The National Enquirer has been hammering away at John Edwards (pic right, courtesy of National Enquirer), accusing him of keeping a “mistress” on the side, arranging hush money to keep her quite, and setting up an elaborate cover-up in which an Edwards campaign worker holds himself out as the father of Edwards’ love child.
The story raises a host of questions, some of which may send readers running for the exits. Oh, well. Among them, what if Edwards’ wife knows about the mistress and approves of the relationship? Would it still be a big deal to Edwards or the country? If so, why? And could either Edwards or his fall guy by tried for bigamy if they cross the state line into Texas? And which is the better approach in terms of its impact on society as a whole and the individuals involved:
a. secretly father and then abandon a child because for political reasons? or
b. marry the mistress (assuming the first wife approves) then father the child and then give the child a complete parental set in the open?
This is a serious question. I think it deserves a serious national debate. More on the Edwards story at National Enquirer.
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
kbp 07.31.08 at 1:33 pm
Where’s TBM when we need him to convict somebody?
Beowulf 07.31.08 at 1:53 pm
This kind of thing has been going on for … well, for as long as recorded history, especially among the ruling class.
The hypocrisy comes from the fact that this isn’t an option for the hoi polloi.
My personal feeling is that this is between Edwards and his wife, and the National Enquirer should mind its own business — except, of course, that this kind of sleaze is its business.
My non-lawyerly guess, based on what TBM has said, is that yes, Edwards could be busted for bigamy in Texas. The law is that stupidly broad. And the aide could probably be dragged into the mess for some kind of fraud or misrepresentation charge.
TxBluesMan 07.31.08 at 5:19 pm
Not based on what I’ve seen so far.
There is a difference between adultery and bigamy.
Harold Godwinson 08.01.08 at 1:20 am
So which is worse, to father a child and abandon it, pretending someone else is its father, or to live in a bigamous marriage with two wives and give the child a real father? That is the real (not legal) difference between adultery and bigamy. That is why there are many Biblical injunctions against the former, but not the latter. The welfare of the child is served instead of ignored.
The same applies to women with live-in boyfriends and homosexual marriage and other exotic “family” arrangements currently in vogue. The interests of children are thrown on the trash-heap.
kbp 08.01.08 at 9:07 am
TBM
There is a difference between adultery and bigamy.
I will say the Texas law on it clouds that “difference”.
While we’re on the “convict someone” topic, what happened to the Texas big guns when it came time to start cheging all for BIGAMY?
It’s been pointed out to you that all the cases you keep pasting up here about the higher court opinions rendered AFTER Texas made it legal for gays to cohabitate (in groups that resemble bigamy as that Texas law reads) have that COMMON problem of involving minors.
The only one charged for BIGAMY, Merril Leroy Jessop, centers on a relationship alleged to involve a “a person other than his spouse… younger than 16 years of age”.
Looks like Texas is using those “Bishop’s Records” in a VERY SELECTIVE way here. From the portion of those records that are available to the public, even we can see there must be many cases that involve parties greater than 18 years of age.
I guess your Texas crew is BACKING down on challenging the types of cases that would most likely make it to SCOTUS.
deputyheadmistreass 08.01.08 at 9:51 am
There is a difference between adultery and bigamy everywhere but Texas. In Texas, if you say you are married, you’re married, according to you.
And I have asked and asked, and nobody has explained to me, why, then, couldn’t a wronged wife have authorities charge her adulterous husband with bigamy if she can find that he and his paramour registered at a hotel as man and wife. And a child between two people is, according to what you’ve said about TX law, evidence that they intend to be seen as man and wife.
I’m all for protecting the institution of marriage. But it seems to me that allowing adultery, which involves deceit- while making it a felony for three or more consenting adults to ‘give the appearance’ of being married when they all know what’s going on and nobody cares really isn’t about protecting the marriage.
Texas seems to think it’s authorized to read minds as well as regulate speech. Oh- and use necromancy as well, since they can tell that all the boys in the YfZ community are going to grow up to marry under-aged girls thirty or fifty years fom now- even though Texas cannot show that every adult man in the community has married a teen. Texas knows it’s going to happen.
TxBluesMan 08.01.08 at 10:18 am
DH,
If the adulteress couple hold themselves out as being married by registering as husband and wife, then they could be charged with Bigamy.
Bigamy charges, although few due to the rareness of the offense, are still prosecuted in Texas. I can think of four cases that are pending in Texas courts right now (none involving FLDS) and several convictions since the law was changed (again, none involving the FLDS).
Why are the FLDS exempt from obeying this law, that all other Texans have to obey or face the consequences? We prosecute others that do it, why shouldn’t they be held to the same standard?
honey 08.01.08 at 8:30 pm
TxBluesMan
If we could get you headed in the right direction you would be a good one for “the cause.”
Pliggy 08.01.08 at 10:10 pm
I still can’t figure out how they can possibly convict a man of bigamy, which proves that he IS married twice, and then turn around and convict on the opposite argument as well, as in statutory rape.
Can you statutorily rape your wife?
TxBluesMan 08.04.08 at 12:25 pm
Pliggy,
Because the bigamous marriage, by law, is void from the start, in other words, other than the criminal act, it was never valid.