First decriminalization, then plural marriages

[Brunopolis]

I see a lot of talk here about polygamist marriages and lots of reasons for and against such arrangements. I don't see people discussing about societies that are actually allowing and supporting these kind of relationships from a legal standpoint in the first place.

People should realize that in polygamist marriages it is almost always one man marrying multiple women. Usually, the average population tends to equalize in terms of men and women. Allowing the few rich men to monopolize and essentially "take" all the women will lead to strife within society. Much like in the current societies that allow this practice to take place.

Realistically this is the only reason i am against polygamy.

[msj]

People should realize that in polygamist marriages it is almost always one man marrying multiple women. Usually, the average population tends to equalize in terms of men and women. Allowing the few rich men to monopolize and essentially "take" all the women will lead to strife within society. Much like in the current societies that allow this practice to take place.

Realistically this is the only reason i am against polygamy.

So... you're broke and ugly?

[Visionseeker]

Molly,

Not different at all. In fact, same.

The state can't discriminate between citizens on the basis of religion either. That's also guaranteed in the constitution, and that's the whole argument here.

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

Edited March 31, 2009 by Visionseeker

[Brunopolis]

So... you're broke and ugly?

Very funny.

Go live in Saudi Arabia or in certain mormon communities(FLDS) and enjoy the benefits of the polygamistic societies.

Have you ever heard of the "lost boys"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_(polygamy)

[Michael Hardner]

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

Visionseeker,

You've left out the entire aspect of freedom of religion here. For the state to decide that certain religion's definition of marriage are less worthy than others, there has to be a reason right ? The best reason I've seen written on this thread is that it amounts to the extension of benefits, but that's exactly what same sex marriage allowed, and it was barely mentioned.

It seems to me that "no, it's too expensive" is not a reason to restrict rights.

I'm pro same-sex marriage, by the way.

[85RZ500]

I really get a kick out of folks saying that the state or province approved the changing of the definition of marriage. In Ontario, 3 unelected and unaccountable judges changed society for 13 million people. In the other provinces it was one of them.

The SCofC did not rule on the issue, they sent it back to the HofC to be voted on. That vote was skewered, whipped by the Libs, Bloc, NDP under the guise of a supposed free vote.

Michael, there's a Pakistani Muslim fighting with the state right now because he has four wives and wants to migrate here. SZ he will only bring two of them, tell that to sweeny.His lawyer sz because of his religious beliefs he will win his fight.

The freedom of religion thing is as I said, used by different folks with different strokes. Inconsistent is the operative word.

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

CCofR

Edited March 31, 2009 by 85RZ500

[Randy Nicholas]

Very funny.

Go live in Saudi Arabia or in certain mormon communities(FLDS) and enjoy the benefits of the polygamistic societies.

Have you ever heard of the "lost boys"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_(polygamy)

There are vast differences between Canada and Saudi Arabia beyond polygamy. Do you really think that the 70%+ of our population will completely abandon their Christian upbringing and become Muslim or Mormon just because it's legal to record your multiple marriages?

Sounds like lunacy to me to compare a Western nation to a Middle Eastern one in this argument, and that's why it hasn't really come up.

Concepts like gender equality do not exist in many such places, which is why it leads to the dangerous situations you are talking about.

Legal Polygamy in Canada will always be a fringe lifestyle choice. There's just no reason to persecute these people based on the fear that their choice of who to live with will lead to dictatorships and burkas.

[Molly]

Michael, if religious definitions bound the state, then religious group definitions of all sorts of things would also take precedence, and all law would turn into a limitless patchwork of 'personal belief'.

The state does not seek to define terms for religious groups. That's the separation of state from church. But religious groups, likewise, cannot define terms for the state... and that's the more important separation of church from state.

[Michael Hardner]

Michael, if religious definitions bound the state, then religious group definitions of all sorts of things would also take precedence, and all law would turn into a limitless patchwork of 'personal belief'.

The state does not seek to define terms for religious groups. That's the separation of state from church. But religious groups, likewise, cannot define terms for the state... and that's the more important separation of church from state.

