Visionseeker

From a singular perspective that ignores complexity, anyone could. But the fact remains that protection of the law can only stem from accordance to it. The court will recognize the complexity and accept that the state is within its rights to impose reasonable limitations to avoid it. The law doesn't prevent any person from marrying (now), it merely limits them to a single spouse.

The sociological consequences you describe are quite plausible (if not highly probable), but they do not speak to immediate injury and, as such, wouldn't be relevant to the courts.

85RZ500, There are two quotes in this tread (see Greenthumb and jdobbin) addressing one of your postings. Each addresses a different argument, yet they no longer appear in the original post, a post that appears edited some time after the original quotation. I think everyone here would admit to having at least once having made an ass of themselves in a post, but erasing text that has already been quoted is truly bad form. If you were trying to erase making and ass of yourself, you've only exhibited yourself as a dishonest one. Take responsibility for what you write or just don't write it.

Actually, a meth lab, old-style alcohol still, or hydro-weed set-ups are all dangerous operations; they all substantially increase the risk of fire and produce highly toxic airborne contaminents. The aim of "liberalization" cannot take the form of encouraging self-supply as this would undermine the control of the trade. So called "vices" need not be illegal, but it would be foolish to leave them unregulated and controlled.

It's called playing to the base. The Conservatives are running scared and trying to stoke issues that will get their base out to vote (i.e. Gun registry, security and simple islamophobia). This guy is nothing more than a victim of Conservatives playing politics. The party on the right seem to have difficulties doing the right thing.

Tell that to Myron Thompson, former Reform, Alliance, Conservative MP. He's a dual Canada-US citizen. Dual (or even multiple) citizenship is a choice that those who are eligible are free to make. I don't begrudge them their choice because it's none of my (or your) freaking business. You'd probably do better in your own life by focusing on your business rather than trying to inject yourself into the lives of others.

I think PTs point is that the Conservatives have become synonymous with, if not the embodiment of, hate and intolerance. I myself wouldn't go that far. For one thing, the NDP has a growing anti-Semitism problem and the Liberal's are not immune to having party members with intolerant views. But while the Liberals and NDP have fringe elements, the Conservative "fringe" seems to have some measure of control over the party's agenda and Conservative MPs have been known to publicly defend known hate-mongers in the House. Hate and intolerance have a full history in this country. Case in point: 13 years before the current President of the USA was born, a Toronto woman was jailed and later confined to a mental institution for 5 years; her crime/illness was having married a black man. Velma Demerson's Incorrigible is a chilling auto-biographical account of her abuse at the hands of the state for the crime of marrying a Chinese man in 1939. Such institutional hate almost seems unbelievable in today's Canada. But its demise has not meant that all intolerance has gone with it. And if there is one party that, more than any other, carries the seeds to replant such state sponsored stupidity it is the Conservative Party.

Wow! This thread is persistent. And dare I say, evolving…

As it should. State controlled supply would eliminate many problems and mitigate many others. Grow-ups would still be a problem for a while (like stills were after prohibition ended), but the risk-return ratio would soon become apparent (risk remains high, return diminished).

Well, first off, marriage isn't a business. However it's import in establishing estates and possible succession draws the institution into the realm of property law and necessarily the concept of shared property. Under existing statutes, both parties of a marriage share equally in the ownership and enjoyment of all property (unless a side agreement like a pre-nup is drawn-up. But even then...). But business accepts the notion of inequality as measured by shares. A multiparty business can be equally owned or unequally owned depending upon the ownership share each member retains. For the purpose of argument, I'll use a simplified publicly traded corporate entity as an example. Company X has 4 shareholders (A,B,C and D) and each own 25% of the company. After a while, A decides to sell all her shares but only D has any money or desire to buy and takes 10%, leaving A to sell the remaining shares to E - a new party to the equation. Now the ownership stake is as follows: D= 35% B= 25% C= 25% E= 15% E has come into the "union" without D, B and C being able to consent to or prevent it. Now, can this outcome reasonably take place in a plural marriage: no. So the business analogy fails on this point. Turning to the Limited Partnership model, we see more promise as the partnership can be built in such a way as to oblige any departing member to sell their shares to the remaining partners. But here to we see the seed of trouble because the departing member is only obliged to sell at "fair value". If the remaining partners cannot sufficiently capitalize to buy-out A, the partnership will either have to sell in totem, or seek outside investor(s) to buy A out. Again, we see that remedy requires outside intervention to resolve a single party withdrawal. Now ask yourself this, what outside party is going to buy-in to a marriage to bolster its capital deficiencies? So can we drop the business analogy? As to the question of benefits, the question isn't one of limiting, but rather allocating entitlement. Suppose male A is married to females B, C and D. Wife B is 36 and had 2 children with A, Wife C is 32 and has 2 children from a previous marriage, Wife D is 36 and had no children. Male A dies suddenly. He has no life insurance. Now suppose we say that plurality is accepted under CPP, then the following would occur: Wife B gets half the survivors benefits and orphans benefits X2 Wife C gets nothing* Wife D get the other half of the survivors benefits Now, this breakdown seems simple enough (and rather unfair), but how much bureaucratic red tape do you think would have to weave it's way through the system to determine this outcome? And once established, what's Wife C with two kids going to do? Demand her share of the family assets so that she can move on and raise her kids? *Wife C got nothing because survivors benefits are only paid to women or men over 35 unless a child of the diseased is their custodial responsibility (by birthright or adoption) All this to say that plural marriage is too complex an undertaking for the state to administer and control. And as the act of licence is to control, plural marriage cannot be subject to licence. Ergo, it cannot be a legal marriage.

