Criminal Penalty for Illegal Marriage

I think this law goes too far.

That is until Myers and his partner, Steve Brondino, learned of an obscure state law that makes it a crime for Wisconsin residents to enter into marriage in another state if the marriage would be prohibited here. The law imposes a penalty for those who enter into a marriage that’s prohibited or declared void in Wisconsin of up to $10,000 and nine months in prison.

It’s entirely appropriate for the State of Wisconsin to not recognize a marriage that is illegal in Wisconsin, but a criminal penalty is overboard.  For example, if I went to Alabama and got a fishing license, I could not come back to Wisconsin and use it.  Marriage should be treated the same way.  If these folks want to go to California and obtain a marriage license, that’s fine, but it won’t mean anything in Wisconsin. 

1. Owen,
   I am a long-time reader and usually agree with what you have to say, or at least think it is well reasoned, but the marriage/fishing license metaphor is absolutely ridiculous.  Taken a step further, it implies that every marriage performed in a different state that has marriage laws that are less restrictive than Wisconsin (e.g., Nevada) would be invalid, unless that marriage was re-affirmed once the couple moved to Wisconsin.  I don’t know about you, but I sincerely hope that I have participated in my one and only marriage ceremony, and won’t have to do it again because I move to a different state (I would also hope that my wife feels the same).

   I will admit that I don’t understand the opposition to gay marriage (once the state recognized marriage as an institution, religion lost its exclusive claim on it).  I think the most sensible resolution to the problem is to have “marriage,” which is a religious institution, and “something else” which is the union between two people that is recognized by the government, employers, etc. 

   In any event, I’m glad that you view the criminal penalty as being overboard.

   Posted by on July 03, 2008 at 0729 hrs




2. Owen

   you are getting soft.

   gay marriage is bad!

   keep repeating until you are back on point!

   it leads to gay kids,pedophiles,man on beast relationships etc.

   just ask rick santoreum!

   bad,bad,bad

   Posted by on July 03, 2008 at 0758 hrs




3. I will admit that I don’t understand the opposition to gay marriage

   Well certainly you have the religious contingent that wants to enforce their religious view via legislation.  Thats one component.

   Then you have those that are scared of some cultural shift if gay marriage were legal and oppose it on that level I suppose.

   Then you have those who are disgusted by homosexuality that probably just can’t bear the thought of the proliferation of more homosexuality.

   I pesonally think that gay marriage is ALL about a money grab.  I think its about wanting to enjoy the financial benefit of social security benefits for your partner. i think gay marriage is the carte blanche method that will allow gay couples to leverage themselves into coverage by employee spousal benefit plans etc.  I think fighting the individual battles one at a time with a particular company or a particular insurance carrier or whatever is an endless battle, but if “gay marriage” were legal, none of those battles need to be fought.

   I think thats what its all about.

   So I’m split on the issue.  Being freedom based, I believe that every private company ought be able to make their own decisions about what they want to recognize, who in an empoyees family they want to extend benefits too etc.

   I think as a matter of public policy, we should end entitlements like social security all together so that would pretty much resolve the ‘unfairness’ issue of married couples getting benefits and gay partners not.

   As far as contractual obligations etc etc.  Thats a no brainer.  Gay couples ought to (and I believe for the most part they already do) have as much capacity to enter into contracts together as a married couple.

   Lastly.  For some gay couples. I suppose they are looking for “affirmation” that what they are doing is “ok”.  And thats why they seek the legal definition.  In that regard, fine.  Let them have the same institution of marriage that hetero couples can.  Its really a pathetic state of affairs when a “symbol” which is what marriage is becomes so important.  At the end of the day life isn’t about symbols and external affirmation of what you are or what is ‘ok’. It comes down to the tangible relationship between 2 people.  I think people ought not be so concerned about symbolism.

   Posted by on July 03, 2008 at 0813 hrs




4. xxpolit,
   I guess I phrased that badly - I understand the opposition to gay marriage, I just don’t agree with it. 

   A large component of the desire for gay marriage may be the ancillary benefits (health benefits, contracts, entitlements, etc.), but another part may be a recognition that same-sex couples can have a relationship every bit as meaningful as hetero couples.  I look at it this way, substitute a racial group instead of gays into the arguments against gay marriage and the arguments begin to sound absurd (i.e., blacks shouldn’t have the right to be married because it’s against my religion).  For those of us heteros that believe that homosexuality is genetic, this is how the argument looks.

