First decriminalization, then plural marriages

[Michael Hardner]

reasonable limitations

That's the key. And reasonableness is inevitably subjective.

I trust the SCC to recognize the polygamous tradition of certain religions, and to allow for that - even in the face of all this bothersome complexity.

[WIP]

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.

The courts need to deal with the issue of whether plural marriage has a history of benefiting a modern democratic society or whether it presents a destabilizing threat to others, because a court decision to allow plural marriage would not only open the door for offbeat threeway couples, who will not likely be able to establish lasting plural relationships -- the communes that tried this during the 70's all failed because they did not have an authoritative structure underlying them to demand compliance from the member. But the religious fascists do! They have a group of followers that have been brainwashed since childhood to follow orders, and a court decision to allow plural marriage would be an open door to those religious fascists. They believe ONLY MEN have this right, not women, and only the male leaders have authority to decide who everyone marries. It would be the resumption of a theocratic fascist society as the modern Mormon church has only disavowed polygamy for political reasons. If they are free again to resume this practice, it would be as it was in the days when Brigham Young was not only the Governor of Utah, but also the head of the Mormon church:

Modern Mormonism's success is certified by the emergence of Mitt Romney, a Mormon governor from Massachusetts--heartland of nineteenth-century antipolygamy sentiment--as a presidential contender. A glance at Mormonism's largely forgotten history reveals the magnitude of the transformation. The Reynolds Court was not speaking theoretically when it declared that polygamy could "fetter a people in stationary despotism." Prior to statehood, Utah was a de facto theocracy. For all their differences, Brigham Young and Chief Justice Waite would have agreed that monogamy and polygamy give rise to divergent governing principles.

Brigham Young was simultaneously head of the church, governor of the Utah Territory, and a member of the boards of major businesses. Young decided where his followers lived, the crops they grew, where they shopped, the professions they chose--and who they married. There was little government beyond the church's structure. Religious leaders schooled their families privately, while most of the territory's children remained illiterate. Elections were understood not as forums for debate and decision, but as occasions for popular acclamation of God's choice.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...6jhfgd.asp?pg=2

And unlike the debate over gay marriage, there are clear reasons why allowing polygamy to flourish would affect the non-polygamous majority:

Those who don’t marry, Rauch suggested, would suffer most from widespread polygamy. Monogamy gives everyone an equal opportunity to marry, he argued, but plural marriage skews the market. He observed that “the real-world practice of polygamy seems to flow from men’s desire to marry all the women they can have children with.” If polygamy were legalized, polygynous marriages (one man, many wives) would undoubtedly outnumber polyandrous ones—and when one man married four women, three other men would be left spouseless. This inequality would create a subclass of poor, unskilled, and uneducated men:

In a polygamous world, boys could no longer grow up taking marriage for granted. Many would instead see marriage as a trophy in a sometimes brutal competition for wives. Losers would understandably burn with resentment, and most young men, even those who eventually won, would fear losing. Although much has been said about polygamy’s inegalitarian implications for women who share a husband, the greater victims of inequality would be men who never become husbands.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200611u/polygamy

And there are real world results of that inequality in both the large Saudi population of young men who have been sent off to wage jihad to get them "out of the house" so to speak, and the insidious practice that fundamentalist Mormons have practiced by creating a sub-group of "lost boys" by excommunicating them and banishing them from the community for minor infractions just to remove them to keep the desired male to female ratio of the community leaders.

[WIP]

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.

As mentioned above, there are reasons based on past behaviour and present problems dealing with polygamous compounds like Warren Jeff's to show that they have a negative effect on the outside world as well as creating misery in their own isolated communities.

[benny]

For evolutionary psychology, the size difference between men and women is indicative of mankind’s readiness for polygamy.

[85RZ500]

LOL, this thing goes `round and `round, and I'm starting to like the idea.

As an astute business guy who likes some lovin' thrown in.

A vasectomy is in order, four ladies in tow, all working.

Me I'm sitting back managing the finances and whaddya know, with the four wives there's a good chance that one of them is in the mood.

Lordy, this is great how do we sign up?.

Edited April 4, 2009 by 85RZ500

[benny]

A vasectomy is in order, four ladies in tow, all working.

These women will grow to a larger size than you and then compete among themselves to capture several male partners.

[Visionseeker]

That's the key. And reasonableness is inevitably subjective.

Well aren't we a cynic?

I trust the SCC to recognize the polygamous tradition of certain religions, and to allow for that - even in the face of all this bothersome complexity.