No. Because the state defines marriage. Religions are free to facilitate through marriage ceremonies, but they have no say in terms of eligibility. A 12 year old married in any church will not alter the state's requirements of consent, and is therefore invalid. No, SSM demonstrated that a homosexual individual was prevented from marrying another (singular) individual on the basis of sexual orientation. Thus, a violation of the Charter by discriminating against an individual on the basis of sexual orientation. Expense arguments are one thing, wider notions of succession and family ties are another. But in the end, plural marriage activists must demonstrate that restricting marriage to one partner is not a reasonable limitation. Can you have multiple driver's licences? Why not? I like ducks! Our personal preferences aside, the SSM argument does not open doors to plural marriages. In fact, SSMs reinforce the joint contract concept of marriage which treats both partners equally under the law. Pluralism cannot operate under that assumption.

Let's see here... You profess your ignorance of Le Québécois (the counterpart to the publication in question here) and proceed to question my intelligence. Such hypocrisy! You must be one of those unprincipled conservatives I've identified. As to those truckloads of monies supporting separatism, please provide spreadsheets. Your loosely veiled hatred towards Quebeckers suggests that you lack the intellectual impartiality for me to take you at your word. Yep. Fox News field manual: ignore the argument; seek to discredit its author. May your mom be proud? Look Argus, anyone who defends Feron Ellis and his camp are pathetic. I know enough to recognize that your politics is small and, based on your exchange here, your character smaller still. Question: what is it like going through life suppressing thought in order to be governed by your reflexes?

And lo and behold, the elephant in the room has been spotted. 16 years ago, not a single professor in the entire faculty was willing to accept and supervise my original thesis: Trade Liberalization, Population Demographics, Economic Decline and the Demise of Retirements of Leisure. So I had to revert to something that the purveyors of conventional wisdom would accept. For the last three years, I have found myself rereading my original unfinished work in response to various economic announcements and developments and have repeatedly bore witness to my own prescience of the crisis we now face. My arguments, in a “nutshell” were as follows: Free trade is an exercise of balance that inevitably lifts and drags to a lowest common denominator. While combined wealth will increase overall, increasing disparities within will be a natural by-product. When divided at the mean, the median income below the mean among developed partners will drop substantially while the median income below the mean in lesser developed partners will increase marginally. In terms of incomes above the mean, the highest echelons will enjoy the greatest increase while lower echelons stagnate or retreat. The lesson: free trade dramatically alters economic self-reliance and increases disparities in wealth. If not properly managed/regulated, it carries the seeds of its own destruction. Western demographics are entirely out of whack. Advances in health and declining birth rates mean that we live longer and have fewer children. This will present substantial challenges and strains to defined benefits pension plans and universal health care. With fewer and fewer workers available to sustain growing populations of retirees, something is bound to break. Financial markets will do what they can to defer the inevitable collapse, but this will only serve to make the eventual fall far greater than it need be. The lesson: 1- our predictive financial models ignore the full implications inherent to our demographic imbalance and thereby blind themselves of just how disruptive things will be when the day of reckoning appears; 2- universal health care will prove to be both economically and politically unsustainable as the growing ranks of the elderly begin to consume greater and greater shares of health care services. Economic decline is unavoidable when the working population contracts. As skilled workers become increasingly scares either wages are pushed higher, or operations move to centres with less engaged working populations. Both outcomes diminish domestic productivity and a regressive economic cycle is all but predetermined. The lesson: Only a dramatic increase in immigration of young, working-aged people or who have multiple young children can help maintain a measure of economic growth and diversity. Retirements of leisure will become increasingly unsustainable while businesses fail to meet pension shortfalls and seniors find themselves increasingly responsible for the health care they consume. In short, the party will soon be over.

