice and Richard remained in a marriage-like relationship. The couple had two children.
So, the idea seems to be in part that one cannot use common law marriage rules to claim benefits in a polygamous marriage as polygamy is not legal and so if someone is already married legally to another then common law marriage rules don’t apply when seeking inheritance or other benefits. Okay.
Hmmm. However, it is interesting that Utah is one of the foremost states to use common law marriage laws to prosecute people as polygamists. Since most people practicing "polygamy" don’t actually seek out legal marriage to consummate their unions, the government has turned to common law status to prosecute them as "legally plural married" in order to prosecute them for polygamy despite having not sought legal marriage. The Green case that made headlines is an example of just such a prosecution. Heck, in some cases, the folks don’t even live together – having multiple and independant households for each wife with the husband moving on a rotational schedule, husband sharing as it were – and are prosecuted using the same rules.
Scary as it seems . . . especially in a culture like the US where adultury is NOT illegal but is ground for divorce where some reports show that as many as one half of all married men and married women have an extramarital affairs . . . in Utah having a girlfriend on the side may actually get some folks brought up for polygamy when they’re actually "just cheating" (that is, they are not intending to create lasting loving bonds based on love and responsibility to one another). Folks with multiple long term boyfriends or girlfriends are likewise culpable in this logic. Albeit, it practical sense, Utah tends to not push this interpretation of the law to unduly harras anyone and everyone who violates their marriage vows by simply cheating – even long term cheaters – rather, they tend to use the common law marriage gambit as a means to specifically target and persecute persons of particular religious persuasions. Yep, you read me right . . . selective anti-polygamy prosecution is indeed a form of religious persecution . . . particuarly since most of the downsides of polygamy that are most often cited are either religious in nature or could apply to monogamous marriages (abuse happens on both sides of that street – the problem isn’t the polygamy but the abuse and there are ample other laws to protect women without disallowing those who wish to enter into a consenting adult plural relationship from doing so with full congruence and understanding).
So . . . it seems that . . . at least in Utah . . . common law marriage rules are selectively or schizophrenically applied. If you live with someone in a plural relationship without marriage for a long tme without a legal marriage then you common law marriage applies and you are prosecuted for polygamy despite having no legal recognition of the relationship as a marriage. However, if you live with someone in a plural relationship for a long time without a legal marriage and you wish to acrue some benefit such as inheritance or hospital visitation rights then common law marriage does not apply as you’re not really married legally since polygamy is illegal and you can’t be considered legally plurally married.
Uh. Trying for the ol’ cake and eat it too perhaps?
All the best,
Brian
STAGE, PERFORMANCE, ENTERTAINMENT HYPNOSIS – June 5-9, 2006
See "training" at http://www.briandavidphillips.com for details!
Brian David Phillips, PhD, CH [phillips@nccu.edu.tw]Certified Hypnotherapist
President, Society of Experiential Trance
Associate Professor, NCCU, Taipei, Taiwan
http://www.briandavidphillips.com