   Posted by on July 03, 2008 at 0822 hrs




5. People who reside in Wisconsin and running off to California to get married just to return are doing it for one thing: To make a political statement. 

   (Why did Mark Pocan run off to Canada in December 2006?  For his health?)

   The law is the law however, and any Wisconsin resident should know they are subject to the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.  Is the fine much?  Likely, but it’s going to be up to individual county’s DAs to be the one who file the charges.  That’s going to be the real test.

   Posted by on July 03, 2008 at 0832 hrs




6. I think Kevin makes a good point here.  The law is pretty clear.  If these guys want to run off to California, get “married” and then stay there to enjoy their “marriage,” then that’s one thing.  However, to travel to California just to get their license and then expect to come back to Wisconsin to “use” it violates the law.

   Following up on Owen’s fishing license analogy, if he were to travel to Alabama to get a fishing license there and then come back to Wisconsin and expect to fish, he would be guilty of breaking the law (or local ordinance--whatever).

   I expect it won’t be too long before a lawsuit makes its way up the legal foodchain and appears before the Supreme Court dealing with this.

   Posted by on July 03, 2008 at 0859 hrs




7. Eric, Kevin…

   With your latest comments, the fishing analogy really breaks down.  The only way I could see any criminal penalty come into play is if the couple were to attempt to claim they were married in taxes, or for insurance benefits.  Of course, both of those are already illegal through other statutes (or via fraud penalties).

   Otherwise… exactly how do you “act married” in an illegal way?  Living together?  Having sex?  Those are legal for unmarried couples, even gay ones, to do today.  If all it takes is crossing the Wisconsin border with a marriage certificate, then this is totally bogus, and bigotted.

   Posted by Nick on July 03, 2008 at 1003 hrs




8. Wow - I got married in Florida because my wife’s divorce wasn’t finialized before Wisconsin’s six month deadline beforehand. I guess it’s off to jail for me....

   Posted by on July 03, 2008 at 1035 hrs




9. Nick:

   I agree that the fishing analogy isn’t a perfect one.

   I don’t think this law has anything to do with bigotry.  I think this speaks more to the rights of an individual state.  If another state wants to create a “marriage” that Wisconsin doesn’t want to recognize, the way Wisconsin chose to do that was to impose stiff penalties on any of their residents who travel to that state for the purpose of engaging in a “marriage” which Wisconsin doesn’t recognize.

   If you don’t like the law, then move out of the state.  It’s not really that difficult.  If you want to stay in Wisconsin, work to change the law.  If a majority of the people want the law changed, then it can be changed.

   Posted by on July 03, 2008 at 1038 hrs




10. You know, at a certain point, the “you don’t like it, then move” excuse just gets tired… and doesn’t work any more.  If you really like your fishing analogy, the closer example would be saying that you could be arrested for fishing in California with a California license after you came back to Wisconsin.

    Remember… they don’t have to engage in ANY marriage related activities in Wisconsin to be arrested… all they have to do is have the marriage certificate in hand.

    In fact, its probably not enforceable at all, since Wisconsin is attempting to enforce a Wisconsin law outside the Wisconsin boundaries (jurisdiction).  The crime was committed in another state (getting married), and therefore you can only be punished in that state.  Merely crossing the border into Wisconsin should not be sufficient.

    The only crime that could be committed in Wisconsin would be fraud, or something similar, if you tried to claim benefits in Wisconsin based on being married.

    Posted by Nick on July 03, 2008 at 1111 hrs




11. Nick,

    I said that I agreed with you that the fishing analogy was a poor one.  Let’s forget about fishing (although a bad day of fishing beats any day at work). 

    Wisconsin is not trying to enforce a Wisconsin law outside of Wisconsin’s boundaries.  If Wisconsin residents go to another state, enter into a “marriage” that Wisconsin does not recognize, and then go live anywhere else other than Wisconsin, no Wisconsin law has been broken.  It is only when they return to Wisconsin, having entered into a “marriage” that Wisconsin does not recognize that the law is broken.  Now, whether or not that will be enforced is another discussion.

    I don’t understand your statement that “you-don’t-like-it-then-move” excuse is tired.  Are you saying it’s a bad idea?  Should every town in every state adopt the exact same set of statutes?  One of the beautiful freedoms in this country is that, as a resident of a state of Illinois, I can freely move to Texas if I want to start carrying a concealed weapon.  I’m not going to whine and complain about Illinois’ not allowing concealed carry.  My choices are to stay and work to change the law (unlikely in Illinois--I’d have to overcome a lot of dead people voting), or move to a state that is favorable to concealed carry if I believe that strongly about it.  It’s not a tired excuse--it is a wonderful freedom in our country.

