First decriminalization, then plural marriages

[scribblet]

Sorry I couldn't come up with something bashing Harper and the CPC but this is a change..

Personally I hope this doesn't happen, but legally, now the legal definition of marriage is changed how an they stop this.. as long as minors are protected !

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ialComment/home

First decriminalization, then plural marriages

March 23, 2009 at 12:00 AM EDT

British Columbia has charged two fundamentalist Mormon men with violating the Criminal Code provision against polygamy. The defendants will argue "God made me do it," claiming their practice of polygamy is part of the religious freedom guaranteed by Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But the Charter also says all rights are subject "to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

Many other "free and democratic" societies, including the United States and many European countries, have criminalized polygamy, and their courts have always upheld such laws against legal challenge. What the U.S. Supreme Court said in its 1878 Reynolds decision is still compelling: Religious freedom means the state cannot punish people for religious opinions, but it can certainly regulate secular institutions such as marriage. The justification for prohibiting polygamy is that it leads to treating women and children as chattels and undermines the legal equality required to make democracy functional.

Nonetheless, Canadian courts may strike down Section 293 of the Criminal Code over the alleged conflict with religious liberty. One might think it hardly matters. Fundamentalist Mormons, after all, have flagrantly flouted the law for 50 years, so a failure to convict will just affirm the status quo. But it is not that simple.

Decriminalizing polygamy will make it impossible to maintain immigration regulations designed to prevent polygamous men from bringing in more than one wife. Extra spouses sometimes get in by concealing their marital status or by virtue of extraordinary circumstances. But, basically, the policy is clear: Check your extra wives at the door. As Queen's University law professor Nicholas Bala has pointed out, rescinding that policy would make Canada the only country in the world to welcome polygamous immigrants - an immigration magnet for polygamists from Africa and the Middle East as well as fundamentalist Mormons escaping prosecution in the United States.

Related Articles

It is also predictable that newly arrived polygamists would join with those already in the country in litigation to advance the cause of polygamy. cont...

[sharkman]

I've been following this case and the legal opinion I've heard has me worried. It says that the Crown will lose this case, and it was a bad choice to make this particular situation a precedent against polygamy.

Only time will tell, but as I have said many times on this and other forums, once they decided they could change what a marriage is, they would have to keep opening the door wider and wider to accommodate every special interest group with a dog in this fight.

When will the first 40 yr old male sue to marry a 14 yr old boy? And what's wrong with that?

[scribblet]

It is a slippery slope isn't it, and we were warned.. However, I sure hope that there is full protection for minors if polygamy becomes legal. There has to be more than the age of consent in play here, we have to make sure that even 16 year olds are protected from forced marriages.. I would say that if polygamy becomes legal, then the age of consent for such marriages should be raised to - say - 18...

[Progressive Tory]

It is a slippery slope isn't it, and we were warned.. However, I sure hope that there is full protection for minors if polygamy becomes legal.

The basic idea of polygomy doesn't bother me, so long as it is with consenting adults; but you're right about the legal implications, especially when it comes to rights.

If employers have to provide benefits for all wives and/or husbands (because believe me women will also want to challenge the law), it could become difficult to control.

I don't blame gay marriage legislation for this though, because it is not based on any kind of 'religous' freedom. In fact, many would argue they defy some religous beliefs.

You're right. It's a slippery slope.

[normanchateau]

It says that the Crown will lose this case, and it was a bad choice to make this particular situation a precedent against polygamy.

Do you know of a particular situation that would be the ideal precedent-making case?

How many Canadian polygamists are there who don't use religious grounds as their rationale for polygamy?

If the courts choose to strike down the laws against polygamy, there's nothing to prevent legislators from enacting new legislation to prevent it. Canada already has plenty of laws in place which are completely inconsistent with what the Bible allows or doesn't allow.