Molly, they don't bind the state but there is supposed to be a balancing act. As far as that goes, I don't see how they can limit it in this case.

[Smallc]

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

CCofR

First, let me thank God that our judges are accountable to the law and the constitution rather than the whims of the voters. Now then:

(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 15.

Edited March 31, 2009 by Smallc

[normanchateau]

I really get a kick out of folks saying that the state or province approved the changing of the definition of marriage.

The SCofC did not rule on the issue, they sent it back to the HofC to be voted on. That vote was skewered, whipped by the Libs, Bloc, NDP under the guise of a supposed free vote.

Yeah, it was skewered by those Liberal, NDP and Bloc lesbian lovers . I think the homophobe Harper, now that he has more CPC MPs than ever since the 2008 election, should move in the H of C to revisit the issue of the definition of marriage. If his principles extended beyond hanging on to power and pandering to the Left, he would do so. He should even make it a confidence motion.

[Visionseeker]

Visionseeker,

You've left out the entire aspect of freedom of religion here. For the state to decide that certain religion's definition of marriage are less worthy than others, there has to be a reason right ?

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.

The best reason I've seen written on this thread is that it amounts to the extension of benefits, but that's exactly what same sex marriage allowed, and it was barely mentioned.

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.

It seems to me that "no, it's too expensive" is not a reason to restrict rights.

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'm pro same-sex marriage, by the way.

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.

[normanchateau]

Published: March 31, 2009

TORONTO, March 31 (UPI) -- A Pakistani Muslim with two wives has won a second Canadian immigration hearing, this time based on him taking one wife into the country.

The Federal Court of Canada ruled a Canadian visa officer in Pakistan erred by concluding the first hearing for Shaikh Akhtar Hussain by reporting he was in a "peculiar, polygamist family situation," the Toronto Sun reported.

Hussain's Toronto lawyer, Ali Amini, told the Sun his client, a retired banking executive, is willing to first bring his first wife and their six children and then sponsor his second wife months later.

"It is quite common under Muslim laws for a man to have up to four wives," he said, adding Hussain was honest and forthright about having two wives.

Immigration lawyer Richard Kurland told the Sun people involved in polygamous relationships aren't allowed in Canada.

"Polygamy is illegal under the Criminal Code," Kurland said.

However, Amini said if the second hearing is unsuccessful he will file a constitutional appeal citing religious freedom, the report said.

http://www.upiasia.com/Top_News/2009/03/31...31051238501683/

[Michael Hardner]

VS

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.

Yes, but why can't a partnership include more than 2 partners when it happens in business all the time ?

And why would the state care to restrict such an arrangement, except to limit payable benefits ?

[85RZ500]

Published: March 31, 2009

TORONTO, March 31 (UPI) -- A Pakistani Muslim with two wives has won a second Canadian immigration hearing, this time based on him taking one wife into the country.

The Federal Court of Canada ruled a Canadian visa officer in Pakistan erred by concluding the first hearing for Shaikh Akhtar Hussain by reporting he was in a "peculiar, polygamist family situation," the Toronto Sun reported.

Hussain's Toronto lawyer, Ali Amini, told the Sun his client, a retired banking executive, is willing to first bring his first wife and their six children and then sponsor his second wife months later.

"It is quite common under Muslim laws for a man to have up to four wives," he said, adding Hussain was honest and forthright about having two wives.

Immigration lawyer Richard Kurland told the Sun people involved in polygamous relationships aren't allowed in Canada.

"Polygamy is illegal under the Criminal Code," Kurland said.

However, Amini said if the second hearing is unsuccessful he will file a constitutional appeal citing religious freedom, the report said.

http://www.upiasia.com/Top_News/2009/03/31...31051238501683/

The charter and its freedom of religion supposedly will allow Mr Hussain to break our laws. But it won't protect an individual who refuses to print what his religion deems offensive.

Michael your anology about business is hilarious, this is April 1, right?

But hey, Im sure that we can all conjur up a thought about a business that screws everybody.

Edited April 1, 2009 by 85RZ500

[Randy Nicholas]

The charter and its freedom of religion supposedly will allow Mr Hussain to break our laws. But it won't protect an individual who refuses to print what his religion deems offensive.

