Tai C. C~ the wage earner, married Lum N. Y~ C~ in 1923 in China. (He apparently had
                  been living in Hawaii before that time.) The couple moved to Hawaii and lived there
                  until approximately 1928, when they sold their business and returned to China. Later
                  that year, he went through a Chinese custom wedding ceremony with the claimant, Sou
                  Y. K~, in Kwangtung province. The claimant moved into the home occupied by the wage
                  earner, his first wife, and their daughter. In 1929 the wage earner moved back to
                  Hawaii, leaving both wives and his children behind, where they continued to live as
                  a (combined) family. He returned to China at least once thereafter, for a period of
                  approximately five years. In 1938 he left China for good and returned to his other
                  home in Hawaii.
               
               His children began to emigrate to Hawaii, one or two at a time, in the 1940's. Sometime
                  between 1949 and 1952, his first wife emigrated to Hawaii. Due to the communist take-over
                  of China, the claimant was precluded from emigrating as planned; however, the wage
                  earner regularly sent money to her (via Hong Kong) for the support of herself and
                  their youngest children. He died in Hawaii on January 24, 1973. The claimant finally
                  reached Hawaii years thereafter. In October 1980 she applied for widow's benefits
                  on the deceased wage earner's account. You asked us whether she qualifies as a "widow"
                  for social security benefit purposes.
               
               Because the wage earner was a Hawaii domiciliary at the time of his death, that state's
                  law applies in assessing the claimant's marital status. See section 216(h) (1) (A) of the Act. Hawaii follows the usual rule that a marriage
                  valid in the country where contracted will be held legal by Hawaiian courts. Hawaii
                  Revised Statutes ("H.R.S.") §572-3. Polygamous marriages were legal in Kwangtung province,
                  China, at the time the wage earner made the claimant his second wife. GC Opinion re:
               
               Chin H. T~, December 21, 1976. Tested under section 572-3 alone, the marriage would
                  be recognized as legal in Hawaii.
               
               The opposing factor in this case is the general public policy against polygamy in
                  all states of this country. H.R.S. section 572-1 requires, for a valid marriage to
                  be contracted, that (inter alia) the man not at the time have a lawful wife living
                  and the woman similarly not have a lawful husband living. In Hawaii, however, the
                  public policy against polygamy is not as strong as in most states; it does not make
                  polygamous marriages void. 1_/ Polygamous marriages in Hawaii and voidable only. 2_/
                  H.R.S §580-21. A decree of nullity of a polygamous marriage may be secured by either
                  party (to that marriage) during the lifetime of the other party, or by a former husband
                  or wife. H.R.S. §580-23. Because none of the spouses in the current case sought such
                  a decree of nullity, both marriages must be treated as valid. The claimant therefore
                  would have a surviving spouse's inheritance rights under Hawaii law. Cf.
                     Estate of Henry Gordon, 6 Hawaii 289 (1851) (voidable on ground of age). As a result, she qualifies for
                  widow's insurance benefits under the Act.
               
               1_/ Similarly, Hawaii's bigamy statute carries a lesser penalty than most; bigamy
                  is a petty misdemeanor rather than a felony. H.R.S. §709-900 (enacted in 1972).
               
               2_/ We express no opinion herein concerning what result we would reach on the issue
                  presented, if Hawaii law treated polygamous marriages as void rather than voidable.