[85RZ500]

Hey, I'm no expert but it has been often quoted as saying that homosexuality is wrong. Now we have people saying that their religion sz more than one wife is hunky-dory.

And I've just read that three countrys , France, Spain and ?, say incest is OK too.

LOL,The world is going to hell in a hand basket and PT it may have started when they trashed the definition of marriage.

Edited March 23, 2009 by 85RZ500

[normanchateau]

LOL,The world is going to hell in a hand basket and PT it may have started when they trashed the definition of marriage.

Some would argue that we're becoming more civilized. Prior to the twentieth century, child molesting was legal in most countries. Enlightened civil legislators decided to create an age of consent for sex since the Bible has no problem with pedophilia.

[Randy Nicholas]

You know what, in society, we have no problem with polygamy. We don't. Distasteful as some say it seems to them, people whore around all the time, cheat on their spouses with multiple sexual partners, anonymously, unsafely, and I think we should recognize that there is a part of the human psyche that may drive some toward polygamous behaviour, and when it comes to sexual relationships between adults, you waste all the trees for legislation as are available. People get their sex. People have polygamist relationships all over the place, more than you may realize, just not legally registered. But if a group of adults want to live their lives like a real family with one husband and three wives, they have to do it in ultra secret compounds, where the inhabitants become increasingly dependent on the hierarchy and are forced into situations that no person should be forced into.

That said, as long as you have consenting adults, I don't see a problem. If these adults could legally and publicly declare their marital situations there would be much less need for these closed-off compounds with shallow genepools and teen-wives. If a man feels he can support a large family, and he finds women only too pleased to share the responsibilities of satisfying his sexual appetite, and they all enter into a legal arrangement that allows for no confusion, brainwashing, or silly 'tradition', then it should be allowed. That is how we will stop the seedy and gross old men in these compounds from hiding their pedophilia behind their faith.

When will we learn in Canada that shoving things under the carpet does not clean up the mess? It only appears to do so. You can write anything you want on the law books and spend as much money as you want trying to enforce your view on others, but at some point you have to realize you're banging your head against a wall. Declaring polygamy illegal and then arresting them as you find them isn't going to accomplish getting rid of these compounds. People are going to do what they want, and if they have to do it in secret, they will, and forcing them to do it in secret often leads to making the problem worse than before you made the thing illegal.

As for incest, this is different as well, and it serves nobody to lump everything not heterosexually biblical into the same class. The most insulting thing a person can say is that Gay marriage has opened the door for polygamy and bestiality and incest, and that people for these causes will be attacking the definition of marriage until it becomes okay to marry your same sex brother and your cat. Incest is illegal because it often results in unhealthy babies that suffer the effects of poor genes for the rest of their lives. The more brothers and sisters and cousins that have children, the weaker their genes get. This argument does not apply to homosexuals. Other animals cannot give consent to sex with a human because they are not gifted with language. Again, does not apply to homosexuals.

I'm glad this topic is open for discussion. There are still a lot of misconceptions about things among people.

Dear government, more money for education, please.

[Michael Hardner]

Incest is illegal because it often results in unhealthy babies that suffer the effects of poor genes for the rest of their lives. The more brothers and sisters and cousins that have children, the weaker their genes get.

Ok... "Randy" ...

So you're saying that if a brother/sister agree to permanent sterilization then inc*st should be legal for them ?

That's pretty extreme, isn't it ?

[85RZ500]

When will we learn in Canada that shoving things under the carpet does not clean up the mess? It only appears to do so. You can write anything you want on the law books and spend as much money as you want trying to enforce your view on others, but at some point you have to realize you're banging your head against a wall.

LOL, That is the part of your post that makes perfect sense.

[Melanie_]

Hey, I'm no expert but it has been often quoted as saying that homosexuality is wrong. Now we have people saying that their religion sz more than one wife is hunky-dory.

And I've just read that three countrys , France, Spain and ?, say incest is OK too.