Michael your anology about business is hilarious, this is April 1, right?

But hey, Im sure that we can all conjur up a thought about a business that screws everybody.

Why should the charter protect people from printing things their religion deems offensive? Couldn't a person then refuse any services to anyone they define as 'offensive'? or just as long as it's their interpretation of their religion right?

If a person is so sensitive that they won't allow others to enjoy their constitutionally secured freedom of expression, then that person should be in a different business than print media for the public.

[Michael Hardner]

8,

The charter and its freedom of religion supposedly will allow Mr Hussain to break our laws. But it won't protect an individual who refuses to print what his religion deems offensive.

No. A charter challenges ends a law, it doesn't break it.

[Visionseeker]

VS

Yes, but why can't a partnership include more than 2 partners when it happens in business all the time ?

And why would the state care to restrict such an arrangement, except to limit payable benefits ?

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.

Edited April 3, 2009 by Visionseeker

[WIP]

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.

But, to me, the primary objection to legalizing polygamy still boils down to the fact that our society will look like Saudi Arabia or some Mormon compound if it was legal and became a widespread practice. This isn't about business contracts -- the simple fact is that during normal times, the ratio of men to women is equal, so if polygamy is allowed, the richest, most powerful men get more women, and many lower class men end up batchelors for life. That's why the Saudis send their surplus young men off to fight jihad, and the FLDS Mormons excommunicate many teenage boys to artificially maintain the disproportionate odds within the community.

[Molly]

Why do you suppose that it would become moreso if such marriages could be licenced, than it is currently, where folks can freely make whatever co-dependency arrrangements they want?

Visionseeker... wild confusion enters long before one gets to entitlements from the state. Simply determining the obligation of spouses to one another becomes challenging. Are members of a group of three collectively obliged, or do two have attatchment to the third, without obligation to one another? (As in, do three people each have two spouses, or do two of them have a single spouse, while the third has two?)

If only one of them has two spouses, and the presumption in the dispersal of matrimonial property is 50/50 division, does that mean that doubly married person has committed the entirety of his/her assets, and maintains an entitlement of nil?

[Michael Hardner]

As Molly suggests, I think there are ways to work partnerships out.

And, again, I can't see the court saying "this could be too complicated to work out therefore we're not going to allow it".

[Molly]

Allow it? How about 'bother with it'?

As I pointed out before, the states only interest is 'as it effects the state'. Why should the state establish standard contracts for such esoteric, exceptional-by-definition, personal relationships?

What I'm pointing out, Michael, is that while there is some general agreement about what consititutes the obligations of marriage as we know it, there is no such general understanding of the nature of plural marriage, and PARTICULARLY none that is compatible with present law having to do with, and referencing itself to marriage.

Law can indeed be written to cover it. But the people who choose it can more likely write up their own unique agreements and achieve greater satisfaction.

[Visionseeker]

But, to me, the primary objection to legalizing polygamy still boils down to the fact that our society will look like Saudi Arabia or some Mormon compound if it was legal and became a widespread practice. This isn't about business contracts -- the simple fact is that during normal times, the ratio of men to women is equal, so if polygamy is allowed, the richest, most powerful men get more women, and many lower class men end up batchelors for life. That's why the Saudis send their surplus young men off to fight jihad, and the FLDS Mormons excommunicate many teenage boys to artificially maintain the disproportionate odds within the community.

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.

[tango]

But, to me, the primary objection to legalizing polygamy still boils down to the fact that our society will look like Saudi Arabia or some Mormon compound if it was legal and became a widespread practice.

Why would it become a widespread practice? Do you have some evidence to back that up or are you just anxiety-prone?

I'm curious about this kind of 'catastrophizing' response "the sky is falling! the sky is falling"!

I see no reason why you would assume it's going to spread any further than those communities for whom it is already part of their religion.

[Visionseeker]

As Molly suggests, I think there are ways to work partnerships out.

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.

And, again, I can't see the court saying "this could be too complicated to work out therefore we're not going to allow 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.