If that is the "whole argument", it will fail. For the state has sovereignty over contracts (including marriage) and religion or religious belief has never been an effective foil against that power. Take the case of religious annulment (a proclamation that a marriage never actually took place) and its irrelevancy under family law. Mormons aren't prevented from marrying. The state simply limits recognition to one partner. Homosexuals were prevented from marrying their chosen partner because their chosen one wasn't of the opposite sex. There is nothing analogous for pluralist to draw from gay marriage. The only argument pluralists can apply to gay marriage is that the state has been proven wrong once before. And the court will say: "right, but what does that have to do with the matter at hand?" And the pluralists will have no response because it has nothing to do with their claim

Hum, is a circular firing squad beginning to form?

No, it's called hypocrisy. And it is being exercised in heavy doses by the conservative apologists in this forum. If Le Québécois was given $30,000 by the feds, many conservative supporters would go absolutely ape. And that reaction would be somewhat reasonable and perfectly understandable. Yet when this monetary grant is given to a publication the reputedly gives voice to western separatist, the reaction is disappointingly benign and not in keeping with the outrage often expressed a Quebec separatism. There are many possible explanations for this. I offer some below: 1- these conservatives are too self-serving to maintain ideological consistency 2- these conservatives simply hate Quebec and Quebec separatism provides a convenient and politically acceptable target for their rage 3- these conservatives lust for power as both the means and ends of what is good for themselves, country be damned Anyone else want to add to the list?

Ask Preston Manning about the value of policy conventions when an election is around the corner. There's no point in the Liberals showing their hand in this environment and, basically, no real public expectation that they do so either. The satiation of expectations will likely come through small feeds during a campaign.

Equally "treasonous". Anyone who makes an argument in favour of dismantling this country is against Canada. Those who wish for Quebec's separation are working towards the death of a country. I’m all in favour of debate, but threats merely demonstrate the weakness in one’s underlying argument. Separatist arguments are the mark of a weak mind.

Right. Liberals hate the West like the West hates Canada. Grow up. Hypocrisy is indefensible. Even less so with such a childish retort. The logical counterpoint here is having the federal government offer near 30 bones to Le Québécois. You'd be incensed if that happened. But it's all well and good when a bunch of westerners shout: "Burn Canada"!

To be frank, putting and end to 2 for 1 will solve a lot of the problem. 2 for 1 has built itself into the strategy of the defence: Lawyer: "Look, you're going to be convicted and are facing 5 to 10 years when sentenced. I can shave this time by dragging my feet and delaying the trial through other procedural steps. What do you say?" Accused: "Hell yeah." By reducing the incentive to keep clients in jails, trials will move more quickly and the jails will become less over-crowded. It will take about 2 years before we see how effective the measure proves. But to be really effective, the law needs to inject financial support to provincial courts help relieve the backlog.

The language of the state is the language of law. The state has specific conditions set-out before it will recognize a marriage and afford it legal standing. Legal and vernacular marriages are absolutely different constructs: one has legal recognition and defined rights and responsibilities while the other is recognized by those who choose to do so and no DEFINED rights and responsibilities. No, it wouldn't. Marriage isn't the simple act of two (or more) people deciding to shack-up together for a period of time. Marriage is an expressed contractual union where the parties agree to assume the defined rights and responsibilities inherent to the institution. Pair-bonding is a natural inclination that is driven by sexual impulses and mankind’s nature as a social animal. But those same impulses (or rather their waning) are what undermines the permanent nature of that bond. The institution of (legal) marriage seeks to constrain the natural impulse to terminate such bonds and to instil a measure of stability. IMO it's not very good at it and it only takes a quick look at divorce rates to garner appreciation for such an opinion. Marriage is the purview of the state, full stop. A pair-bond assumed outside the rigours of the state's marriage protocols is not a marriage. Yes. Simply put: the state is responsible for ensuring the sanctity of contracts. Right! "Marry" as you will. Just don't ask the state to recognize it. Look, I understand your confusion with the whole common-law deal. But when someone checks a box on a legal document proclaiming themselves as married (as they can do when filing taxes), they are making a legal pronouncement of commitment that is just as valid as holding a ceremony in front of countless people in a church, court or wherever. In short, they are making it legal. The real kicker on the common-law front is when the parties of the supposed union disagree (i.e. one says they are married, the other refutes the notion). Should the state be empowered to impose a state of matrimony solely on the basis of one party's say-so in contradiction of the other?

