Posted on 03/25/2005 7:44:28 AM PST by MindBender26
The Justice Dept. doesn't care. She's the "wrong" religion -- Christian. Now if she were a muslim they'd already have stepped in.
Bigamy is the actual legal term used in law. The legal "offense" of bigamy is defined as being when a person has obtained "legally recognized" marriages to more than one living mate at the same time.
The root-word, "bi", in the word, bigamy, refers to two. But it does not mean only two mates. A bigamist is NOT simply a polygamist with only two mates.
Rather, bigamy, in terms of law, refers to any additional and secondary would-be "legally recognized" marriage which comes after the only, first, government-allowed, one "legally recognized" marriage. This is reflective of the "thinking" behind the (anti-polygamy) bigamy laws.
When someone has obtained more than one would-be "legally recognized" marriage, each additional would-be "legally recognized" marriage is deemed as "secondary" to the only one government-allowed "legally recognized" marriage.
Hence, any third, fourth, fifth, etc. would-be "legally recognized" marriages would all individually be deemed as separate "secondary" so-called "legally recognized" marriages. (The second would be deemed as "secondary", the third would be "secondary", the fourth would also be "secondary", and so would the fifth, etc.)
That's how the "bi", meaning "two", comes into the meaning of "bigamy" here. It is the government's perception of "secondary" in these matters which makes the definition.
Accordingly, a single count of "bigamy" is charged against an accused bigamist for each "secondary" would-be "legally recognized" marriage ---one charge each for each additional "legally recognized" marriage beyond the "first" and government-allowed "legally recognized" marriage.
For example, a man with three would-be "legally recognized" wives would be charged with TWO counts of bigamy. This would be due to the "second wife" being considered as one "secondary" wife and the "third wife" being considered as a second "secondary" wife. This would be all due to the government's perspective that there can be no more than one government-allowed "legally recognized" wife at the same time.
The difference, then, between a polygamist and a bigamist is NOT the number of mates. The meaning of bigamy and its application in (anti-polygamy) bigamy laws shows that its meaning is about any number of multiple "secondary" would-be "legally recognized" marriages after the "first" would-be "legally recognized" marriage.
Thus again, bigamy does NOT mean simply a "polygamist with only two mates". Bigamy is the actual term used in law, pertaining to the act of obtaining any number of "secondary" would-be "legally recognized" marriages beyond the "first" government-allowed one, at the same time.
With that understood, there are then actually two distinctly separate classifications of accused "bigamists".
Truly, the matter of "Dishonest Bigamy" is certainly in a separate classification by itself. The deceitfulness of such a situation has nothing to do with the true marriage matters of bona fide polygamy.
And the matter of "Honest Polygamy" does not become a basis for being accused of bigamy if one does not obtain any secondary "legally recognized" marriages .
So, here again, it is clear that being a "bigamist" does not automatically mean that one is a bona fide "polygamist". And vice versa. The two words clearly have separate meanings.
In the final analysis, therefore, as long as an "Honest Polygamist" does not obtain any form of "legally recognized" marriage with any mate after the first "legally recognized" marriage, then no law in these modern times has been broken and the polygamist is NOT a bigamist at all.
Since most polygamists thereby never commit the actually legally-defined "offense" of bigamy because they do NOT seek any such "legally recognized" marriages anyway (beyond the first one, if at all), then no (anti-polygamy) bigamy law in these modern times is being broken by such polygamists anyway.
******************************************************
Why can't Michael be prosecuted?>>>>
bttt
But as I have read here, her own bishop won't weigh in. Isn't that true?
Why is Terri's Husband allowed to speak for her and not the mother and father....see post #23.
All who find out that they are terminally ill should be starved and dehydrated right then and there. Imagine the money our government would save.
I once read a quote that went something like this:
"He who isn't busy being born, is busy DYING."
Well, heck, I guess in that sense, we are ALL terminally ill. So since babies are terminally ill, and can't feed themselves, then not only should abortions continue, but any babies who slip through the net, and accidently get born should be put out of their coming death right away by banning all food and water.
My God, this could almost be today's news. Poor Hitler, little did the poor guy know that he wasn't wrong, but instead, slightly ahead of his time. Does anyone wonder why the Bible speaks of a coming ARMAGEDDON? Folks, it's closer than you even know, sigh. May God have mercy on us all.
I love FReepers.
No, he has not broken the law, and it is precisely this fact that speaks to the bigger picture of the secular left's multi-axis incursions on the American way of life. Because we have become so loathe and fearful of, "legislating morality," the champions of the cult of death can now rally around an adulterous bully as the champion of justice and liberty, and in the eyes of the law, he has the same credibility and moral standing as any saint. The barbarians are not only at the gates, they are storming over the walls, and exploiting each of their small encroachments to create new breaches in the wall....
...something has to be done soon to turn them back...Very soon, or we will be over run.
Quite simple. No willing witnesses to testify against him.
>Don't tell me they are just becoming aware of this...MUD
Haven't seen it argued in the pleadings.
In night law school I had a traffic stop on appeal. In 31 appearances, lawyer for the def had never agrued the event leading to the stop was outside city limits.
Stop was inside limits, but the infraction itself, the illegal lane change, was outside.
Put the cop on the stand to testify where it happened. Put city manager on with map of city limits as they were on date of infraction. Dismissed in 10 minutes.
?
As I understand it, the parents signed over guardianship to Michael at the time of the original incident and even were that not true, the court could appoint a "husband" and he would be the logical guardian.
As I understand it, the parents signed over guardianship to Michael at the time of the original incident and even were that not true, the court could appoint a "husband" and he would be the logical guardian.
That's why you give copies to your relatives, and not just the hospital.
Again, quite simple. Under law, she is over 21 and the parents no longer have a say in the matter. He is still her husband.
To me, this is THE issue. It doesn't matter if she is or isn't PVS. It's not up to the courts whether someones quality of life has value. Her parents will care for her whatever condition she is in. The REAL question legal or otherwise is did Michael Shiavo have a pure intent as her guardian. I would focus the entire legal aurgument on this factor. There seems to be a huge amount of information that he absolutely did not
"Jeb should have put his butt on the line and saved her....."
He did, and so did his brother.
Jeb Bush did more to try to save Terri than any of us!
I hold no ill feeling towards him.
But that was likely before his Bigamy became a fact>>>>yes?
I hope some miracle like this saves Terri's life before it is too late...MUD
If they tried it, there's a very good chance both statutes would be deemed unconstitutional after the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.