    Posted by on July 03, 2008 at 1129 hrs




12. If you come into Wisconsin, having been married in another state… simply by crossing the border… and you don’t try to claim marriage benefits… how are you acting married in a way that’s not illegal for single people to do anyway?

    Let’s put it this way.  If you live in a dry county in the south, and come to Wisconsin and go to a bar drinking, and then go back to your home in the south, can you be arrested for breaking their alcohol laws?

    Posted by Nick on July 03, 2008 at 1143 hrs




13. "People who reside in Wisconsin and running off to California to get married just to return are doing it for one thing: To make a political statement. 

    ...

    “The law is the law however, and any Wisconsin resident should know they are subject to the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.”

    If the law is trying to prevent them from making a political statement, the law is not the law. The law is unconstitutional.

    Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on July 03, 2008 at 1145 hrs




14. What about Bill.  He specifically confessed that he and his wife went to another state to be married in circumvention of Wisconsin law.

    Owen, will you be providing the proper authorities with his IP address as you have with other lawbreakers?

    Posted by on July 03, 2008 at 1150 hrs




15. Nick,

    I think you’re trying to argue something that the law doesn’t cover.  Here’s a quote from the Urinal-Seminal’s article:

    ...learned of an obscure state law that makes it a crime for Wisconsin residents to enter into marriage in another state if the marriage would be prohibited here. The law imposes a penalty for those who enter into a marriage that’s prohibited or declared void in Wisconsin of up to $10,000 and nine months in prison.

    The law speaks to Wisconsin residents who enter into marriage in another state if the marriage would be prohibited in Wisconsin.  It has nothing to do with residents who have just moved to Wisconsin.

    To answer your question about the dry counties, the best answer I can come up with is that it would depend.  No, you cannot be prosecuted in the dry county for breaking their alcohol laws if you did your bar hopping on Water Street (or elsewhere).  However, if the county had a law that stated a county resident could not go drinking in another state and then return drunk to the home county, then you could be prosecuted if you returned home drunk.  I added the part about being drunk, because otherwise drinking is a very temporary thing while marriage is (or should be) a much more permanent thing.  Even if you leave the drunk part out, the point is that if the law prohibits it, then the law prohibits it.  If you want the law changed (and the move-away “excuse” is tired), then work to change it.

    Posted by on July 03, 2008 at 1154 hrs




16. I think your argument is clearly falling apart, and the more you add, the more clear it becomes that it is probably not just unenforceable, but probably unconstitutional as well.  By applying the law selectively to people who lived in Wisconsin and got married in another state, and NOT against people who were already married when they moved here, you are more than likely violating the 14th Amendment by not treating everyone equally under the law.

    Of course, if you were to apply it equally, then you are probably going against the Privileges and Immunity clause which allows a citizen of any state to take up residence in any other state in the union.  You can prevent someone from moving to Wisconsin simply because they did something that was perfectly legal in their previous state, which you don’t like.

    More importantly to the argument is the fact that you STILL have not answered the most key question.  Besides illegally trying to gain benefits (through fraud which is already illegal), what is involved in marriage today that single people can’t already do?

    I am not trying to make the argument that out of state marriages should be recognized as legal in this state (though I think gay marriage as a whole SHOULD be legal).  I’m just saying that someone who gets married out of state should not face criminal penalties for something that won’t be recognized here.

    Posted by Nick on July 03, 2008 at 1217 hrs




17. xxpolit,
    I guess I phrased that badly - I understand the opposition to gay marriage, I just don’t agree with it. 

    I don’t have a problem with gay marriage.  I want people to be happy.  If that means same-sex relationship, I wish them the best.  And I truly mean that.  My friends who are in same-sex relationships I support 100%.

    What I don’t support is the things I mentioned.  Entitlements to married couples.  So my beef isn’t with same-sex marriage.

    Just as a personal opinion on the whole hub-bub of gay marriage though, I COMPLETELY agree with this:

    People who reside in Wisconsin and running off to California to get married just to return are doing it for one thing: To make a political statement.