LOL,The world is going to hell in a hand basket and PT it may have started when they trashed the definition of marriage.

Which definition got trashed, though? And who agreed to it? The definition of marriage has changed many times over the years - at one time wives were legally the property of their husbands, for example. The definition of marriage is constantly evolving, and there isn't one perfect definition that we can point to and say, "There. That's the one that we should keep forever."

[Randy Nicholas]

Ok... "Randy" ...

So you're saying that if a brother/sister agree to permanent sterilization then inc*st should be legal for them ?

That's pretty extreme, isn't it ?

What other reason is there to stop adults from a consensual behaviour? Extreme it may be, but really, what impact does it have on anyone or anything if a sterile brother and sister, or two brothers, or whatever pair we can imagine, who are of age, decide to have sex with each other?

[Michael Hardner]

If there's no other reason, then no.

[85RZ500]

Which definition got trashed, though? And who agreed to it? The definition of marriage has changed many times over the years - at one time wives were legally the property of their husbands, for example. The definition of marriage is constantly evolving, and there isn't one perfect definition that we can point to and say, "There. That's the one that we should keep forever."

Lets put it to a public vote melanie, what is the true definition of marriage?

And Randy, your apparent sense of morality is disturbing to say the least.

[punked]

Lets put it to a public vote melanie, what is the true definition of marriage?

And Randy, your apparent sense of morality is disturbing to say the least.

Do we get more then one option? I mean I don't think you have thought this vote thing through.

[Visionseeker]

I would wager that the Court will ultimately rule against polygamy. First, there is the question of encroachment on prior covenant (the marriage of first instance) and the coercive implications that undermine the notion of informed consent (the first spouse could be agreeing to the arrangement simply because refusing might precipitate a divorce). Fundamentally, the notion of extending the marriage to include multiple actors erodes the notion of equality within the constructed union. Does the first spouse have an equal right to bring their own "recruit" into the arrangement? Theoretically yes, but substantively: no.

The wider implications of family law with respect to divorce must also be considered. If one has equal right to join into a union, it stands to reason that they also have an equal right to initiate its termination. But a polygamist arrangement blurs the fulfilment of this notion of equality by obliging the participants to divorce all parties and exit the commune, for they cannot selectively exercise a legal expulsion of the member they can no longer live with. This abrogates the rights of the individual and places them beneath the rights of the commune. Such an arrangement is simply not in keeping with the tenets of the Charter.

[Rue]

Some would argue that we're becoming more civilized. Prior to the twentieth century, child molesting was legal in most countries. Enlightened civil legislators decided to create an age of consent for sex since the Bible has no problem with pedophilia.

Well then. Can't wait for you to explain to me why pedophilia is civilized and how it is morally acceptable and should be allowed.

Good to know the Bible approves of it.

By any chance are you a priest?

[Rue]

It was only a matter of time until someone seeking to rationalize his pedophile tendencies was attracted to this series of threads. Can't say I am surprised.

Can't say I am surprised either that people think polygamy, pedophilia can be legalized because gay people are allowed to get married.

This kind of irrational disconnect in attempting to link completely different phenomena is par for the course witht his topic precisely because some think in black and whites and can't flex their minds to understand that the concept of consent is a variable not an absolute.

We have criminal and family laws in Canada. May I suggest some of you read them.Polgamy and pedophilia are crimes-period.

Two consenting adults marrying one another do not commit a crime. Get over it. If you have a problem with gays get over it. Stop trying to smeer them as being immoral and in the same category as polygamists or child molesters.

Consenting adults who want to have more then one marriage commit a crime.

Adults who attempt to do have sex with children are committing a crime.

As for anyone who wants to come on this forum and suggest the Bible approves of pedophilia and its civilized I have this to say-its a crime and your defence of pedophilia is what pedophiles do-rationalize their sexual relations with children is morally acceptable. Horseshit and no trying to use the Bible to justify it is even more horseshit.