As a former adviser to union reps, I can attest anecdotally that clear-cut cases of theft meant that the wagons "shall not be circled". People in union shops (like people who are not in a shop) are frequent victims of theft: their lunch is stolen, their car broken into, or items taken from their desk or locker. While a small minority thinks it's cool to pluck from the employer, the majority knows that these are the very people who steal their sandwiches. When the twits get caught, most people are happy to see them go. You got that right. My uncle worked in Canada for an American bank that failed in the 80's. The division he headed was one of the few that maintained profitability while the bank failed, and was bought up by one of our big five banks. Two months after the acquisition, he was laid-off because of "restructuring". In the end, the only restructuring the bank did was to eliminate all employees in the division over 45 and replaced them with staff in their early 30's. My uncle tried to get another job in finance for 4 years. But he was 52 when he was fired without cause and nobody wants to hire an old man, especially one who was let go by the big five. He died of a heart attack at age 58. His job at the time was delivering flowers. Yep. My anti-union brother-in-law with an impeccable record and 11 years seniority got let go over the good-for-nothing nephew of the owner who was later charged and convicted of theft and embezzlement. The embezzlement was made possible by his assumption of my BinL's duties. In theory yes. But I do have anecdotal experience that union politics can play a heavy part. However, I would also add that the employer quite likely intended to stoke such politics within the union, and the union simply took the bait. Regardless and in full disclosure, it was the episode which lead to my voluntary (and in protest) resignation as a consultant to the union. Now I am part of management in a union shop. And I must say that many managers are entirely ill-equipped and entirely untrained to manage people. It's actuallay quite astounding how bereft many are of basic empathy. To this group, every short-coming of the operation is blamed on laziness. It makes me want to puke. Almost half of these SOBs would easily drive a non-union operation into the ground. They are either unwilling or unable to recognize how they can stimulate productivity without threats. I just want to shout out "Hey, shit for brains! Look what I've got over here. Yup, that's productivity. What's behind it you ask, simple, respect." My problem with Unions is that they are too disconnected from the new workforce. That after the front line Union volunteers are some higher ups who have no idea how people in non union environments are getting shafted on hours, overtime, and being ripped off of 40% to 50% of their wages and have little hope of every unionizing. Yes. And this sell-out will be there undoing. It will also have much wider consequences such as a lack of supporters in preventing pension failure. Very short-sighted, but you reap what you sow. Teachers are both educators and childcare providers. If we as a society want them to be more of the former than the latter, then we must be prepared to pay for it.

So did hunting. But you still nead a licence for either endeavour. No. The state defines who (age and mental state) and how many can marry (see bigamy). The legalization of divorce prompted the evolution of the administrative and family law questions we grapple with today. Right. On this we agree. If you accept my finishing your last sentence with "which do not enjoy legal recognition or protection." I again agree with you. I do not believe the state has the right to interfere with three or more people choosing to call themselves a married household, let them do as they please provided they are not encroaching on the rights of others. But by the same token, there is no obligation for the state to afford their claims any legal standing or recognition either. My focus was solely on the question of decriminalization/legality. People can call themselves Ewoks for all I care. Polygamist relationships are not banned. But beyond the first coupling, they cannot be recognized by the state as contractual unions. Any attempts to have the state recognize a second and concurrent marriage is bigamy and constitutes a violation under the criminal code. So if you want to engage in polygamy, don't involve the state and understand that your unions are not subject to the duties and benefits that legal marriage entails.

The man/woman definition was struck down because it denied the right of homosexuals to marry. Ergo, marriage law was discriminating against individuals on the basis of sexual orientation. The man/woman test failed, not the concept of joint partnership as the basis of marriage. That's a different test entirely. I wish anyone who fights (non-violently) for rights luck whether I agree with their aims or not. For one, it's the civilized thing to do. Further, should a matter of law be resolved against my preconceptions, the written ruling often exposes the logical fallacy upon which my opinion was formed. IMO, keeping one’s mind open is the best means of adapting to change.

Indeed, the contract law approach is another angle that harms the case for polygamy. It is also the main argument illustrating how the question of homosexual and polygamist marriage cases differ. Gay marriage rights do not seek to alter the basic principle of a joint partnership between two parties to the exclusion of all others. The extension of benefits, property rights and other endowments to homosexual couples who married was a simple matter of acknowledging that a COUPLE need not necessarily be a man and a woman. Striking the very idea of two people from the definition has more far reaching consequences. In fact, an offence against conjugal rights might speak more to an offence to wider existent contractual constructs than the harm visited upon the first spouse. But it must be said that there is no right to marriage, only a right to equality. Marriage is a licence, or put another way, an act permitted by the state that is subject to conditions. Confining the act of marriage to one conjugal partnership at a time does not preclude anyone from equal treatment; it is merely a "reasonable" limitation. The polygamist argument must show that the limitation is unreasonably discriminating. I wish them luck, but I don't believe they'll succeed.