I can see where this is unlikely in a society where men hold all the wealth and power. While I believe that, in our society, most wealth and power remains with men, the emergence of "cougars" may indicate that multiple husbands for women is not such a stretch these days.

All bathrooms will be outfitted with yellow carpeting.

I think in a culture of modern women such as we live in today, the risk of voluntary polygamy suddenly taking a significant hold in society is low. If polygamy were made legal today, I don't see much changing.

The real risk, in my mind, is abusing the polygamist "marriage contract" for corporate business means. Say a group of men want to form a company, but they want, for example, not to have to testify against each other if the company is ever sued, just as a wife has the right not to have to testify against her husband. So they all polygamist gay marry each other on paper.

I think you could successfully allow for gay marriage, while still outlawing polygamy on the argument that it would promote conspiracy and fraud.

Gay polygamy! The old boy network on steroids.

Interesting! That hadn't occurred to me.

Well, abolish the right of a spouse to not testify against their spouse(s). That is an old fashioned and sexist rule anyway.

Sexist how? It's a two-way street.

It is now, but when it was introduced it was with the idea that the man would be doing everything and the woman merely an assistant at best.

Found this on Facebook. One of the arguments against polygamy is that some families ended up on public assistance. In a modern economy, it's not as easy to have a homebound labor pool as it is on a farm.

http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot...13942464_n.jpg

I'm not sure how that is relevant to spousal priviledge. It's about who can be called to testify, and by whom; not about the extent of their involvement in the crime.

It's there to avoid putting someone in the position of having to choose between condemning their spouse and perjuring themselves.

Another state steps up in the district of the 9th Federal Court of Appeals

Reuters
Nicole Neroulias
2/8/12
Gay marriage wins final legislative approval in Washington state

HM ...

Okay. drop the sexist. Maybe even the outdated.

I think it is wrong. Why is there no parental priviledge? Sibling? Avuncular? Why should someone get away with a crime just because the main witness is their spouse?

I won't argue that. Probably something to do with "the sanctity of marriage".

Though my guess is there's a de facto family priviledge to some extent, as the danger of perjury, and the potential bad taste left in jurors mouths from forcing a parent to testify, may discourage prosecutors from doing so in many cases.

The spousal privilege only applies if both the defendant and their spouse want to keep the secret. If a wife wants to testify against her husband, she can, and there is nothing the husband can do to prevent it. Compare that to the privilege between an attorney and their client. The attorney can virtually never testify against their client, even if they want to.

meaning they can't be *compelled* to testify against their spouse.