I am waiting for this Mr. Chateau to start quoting the Bible to justify pedophila and explain how it is civilized and we should allow marriages between adults and children.

As for those of you who want to equate polygamy to homosexuality, I have news for you, using that absurd and ridiculous connect, then that means no heterosexuals should get married either and we should following this absurd arguement to its logical conclusion suggest anything goes or nothing goes.

No you can not marry a horse or have sex with it. Get over it.

Edited March 24, 2009 by Rue

[Molly]

Legislating morality never has worked, never will, isn't even desireable.... and frankly Randy's views are hardly 'extreme'. They are simply realistic.

The only reason 'marriage' is of concern to the state is because we've legally defined a contract (of marriage), and then based some property obligations on it.

It's a property contract so far as the state is concerned, not a morality contract.

[85RZ500]

It was only a matter of time until someone seeking to rationalize his pedophile tendencies was attracted to this series of threads. Can't say I am surprised.

Can't say I am surprised either that people think polygamy, pedophilia can be legalized because gay people are allowed to get married.

This kind of irrational disconnect in attempting to link completely different phenomena is par for the course witht his topic precisely because some think in black and whites and can't flex their minds to understand that the concept of consent is a variable not an absolute.

We have criminal and family laws in Canada. May I suggest some of you read them.Polgamy and pedophilia are crimes-period.

Two consenting adults marrying one another do not commit a crime. Get over it. If you have a problem with gays get over it. Stop trying to smeer them as being immoral and in the same category as polygamists or child molesters.

Consenting adults who want to have more then one marriage commit a crime.

Adults who attempt to do have sex with children are committing a crime.

As for anyone who wants to come on this forum and suggest the Bible approves of pedophilia and its civilized I have this to say-its a crime and your defence of pedophilia is what pedophiles do-rationalize their sexual relations with children is morally acceptable. Horseshit and no trying to use the Bible to justify it is even more horseshit.

I am waiting for this Mr. Chateau to start quoting the Bible to justify pedophila and explain how it is civilized and we should allow marriages between adults and children.

As for those of you who want to equate polygamy to homosexuality, I have news for you, using that absurd and ridiculous connect, then that means no heterosexuals should get married either and we should following this absurd arguement to its logical conclusion suggest anything goes or nothing goes.

No you can not marry a horse or have sex with it. Get over it.

Polygamy, incest, pedophilia, all against the law and I would say rightly so.

Can't remember how far back but homosesexual acts were against the law too. That too has changed and rightly so. IMHO what consenting adults legally do in private is non of my concern.

I can remember back to `99 when the feds voted overwhelmingly to protect the traditional man/woman definition of marriage. The loud mouth Liberal deputy PM shouted "we will defend the traditional definition of marriage `till hell freezes over". The Liberal party went downhill from there.

I don't believe that anybody "equates" polygamy to homosexuality. For a lot of folks the definition of marriage restructuring was perhaps the brightest signal that changes were in our societial future, and not good ones at that.

Edited March 24, 2009 by 85RZ500

[Randy Nicholas]

Lets put it to a public vote melanie, what is the true definition of marriage?

And Randy, your apparent sense of morality is disturbing to say the least.

Why is that? Why should my opinion on this matter mar my sense of morality at all?

My moral ethic includes leaving adults alone to enjoy their lives how they see fit, so long as their actions have no impact on mine or anyone's enjoyment of the same freedom, and polygamist relationships, where it DOES NOT include incest, child slavery or forced marriages, do not impact ANY person's life, which means it is none of our damn business.

If you are going to call me morally disturbed, at least have an argument to counter mine. It's called debate. Anyone can go around making personal judgments and attacks and calling for votes.

Edited March 24, 2009 by Randy Nicholas

[85RZ500]

Hey now, your post seems to say that adultry ," whoreing" around is OK, sorry, not in my world.

We do agree that legal activity in private between adults is non of our business.