    People have this MEGA STRONG desire for external validation of themselves.  Thats dangerous. I understand it (and I’m guilty of it also) But just as an observation, I think thats what this is really all about (besides the money grab) is verification and self-actualization for gay people.  They are REALLY trying to main-stream gay marriage so that they don’t feel weird or unusual or out of the ordinary.

    By making gay marriage legal, OVER TIME, it will do just that.  Maybe not for you and me, but for younger generations who grow up KNOWING that marriage is now either a man and a man, man or a woman, woman and woman, or man and woman. 

    I think that is what anti-gay marriage people are fighting.

    Me personally… I guess as a libertarian I have to be ok with gay marriage in so far as it will mainstream homosexuality.

    I am against it (and traditional marriage) as a means to government entitlements/forcing companies to give benefits etc.

    But I must accept the cultural shift it would introduce.  At the end of the day, so long as MY rights still exist and we have a government that will protect MY individual rights, gay marriage as a cultural shift does NOT infringe on my rights.

    Posted by on July 03, 2008 at 1229 hrs




18. Nick,

    This is going to have to be my last post about this.  The longer we go back-and-forth, the more it appears like we’re arguing 2 different things.  You seem to be arguing the way you think things ought to be.  I am trying to argue that the law is already on the books, so let’s deal with it.

    The constitutionality and enforceability of the law are things that are for future courts and juries to decide.  Regardless of what they find in the future, the law exists and ought to be enforced by the executive branch of the government.  One of the fundamental truths of a constitutional republic is that no one is above the law--everyone has a duty to know what the law is and to be bound by it.

    More importantly to the argument is the fact that you STILL have not answered the most key question.  Besides illegally trying to gain benefits (through fraud which is already illegal), what is involved in marriage today that single people can’t already do?

    You somewhat answered your own question in your statement.  By being able to enter into a “forbidden marriage,” these couples would gain all the things that they cannot now due to fraud or other statutes.  They would be able to file their taxes under the status of married-filing-jointly.  They could claim spouse benefits from insurance policies.  Basically, anything that they would want to do now, but cannot due to fraud or other statute, they would be able to do.

    I’m just saying that someone who gets married out of state should not face criminal penalties for something that won’t be recognized here.

    Here, you’re blurring the lines between someone who moves to Wisconsin who is already “married” in such a union which Wisconsin doesn’t recognize and someone who, living in Wisconsin, visited another state, “married” into an illegal “marriage” (according to Wisconsin), and then returned to Wisconsin with his/her/its spouse.  Those are 2 similar but different circumstances.  How does Wisconsin deal with people who move there who may be in a “marriage” Wisconsin doesn’t recognize?  I don’t know.

    Posted by on July 03, 2008 at 1334 hrs




19. This is off-topic from the post about our draconian and unnecessary marriage punishment law, but let me offer some corollaries to xxpilot’s very valid (yet off-topic) points about money grabbing and relationship validation:
    The money grab is an equality grab as well. If heterosexuals didn’t get automatic legal and financial benefits just from their marital status, homosexuals wouldn’t ask for the same treatment. (It’s also kind of sad that the state feels it has to provide incentives to marry. Is that necessary to get adults to act responsibly toward each other and their children?)

    Sure, some same-sex couples are looking for personal recognition or validation when they marry. But personal grandstanding aside, marriage gives a basis for mutual understanding between the gay couple and society at large. Regardless of one’s sexuality, everyone understands that marriage is considered the ultimate state of commitment between two people. Think about it—all other things being equal in terms of being good citizens, good parents, responsible taxpayers, etc.—is a heterosexual couple that chooses not to marry viewed the same way as a married couple? No, because they have not made the commitment leap of a legal marriage, so in the public’s eyes, their relationship must not have what it takes to go ‘til death. It’s absurd, but true.

    Now consider that for same sex couples, that societal attitude toward unmarried couples is compounded by a general lack of understanding about homosexuality, and the need for a common frame of reference is quite clear. If we all agree that one definition of “marriage” is a certain level of commitment to one and only one other consenting adult, then there is no basis for denying that status to some and granting it to others. Nor is there a basis to call heterosexual unions marriage but call homosexual unions something else. This is the real argument gay couples everywhere are trying to advance—just as with benefits, marriage should be for all or none.

    Posted by on July 03, 2008 at 1358 hrs




20. Gee Grumps I had no idea you really wanted to see me behind bars.

    We did get married in Wisconsin (at the courthouse) after the required waiting period and within the same year.

    My point was how are you going to track all these people down?

