{"items": [{"author": "b", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/109680641548243670506", "anchor": "gp-1366675586286", "service": "gp", "text": "The real question is, assuming Mary, Mari, and Merry are all on board with the plan, what happens when they all move to MD and Mary tries to claim legal spouse benefits with respect to both Mari and Merry?", "timestamp": 1366675586}, {"author": "Todd", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112947709146257842066", "anchor": "gp-1366679506672", "service": "gp", "text": "First of all, \n@benjamin\n\u00a0is correct to point out that this should involve MD in some way.\n
\n
\nSecond, is there any particularly reason that bigamy/polygamy should be illegal? I realize that isn't what you're getting at, but if it should be legal, then this all washes out in the long run.", "timestamp": 1366679506}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1366683367275", "service": "gp", "text": "@Todd\n\u00a0Withe legal plural marriage would you end up with very large \"family\" businesses?", "timestamp": 1366683367}, {"author": "Todd", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112947709146257842066", "anchor": "gp-1366683485826", "service": "gp", "text": "That's a tax issue, not a marriage issue, right? I'd hope a reasonable system could successfully decouple those things.", "timestamp": 1366683485}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1366683860284", "service": "gp", "text": "@Todd\n\u00a0not just taxes: \nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spousal_privilege", "timestamp": 1366683860}, {"author": "Todd", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112947709146257842066", "anchor": "gp-1366684003067", "service": "gp", "text": "For that sort of thing, I think it would be reasonable to restrict the privilege on practical grounds. So, for instance, if I 'marry' my co-worker for business reasons, but don't (say) live with that person, when push came to shove (e.g. in a legal case) the privilege would be revoked.", "timestamp": 1366684003}, {"author": "Robert", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/610639561302?comment_id=610678563142", "anchor": "fb-610678563142", "service": "fb", "text": "Well, similar questions have already come up when same-sex couples marry in (for example) MA, move to TX, and try to get divorced.", "timestamp": "1366689859"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/610639561302?comment_id=610692320572", "anchor": "fb-610692320572", "service": "fb", "text": "@Robert: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Re_Marriage_of_J.B._and_H.B.", "timestamp": "1366720372"}, {"author": "Arthur", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/610639561302?comment_id=610711207722", "anchor": "fb-610711207722", "service": "fb", "text": "Marriage, like any other contract, is subject to choice of law. I end up being married to Spouse B for all matters within State B's jurisdiction and married to Spouse A for all matters within State A's jurisdiction.
Gay couples who don't move anywhere already have to deal with this, since DOMA states they can't be married at the federal level and therefore count as single for all issues involving federal law.", "timestamp": "1366736216"}, {"author": "Arthur", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/610639561302?comment_id=610711901332", "anchor": "fb-610711901332", "service": "fb", "text": "To get in more detail, both states would only recognize one marriage as valid and would regard the other as void ab initio; State B says Marriage A doesn't count because it's \"repugnant to public policy\", and State A views Marriage B as void because it's bigamy.
As long as you and all your stuff are in State B, State B is all you have to worry about and Spouse A is legally a stranger to you; if Spouse A follows you to State B there's nothing Spouse A can legally do to you.
The only problem arises if you've left property behind, like a home or business, that's in State A and under State A's jurisdiction -- State A will view Spouse A as still being legally entitled to it, and if you want to fight for control of it you have to physically go to State A and get divorced in their courts -- since, as Jeff points out, State B will generally hold they have no legal standing in granting divorce for a marriage they never recognized in the first place.", "timestamp": "1366736614"}, {"author": "Arthur", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/610639561302?comment_id=610712505122", "anchor": "fb-610712505122", "service": "fb", "text": "Comma: In the case of a State C that does recognize same-sex marriage, all states that formally recognize SSM have comity with each other.
Hence, State C will view your Marriage A as having always been valid, and therefore side with State A in saying Marriage B is void because it's bigamy.
Basically all US states have historically had comity with each other when it comes to recognizing marriages. Same-sex marriage is the issue that has broken this principle, thus effectively splitting the US into two \"zones\", a SSM zone and non-SSM zone -- the SSM zone honors the version of history where Marriage A happened while the other zone lives in a world where Marriage A never occurred and doesn't exist.
Note that the legal kludges designed to provide pseudo-marriage have been carefully designed to protect monogamy -- no state that has civil unions or domestic partnerships, as far as I'm aware, will grant civil unions to a couple where one member is already married to another party.
(That said, states in the past that have had DPs haven't always stipulated they must honor DPs -- as opposed to marriages -- in other jurisdictions, precisely because DP was originally conceived to be explicitly \"lesser\" than marriage. That's pretty much obsolete now though -- the only state left that has a DP provision that doesn't construct it to be in all ways legally equivalent to marriage is WI, and WI does have a weird one-way filter where you can't get a DP if you have one from elsewhere even though WI still won't give you the benefits of a WI DP unless you get one in WI.)", "timestamp": "1366737071"}, {"author": "Arthur", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/610639561302?comment_id=610712859412", "anchor": "fb-610712859412", "service": "fb", "text": "Also note that if you do the reverse and try to nullify Marriage B by going back to State A, many states have laws explicitly holding you legally liable for your marital financial responsibilities to a second spouse, if you deliberately lied to them and they married you unknowingly -- whereas they have no such responsibilities to you (because you're not actually married).
This is on top of the fact that bigamy is a crime and you might go to jail. (That's more complex -- the act of the wedding didn't make you a criminal in State A because it didn't happen in State A, but coming back to State A and attempting to fraudulently present yourself in an official context as married to Spouse B is a crime.)", "timestamp": "1366737322"}]}