Could be. But you haven't put forth any arguments to demonstrate how this recognition would be earned. How would this religious tradition be defended any differently from say, forced female circumcision? Going to the Court and saying "it's my religion" isn't enough. One has to demonstrate how state restrictions are unreasonably depriving the faithful of rights enjoyed by others.

The state doesn't recognize ANY plural marriages and limits marriage to one current spouse for ANYONE. I don't see the opening here. Can you point it out to me?

Edited April 5, 2009 by Visionseeker

[Michael Hardner]

VS

Could be. But you haven't put forth any arguments to demonstrate how this recognition would be earned. How would this religious tradition be defended any differently from say, forced female circumcision? Going to the Court and saying "it's my religion" isn't enough. One has to demonstrate how state restrictions are unreasonably depriving the faithful of rights enjoyed by others.

The state doesn't recognize ANY plural marriages and limits marriage to one current spouse for ANYONE. I don't see the opening here. Can you point it out to me?

How it would be earned ? It doesn't have to be earned. As you say, they only have to show that they're being denied the right to participate in marriage, as defined by their religion - their way of life. The state doesn't recognize any plural marriage, but it does recognize marriage so how can it decide that monogamous marriage is the only form that deserves state blessing ?

The comparison to forced female circumcision is ridiculous, and the court (I believe) has already ruled on safety issues and religion, and the former won out.

[benny]

VS

How it would be earned ? It doesn't have to be earned. As you say, they only have to show that they're being denied the right to participate in marriage, as defined by their religion - their way of life. The state doesn't recognize any plural marriage, but it does recognize marriage so how can it decide that monogamous marriage is the only form that deserves state blessing ?

The comparison to forced female circumcision is ridiculous, and the court (I believe) has already ruled on safety issues and religion, and the former won out.

Most religions thrive by challenging any state rulings that don't acknowledge their beliefs. So, to me there cannot be much difference in between female circumcision and polygamous marriage.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, we heard this argument - "those people always make trouble" - from [edited]opponents of SSM.

It's within their rights to challenge, but unlikely that they would win.

Edited April 5, 2009 by Michael Hardner

[benny]

Yes, we heard this argument - "those people always make trouble" - from [edited]opponents of SSM.

Prejudice

[Michael Hardner]

There are all kinds of prejudice, Benny. The most common one I encounter today is that anybody who is religious must be a combination of idiot or raving lunatic.

[benny]

There are all kinds of prejudice, Benny. The most common one I encounter today is that anybody who is religious must be a combination of idiot or raving lunatic.

The most insidious prejudice may be assuming prejudices.

[Visionseeker]

VS

How it would be earned ? It doesn't have to be earned. As you say, they only have to show that they're being denied the right to participate in marriage, as defined by their religion - their way of life. The state doesn't recognize any plural marriage, but it does recognize marriage so how can it decide that monogamous marriage is the only form that deserves state blessing ?

Um, the recognition has to be earned Michael. As their practices have not been recognitized/legitimized by the state, they seek to earn such recognition from the courts (just like gay marriage and countless other causes managed to do through the courts).

The comparison to forced female circumcision is ridiculous, and the court (I believe) has already ruled on safety issues and religion, and the former won out.

It's abhorent, but not ridiculous. The point is that religious freedom can be used to defend many actions. Religions must defend practices that contravene the laws of the state. The truth is that questioned religious practice is guilty until proven innocent under the Charter. As it should be.

Edited April 6, 2009 by Visionseeker

[Michael Hardner]

VS,

Um, the recognition has to be earned Michael. As their practices have not been recognitized/legitimized by the state, they seek to earn such recognition from the courts (just like gay marriage and countless other causes managed to do through the courts).

Sorry, I was getting caught up on the meaning of 'earned'. I'm not sure how polygamy is tied into the religions in the past. Perhaps we can use the kirpan and the Sikh religion as a precedent here.

It's abhorent, but not ridiculous. The point is that religious freedom can be used to defend many actions. Religions must defend practices that contravene the laws of the state. The truth is that questioned religious practice is guilty until proven innocent under the Charter. As it should be.

And individual freedom can be used to defend many actions. They don't have to defend then, I think, but rather show that such practices are part of their religion, and I suppose anticipate arguments against these practices that will be made by the crown.

[benny]

And individual freedom can be used to defend many actions.

Individual freedom becomes quite meaningless if girls need to learn from adults what they have to endure to become fully feminine (i.e. women).

