[Still Thinking]

I've never understood why it would be legal to have one wife and four mistresses, but not five wives. Presumably at least the last four wives are not legally married to him, so even if they all want to look at it as a marriage arrangement, I don't understand how the law can differentiate, at least in an unfavorable way, between this situation and that of a man who has five mistresses, assuming he pays support for children resulting from those extramarital affairs.

[Bobby777]

I wondered about that too with "common law" marriages as defined by the state after x number of years ... suppose 3 live together as "dating" for 7 years in California ... who becomes who's common law spouse? ... flip a coin? ... elimidate?

[Tempest]

Were as I see your point after reading the whole article it appears that this guy is a real low-life who isn't up to the responsibility of taking care of his 5 wives and countless kid, plus not all of his wives are up to the legal age of consent.

[churchillbuff]

I've never understood why it would be legal to have one wife and four mistresses, but not five wives. Presumably at least the last four wives are not legally married to him, so even if they all want to look at it as a marriage arrangement, I don't understand how the law can differentiate, at least in an unfavorable way, between this situation and that of a man who has five mistresses, assuming he pays support for children resulting from those extramarital affairs.

VERY GOOD POINT. AN EX-LOVER OF A SINGLE MAN CAN GET "PALIMONY," SO WHY COULDN'T AN EX-LOVER OF A MARRIED MAN BE ENTITLED TO SPOUSE-LIKE BENEFITS?