Language desk
< January 8	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 10 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 9[edit]

Getting married to the same person twice[edit]

I was reading a story where a married couple, Alice and Bob, from country A was living in country B, but was having trouble getting their marriage in country A authenticated via paperworks. So instead, they simply got married again in country B.

At first, I thought that this was a case of bigamy. I have always understood that "bigamy" literally means "two marriages", and that it also extends to more than two marriages by inference. My previous understand was that if a person is simultaneously in multiple marriages then it's a case of bigamy, regardless of who their spouse is. However, today I looked up the actual definition of "bigamy" and that every dictionary I checked specified that that the marriages had to be with different people. So my previous understanding was completely wrong and that Alice and Bob from the story was not a case of bigamy at all.

the act of entering into a marriage with one person while still legally married to another[1]

1. Is there an English word or phrase that captures the situation of "Alice and Bob got married once, then married again in another jurisdiction"?

2. Is there a language where definition of "bigamy" is broad enough to capture the above situation? As in, the equivalent word for "bigamy" in that language ("bigamie" for German and French and ""bigamia" for Spanish) has a definition just says "multiple marriages" and doesn't include the "to different people" part. Helian James (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remarried. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 10:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re (2), No. That would pointlessly undermine the very meaning of the word. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In countries in which religious marriages are not recognized by the state it is usual to marry twice: civil marriage and religious marriage. That isn't bigamy at all and I don't know a special word for this double marriage. For religious people that are two steps to get "fully married". 91.54.32.105 (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the Criminal Code of Canada (or the other version), see section 290. As far as I can see, if in Canada you "go through a form of marriage" with your current spouse, you both have committed bigamy. But having said that, I can't imagine it actually being prosecuted, for example if a couple married by a judge decide they want a religious marriage as well. --142.112.220.65 (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get to those items, but it's ridiculous. Bigamy, by definition, is having TWO DIFFERENT spouses. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can get to those items, but I do not see anything in the text supporting such interpretation (unless you invoke a convoluted reading that "another person is married" in point ii includes "married to myself"):

Section 290 of Canadian penal code, emphasis mine

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

290 (1) Every one commits bigamy who
   (a) in Canada,
       (i) being married, goes through a form of marriage with another person,
       (ii) knowing that another person is married, goes through a form of marriage with that person, or
       (iii) on the same day or simultaneously, goes through a form of marriage with more than one person; or
   (b) being a Canadian citizen resident in Canada leaves Canada with intent to do anything mentioned in subparagraphs (a)(i) to (iii) and, pursuant thereto, does outside Canada anything mentioned in those subparagraphs in circumstances mentioned therein.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by No such user (talk • contribs)

This is not legal advice, but my wife and I are married in Canada by 1) civil marriage and then subsequently on a different date 2) in a religious venue. We would consider this neither remarriage nor bigamy, but simply marriage. 142.127.187.55 (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From Wedding of Prince Juan Carlos and Princess Sophia:

The couple was married in three ceremonies: one according to the rites of the Roman Catholic Church, the groom's faith, at the Cathedral Basilica of St. Dionysius the Areopagite; one according to the rites of the Greek Orthodox Church, the bride's faith, at the Metropolitan Cathedral of Athens; and a third civil ceremony that was held upon their return to the Royal Palace.

--Error (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are some cases of this in List of people who remarried the same spouse. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This may also be seen as a Wedding vow renewal ceremony. --Jayron 32 18:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alice and Bob may be exchanging new keys. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't resist sharing this little gem of a limerick by William Cosmo Monkhouse:
There once was an old man of Lyme

Who married three wives at one time.

When asked, 'Why the third?',

He replied, 'One's absurd!

And bigamy, Sir, is a crime'.

-- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“One wife is not enough; two will fight; if you have three wives, two will pick on the third. Therefore have four wives.” (Arabic proverb?) —Tamfang (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's the issue that many people take "marriage" to be the piece of paper or the ceremony, rather than the union. No matter how many ceremonies you have, or how many pieces of paper you get stamped or deposit, it's all the same marriage. This is highlit by common-law marriage, where you may have neither paper nor ceremony but are still married; if years later you legally "get married", that's not an additional marriage. Even govt officials sometimes think that you're not married until you register or stamp the piece of paper. — kwami (talk) 09:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So if Alice and Bob are married, do they "go through a form of marriage" with each other? In Canada (see above) that will count as bigamy. --Lambiam 09:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how. — kwami (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss the part in the code that had another person bolded? Matt Deres (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think Bob is not married to themself, so if Alice and Bob are married, Alice is another person than Bob. So if Bob, knowing that Alice is married (how could they not know? – Alice is their spouse), goes through a form of marriage with Alice, they fall afoul of § 290 (1) a (ii). This may not have been the intention of the lawmaker, but it is what is written down and how a prosecutor and judge might reasonably interpret the statute: while still being married, you are not allowed to marry on top of that, also not with your current spouse. My question, though, was not how to interpret "another person", but "to go through a form of marriage with". If marriage is not the ceremony sealing a state transition, as we were told, but instead a state, that of being in a union, doesn't living together as a married couple qualify as "going through a form of marriage with each other"? --Lambiam 23:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would definitely not be a "reasonable" interpretation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. As a lawyer, I can say with confidence that no judge in their right mind would interpret that as meaning anything other than "knowing that another person is married to someone else". Proteus (Talk) 16:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But please assume, for the sake of examining the concept of "going through a form of marriage with", that the Supreme Court, in an attack of legal literalism taking the form of a folie à neuf, decides that Alice, being married to Bob, is not only (duh) another person, but furthermore also "another person" in the sense of Section 290 of the Criminal Code. Given the revelation that "marriage" does not mean the ceremony but the union, how should this going-through be interpreted? --Lambiam 16:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any lawyer trying to make this claim would likely be laughed out of court long before it could get to a higher court. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"...to someone else" is implied and not explicit, but taken into consideration since one's marriage is a union. Modocc (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What if Hitler had invaded Britain instead of the Soviet Union? Is it likely Germany would have won?
Answer: This is a ridiculous assumption; any historian knows that Hitler did not invade Britain and therefore it is meaningless to ask if he would have won.
--Lambiam 00:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let A marry B and let C be "someone else" who is neither A or B (which others agree is implied here). If A marries B who is married to A, "A and B" are a union and not married to C, so that's kosher. If A marries B who is married to C then its bigamous in accordance with what is written and implied. In other words, A knows B is married or not to someone besides themselves. Modocc (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I am asking is simply whether the contention that "marriage" means the union and not the ceremony implies that "A and B", after the ceremony, being in a union and remaining in a union, are going through a form of marriage with each other. --Lambiam 00:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "form but no substance" comes to mind with respect to the brief description of an illegitimate bigamous marriage if either A or B are already married to C and they are now "going through a form of marriage with each other" where C is implied by the definition of bigamy. Of course there are different ways to be engaged and married regardless. Modocc (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no C in the question. The question whether "being in a union" implies "going through a form of marriage" has nothing to do with bigamy. --Lambiam 01:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read "going through a form of marriage" as the ceremony and/or living together as a couple. Why do you ask? Modocc (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A little bit beside the topic, but something I found while searching for an answer to the question: Proxy marriage; in German, it is also called "Handschuhehe"...glove marriage, literally. Lectonar (talk) 10:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The curious name comes from an old tradition of using a real glove of the absentee as symbolizing the proxy's mandate. While no longer allowed in Germany, proxy marriages in the Netherlands can still be concluded by special permission, given under certain conditions; see nl:Trouwen met de handschoen (in Dutch). --Lambiam 23:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]