[Michael Hardner]

Individual freedom becomes quite meaningless if girls need to learn from adults what they have to endure to become fully feminine (i.e. women).

B,

What you're doing is denying rights due to an example of abuse. This was also one of the types of arguments used against same sex marriage - taking examples of crimes or wrongdoing by the target group and linking that abuse to the extension of rights.

[benny]

What you're doing is denying rights due to an example of abuse. This was also one of the types of arguments used against same sex marriage - taking examples of crimes or wrongdoing by the target group and linking that abuse to the extension of rights.

For non-adults, it is meaningless to speak of rights without distinguishing negative and positive rights.

[Michael Hardner]

Benny,

Let's ask why we offer children the right to marry at all then, shall we ?

[benny]

Benny,

Let's ask why we offer children the right to marry at all then, shall we ?

What is more important, I think, is to promote (religious) cultures in which what it means to become (fully) adult is not strictly linked to entering an unbreakable marriage.

[Visionseeker]

VS,

Sorry, I was getting caught up on the meaning of 'earned'. I'm not sure how polygamy is tied into the religions in the past. Perhaps we can use the kirpan and the Sikh religion as a precedent here.

Hey, coming to common understanding is what dialogue is for. But I don't think you've brought a useful precedent here.

The kirpan decision, like the RCMP turban decision, recognized the individual right to display and keep the symbols of their religion in their daily lives. If a Christian can wear a cross to school or work, then a Sikh can carry a kirpan and wear a turban. In short, these were decisions supporting the individual's FREE EXPRESSION of their religious identity - not a defence of their religious freedom.

And individual freedom can be used to defend many actions. They don't have to defend then, I think, but rather show that such practices are part of their religion, and I suppose anticipate arguments against these practices that will be made by the crown.

Showing the practice as part of their religion isn't enough; for if that were the standard, Catholics would be unable to divorce and sharia and rabbinical law would have sovereignty over marital disputes within their own flock. IMO, trying to challenge the state's domain over marriage by citing religion is a non-starter. Rather, the plaintiff has to find some vehicle to demonstrate that depriving everyone in society of the right to legally recognized plural marriages is wrong. I just don't see how they can accomplish that.

[Michael Hardner]

Benny,

What is more important, I think, is to promote (religious) cultures in which what it means to become (fully) adult is not strictly linked to entering an unbreakable marriage.

?

What do you mean 'promote religious cultures' ? Are you saying that Canada should push Mormons to choose... the United Church ?

[Michael Hardner]

VS

Showing the practice as part of their religion isn't enough; for if that were the standard, Catholics would be unable to divorce and sharia and rabbinical law would have sovereignty over marital disputes within their own flock. IMO, trying to challenge the state's domain over marriage by citing religion is a non-starter. Rather, the plaintiff has to find some vehicle to demonstrate that depriving everyone in society of the right to legally recognized plural marriages is wrong. I just don't see how they can accomplish that.

But your examples - Catholics and the sharia and rabbinical law - would take away a right for someone to choose, so that example doesn't work. If the law said that nobody could divorce because Catholicism was the dominant religion, then a charter challenge could give that right to everyone. Polygamy could easily be said to be a statement of one's faith, and belief in living as a Christian flock, or somesuch.

The plaintiff doesn't have to demonstrate that depriving society of the right to engage in plural marriage is wrong, any more than the Sikh had to show that allowing everyone to carry a sword was wrong.

Honestly, your argument seems to be coloured by a personal distaste for plural marriage. That's understandable - I don't feel... good... about the idea either, I'd say. However, these arguments are about reasoning and not about what is distasteful to us personally. I feel that many people who argued against samesexmarriage were just disgusted by homosexuality - and that's no basis for a legal opinion. I, therefore, refuse to base my opinion on my own tastes.

[Molly]

Again, Michael... there is no restriction on living arrangements nor on the commitments made within a plural marriage, so long as no fraud is involved. As a religious act, it is not limited at all... not a whit or a bit!

Even if multiple marriages were licenced and registered, the state would still be well within it's own parameters to deny benefits beyond a single unit, and except subsequent spouses from the normal agreements of marriage, simply because subsequent 'marriages' are not the Canadian normal, and those standard agreements/arrangements don't accurately reflect them.

Where's the problem here?

[benny]

Benny,

?

What do you mean 'promote religious cultures' ? Are you saying that Canada should push Mormons to choose... the United Church ?

Religion is only a subset of culture. Culture is composed of memes. Canada should stimulate adults-children communication.