    Posted by on July 03, 2008 at 1406 hrs




21. It’s also kind of sad that the state feels it has to provide incentives to marry. Is that necessary to get adults to act responsibly toward each other and their children?

    That’s one way to look at it.  But here’s a choice.  We can sit around bemoaning the fact that some people don’t have the level of personal responsibility that we do, or we can implement policies which increase that responsible behavior.  The more conservative you are, the more likely you’ll just want to stamp your feet and say “but we shouldn’t have to do that!” The rest of us will go on trying to judiciously apply public policies to improve things.

    it’s a bit far upthread now, but I have to take issue with gay people’s desire for married legal status a “money grab.” These aren’t political activists trying to steal our precious bodily fluids, nor are they financial opportunists.  They are people who love each other and who want to take care of each other in the same ways that married couples do.

    Posted by scott on July 03, 2008 at 1413 hrs




22. "Marriage” should be left to people and their religion.
    A “social contract” should deal with the money matters and financial benefits.
    The ‘state’ should get out of the marriage business.
    The social contract should be treated no differently than a lease agreement, loan agreement, or automobile purchase contract.
    And the social contract could involve more than two people, and a person could have multiple social contracts.

    Posted by on July 03, 2008 at 1439 hrs




23. Bill, don’t feel too bad.  My wife and I got married twice in the same year, once for the purely greedy reasons as someone above put it and once as a celebration for friends and family to witness our commitment to one another.

    Both are equally valid resons for going through the rite of marriage whether hetero or not.

    I was surprised to see Pilot come down in favor of SSM and apparently against economic incentives to marry.

    Posted by on July 03, 2008 at 1510 hrs




24. I don’t get exactly how it’s an equality grab.

    Gay people are perfectly free to marry anyone a straight person is free to marry.  That is a member of the opposite sex.  No-one has told a gay person “you can’t get married because you’re gay!”.  They have said “You can’t marry someone of your gender.”.

    Posted by on July 03, 2008 at 1610 hrs




25. GMan, that is still the most stupid argument on the subject I’ve heard… every time I hear it.  That’s like saying you have the 1st Amendment right to speak, as long as you only say the thing on this approved list of statements.

    Posted by Nick on July 03, 2008 at 1629 hrs




26. I was surprised to see Pilot come down in favor of SSM and apparently against economic incentives to marry.

    Do you think thats a conflict of principle or you’re just suprised at my position in general?

    A “social contract” should deal with the money matters and financial benefits.
    The ‘state’ should get out of the marriage business.

    I agree

    Posted by on July 04, 2008 at 0929 hrs




27. This really isn’t very complicated because marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Homosexuals are not the same as hetrosexuals so there is no equality argument.

    Thomas Jefferson proposed castration for acts of sodomny. Is this law really that outrages?

    Posted by on July 04, 2008 at 1005 hrs




28. To comment #3 above

    Where does one begin with such a pathetic and ignorant commentary?

    xxpilot has never been married? I wonder why?

    Pathetic.

    Posted by on July 07, 2008 at 1913 hrs




29. darryl, I can accept criticism from just about anyone.

    But if you’re going to have the balls to call my comments pathetic and ignorant, and then pretend you have a clue why I’ve never been married you might at least find the class to offer something more specific.

    Pathetic is having the need to come in here and flap a meaningless post about how pathetic I am but contributing nothing to the debate.

    Like I said.. I’ll take criticism from anyone.  But if you’ve got time to toss out insults because of my opinion MAN THE F UP and offer a basis of disagreement or an opinion of your own.

    Posted by on July 07, 2008 at 2202 hrs




30. geez, that’s pretty harsh language coming from a lady

    im a proud liberatarian and i’ll contribute to the dialog anyway i see fit.

    i don’t need free speech regulation from alady or anybody else

    love it or leave it

    Posted by on July 08, 2008 at 1304 hrs




31. You got nothing darryl.  If you had a point you’d make it.  Troll on.

    Posted by on July 08, 2008 at 1353 hrs




32. well, whatever blows up your skirt.

    but i don’t picture you wearing a skirt.

    i picture you as an overweight ugly dyke. a deesel dyke. a man hating, everything hating dykasaurus. probably smoke and drink to much to

    probably hate to much to even join the wisco disco cow dykers at the barndance in waldo.

    my point. you are so full of hate you hate everything that you dont agree with. just keep it up, like i said whatever. blows up yours.

    systerhood is powerful

    Posted by on July 08, 2008 at 1552 hrs