Non-Monogamy and
the Law
Review of Arizona
|
Simple Bigamy
|
No Adultery
|
No Fornication
|
|
State
Category: Friendly
|
||
Bigamy:
Issue
and Rule:
This is an assessment of the legal
liability that non-monogamous families encounter through Arizona’s bigamy law. The
primary rule governing bigamy in Arizona is statute 13-3606 3 governing the
individual with multiple marriages, and 13-36078 governing the
individual whom marries someone who’s already married. Punishments are governed
by rules 13-7026 (imprisonment) and
13-8014 (fines).
Analysis:
Arizona’s bigamy law is very
explicit about only impacting those who have an actual marriage, there is no
purportation or cohabitation clause in Arizona’s bigamy law3,
8. Arizona case law also provides
some clarity to what they define as a marriage, indicating that a signed
document is required for a marriage to be official, though submitting that
document to the state isn’t a requirement10.
Though the state cannot act directly
on non-monogamous families, due to these provisions, if the individual has a
state position with authority regarding the law that agency can dismiss said
individual for non-monogamous behavior2.
In the event that a bigamous
marriage actually exists and is prosecuted on, punishment can range from ½ a
year to a year and a half of imprisonment6, as well as a fine
of up to $150,0004.
Assessment:
Because of the strict interpretation
of a marriage, liability for non-monogamous families under bigamy is minimal,
with only an actual second marriage creating liability. Provided that a second
actual marriage can be avoided, direct impact is nonexistent. Unfortunately
this doesn’t extend to jobs which require a non-monogamist to uphold the law,
as the appearance of non-monogamy can endanger one’s job.
Adultery:
Issue
and Rule:
This is an assessment of the legal
liability that non-monogamous families encounter through Arizona’s adultery
law. The primary rule governing adultery in Arizona is statute 13-14081, with 13-7079 (imprisonment) and
13-8025 (fines) governing
punishment.
Analysis:
Adultery in Arizona is hampered by
the state being unable to directly prosecute; an adultery case can only be
brought at the behest of the offended spouse1. Beyond this, only
the act of having sex with someone who’s not one’s spouse is required to meet
liability under adultery1, it is not
required to have a regular recurring sexual relationship.
Despite the social stigma around
adultery, it cannot, in its own right, be used as evidence of unfit parenthood
in child custody cases. It must be demonstrated that the adultery actually had
a harmful impact on the children7.
Assessment:
Though adultery could impact all
non-monogamous families, because the state can’t directly prosecute severely
limits the potential impact of Arizona’s adultery law. This is especially true
given how adultery in itself isn’t sufficient evidence of misconduct. Unfortunately
the presence of the law in this format shifts the focus away from the state and
on to the members of the non-monogamous family by giving a spouse authority to
initiate a prosecution through the state. This can strain these families, even
without the direct threat from the state as an outside entity.
Arizona Summary:
The specificity of Arizona’s bigamy
law, and offended spouse requirement of its adultery law create a fairly low direct
liability environment for non-monogamists of all varieties. Unfortunately,
because of how these laws feed into other situations, such as some state jobs
and the pressures that the spouse requirement create, there are strong
secondary impacts from Arizona’s laws that can create undue stressors on a
non-monogamous family.
There also does seem to be an
inherent conflict between Arizona case law on bigamy, allowing for a state
agency to dismiss certain employees based not on them actually violating their
bigamy law, but the appearance of such, and Arizona’s adultery law which
dismisses adultery as harmful without having evidence as such. The core
question at stake here is can these behaviors be used to qualify other, potentially
discriminatory, actions? Arizona seems to say that in the case of long-standing
non-monogamous sexual relationships as a lifestyle, yes, and in the case of
more casual sexual relationships, no. This is an exaggeration, but is also a
logical extension of potential arguments based on what law does exist in
Arizona on these issues.
Ranking
Rationale:
Arizona’s bigamy law is very
straightforward. In only being applicable to certified marriages that have been
signed to places it comfortably within the simple category. Adultery is more
nuanced however, since the law does exist, but is hampered by the offending
spouse requirement. Because Arizona’s adultery law impacts the internal
relationship dynamic more than the state’s ability to externally implement it,
Arizona is considered to have no adultery law.