Didn't call you morally disturbed, read the words again, slower this time.

Edited March 24, 2009 by 85RZ500

[Randy Nicholas]

I would wager that the Court will ultimately rule against polygamy. First, there is the question of encroachment on prior covenant (the marriage of first instance) and the coercive implications that undermine the notion of informed consent (the first spouse could be agreeing to the arrangement simply because refusing might precipitate a divorce). Fundamentally, the notion of extending the marriage to include multiple actors erodes the notion of equality within the constructed union. Does the first spouse have an equal right to bring their own "recruit" into the arrangement? Theoretically yes, but substantively: no.

The wider implications of family law with respect to divorce must also be considered. If one has equal right to join into a union, it stands to reason that they also have an equal right to initiate its termination. But a polygamist arrangement blurs the fulfilment of this notion of equality by obliging the participants to divorce all parties and exit the commune, for they cannot selectively exercise a legal expulsion of the member they can no longer live with. This abrogates the rights of the individual and places them beneath the rights of the commune. Such an arrangement is simply not in keeping with the tenets of the Charter.

You make some interesting points, and highlight some compelling reasons to keep polygamy illegal. But, to me, if a woman has chosen to enter a polygamist relationship and later finds it is not the situation for her, she can leave. I'm certainly not arguing that decision dynamics in a polygamous family are easy, but my point is it's not our business. If in a married couple the husband threatens divorce if the wife doesn't go along with adding a new wife, and the first wife is completely against it, then maybe the two aren't appropriately matched to begin with? People have a right to their choices and a right to their mistakes. We should not have laws to 'protect' people from the possibility of divorce. Some people who make the decision to stay married even though they may be against the circumstances are again, making their own bed.

If you want to legislate protecting people from abuse, then marriage should be completely outlawed for everyone, even monogamous ones, because the same tools of threatening divorce to get what one wants are used, such as making women put up with adultery or abuse. Why do we care more about stopping the women who may want to experience a poly amorous lifestyle from experiencing abuse than we do women who want only to follow our societal model? Doesn't make much sense to me.

To answer some of your questions, I think all parties would have to agree to add a new person to the mix, and then democracy should decide everything from that point on, from what to do with the money, to who gets to stay.

And lets not forget, legalizing polygamist marriage is not going to suddenly create millions of polygamists to destroy the fabric of our society. These people are already here, they already exist. Legalizing Gay marriage did not create homosexuals, it only let us out of the shadows of society.

To your last statement, I completely agree. The rights of the individual are supreme, which is why an educated and independent adult should be allowed to choose how to share their life and their love, and with whomever and however many people they want to. But when you get into situations where you have secluded communities practicing polygamy in secret, you enter a different territory. I'm not arguing that we should allow these compounds and 'communities' to operate, because it leads to the very things you are talking about.

But you cannot paint all polygamists with the same brush. It is as foolish as trying to legislate morality, which is also inconsistent with the Charter.

[Randy Nicholas]

Hey now, your post seems to say that adultry ," whoreing" around is OK, sorry, not in my world.

We do agree that legal activity in private between adults is non of our business.

Didn't call you morally disturbed, read the words again, slower this time.

Perhaps I'm not the only one that needs to read things more slowly? I did not say whoring around is okay, I said it is tolerated in our society. It is. Prove me wrong.

"your apparent sense of morality is disturbed to say the least"

Yes, you conceit that you don't have the whole picture on my 'sense of morality' by using the word 'apparent', but there really is only a few ways to interpret this, and all of them imply my morality is disturbed based on your observation of my opinions.

[85RZ500]

Randy, I can't prove you wrong, who could.

I don't believe what you're saying about adultry, whoring around for a minute. Tolerated? by who, the divorce courts?

And would you have a relationship with someone you know to be of that type of character, would you tolerate your spouse "whoring" around' Thought not. Tolerate is a big word. even bigger when the user may well have to live up to it.