First decriminalization, then plural marriages

[Michael Hardner]

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?

Again, these are the same bigoted arguments were heard against SSM:

- Why can't they just live together ?

- It's not "normal"

- The state can't afford to pay more benefits.

Did you argue in favour of SSM marriage ? What types of arguments did you encounter against it ?

[Michael Hardner]

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

benny,

The government certainly has no obligation to promote religion of any kind, and as a friend of mine told me once - the best way to ensure the decline of religion is to allow its absolute freedom.

[benny]

benny,

The government certainly has no obligation to promote religion of any kind, and as a friend of mine told me once - the best way to ensure the decline of religion is to allow its absolute freedom.

Positive rights are government's obligations. Positive rights seem to include transmission of religious knowledges.

[Michael Hardner]

Sorry, Benny, but you need to be more clear on this. What are you proposing specifically ?

[benny]

Sorry, Benny, but you need to be more clear on this. What are you proposing specifically ?

Public education is a positive right because it equalizes life opportunities. I cannot imagine equalizing life chances without teaching what religions say about goodness, meaningfulness and truthfulness.

[Michael Hardner]

Hi Benny,

I believe religious content used to be taught - only in a sociological sense - in some high schools as 'world religions'.

[benny]

Hi Benny,

I believe religious content used to be taught - only in a sociological sense - in some high schools as 'world religions'.

It may be enough, time (and statistics) will tell when we'll see how the young come to deal with death. The main point to me is that, leaving to parents alone all the leeway to introduce religion to their kids is unfair.

[Oleg Bach]

If you can legitimize anal intercourse and put it on par with hetrosexual mating - then I really don't see a problem with plural vagina and penis use.. What the heck - lets toss in the sexy and lanky Standard Poodles...I saw one wearing eye make up today ---she looked good! BUT to marry mulitiple dogs is immoral.

[Molly]

GADZ, Michael!

"Why can't they just live together?" was not part of my comment, and certainly nothing that I intended to say. I SAID that there is nothing at present preventing any sacramental aspect of plural marriage. Nothing at all. (Buying a licence is a secular act, not a sacramental one.) So the argument that the sacramental practice of plural marriage is somehow restricted because the state doesn't licence and record multiple spouses is FALSE. Unless you can figure out some aspect of sacramental plural marriage that is actually restricted, then your proposal that we are interfering with religious observance is a big fat red herring!

"It's not a 'normal' arrangement" is a fact, not a moral judgement. Law pertaining to the state of marriage doesn't fit, and can't be made to fit, because the underlying assumption- two, mutual- is false, and what the actual intent of the arrangement is, is unknown, likely varying from spousal collective to spousal collective. Changing one word, or the definition of one word, or removing one word, doesn't make it all fit any better... It's a little like expecting that labor law should be applied to your childbirth: all well and good---but it just does not compute, and can't be applied, even in a circumstance of good faith 'want to comply'. Why anyone would actively seek to be bound by such misfitting law is beyond me.

And affordability has nothing to do with it. We no doubt pay greater amounts now, through child tax credit and welfare and any number of other benefits that are 'one to a family', than we would to the folks who presently consider themselves engaged in plural marriage.

But if one to a family is a legitimate, reasonable limit, then one to a customer is as well.

And last but not least, I'm not arguing against plural marriage-- I'm arguing that there is no compelling reason to expect them to be recognized (and thus gain multiple priveleges) any time soon. I don't buy that 'religious freedom' should compel the state, nor that anyone is being discriminated against. I.. just... don't... buy it.

[Oleg Bach]

The same took place with the American Mormon sect. Plural marriage was outlawed under the pretence of morality. The cold fact was that the outlawing was politically motivated - they wanted one vote per person..with plural Mormon marriage one partriarch or head matriarch could influence the votes of all their offspring and connecting relatives - In effect....one person could have the voting power of 200...The same motivation for outlawing plural marriage exists here...Our government can barely stand the power and union of a man and woman and the support that a proper and loving union creates - so we have an enforced policy of divorce. Heaven forbid that small governments spring up to compete...may as well nip it in the bud now - same sex marriage in my opinion was put forward to weaken all marriage.

[Oleg Bach]

Equal protection for both sexes, regardless of age. If Canada was truely honest they would demand real human rights for both sexes - but instead they try to create abroad what they have here. I thought that America was the king of power projection..apparently Canada has a bloodless way of doing it. Any time some authoritarian states _ we are protecting the woman and children - you know that they are saying we are controling the woman and the children and the MEN..the rest is garbage - We are pissed off at the new Afghai administration because they are to slow to get as dishonest as we are...what a joke - they are primatives and they do not hide their agendas as well as we do - so we have to teach them ----how nice...ohh and while we are at it - Lets do the "we bring you democracy" that should seal the deal..

[Michael Hardner]

Molly

I don't buy that 'religious freedom' should compel the state, nor that anyone is being discriminated against. I.. just... don't... buy it.

Fair enough. I trust the courts to come up with a fair decision.

Also, I should have pointed out that your arguments are somewhat similar to the anti-SSM arguments, but not the same. Again, my point is that most people argue these things based on 'gut feel'.

Thanks for your post.

[benny]

If you can legitimize anal intercourse and put it on par with hetrosexual mating - then I really don't see a problem with plural vagina and penis use.. What the heck - lets toss in the sexy and lanky Standard Poodles...I saw one wearing eye make up today ---she looked good! BUT to marry mulitiple dogs is immoral.

"There is just not enough good men to go around" was how one of the (female) spouses legitimizes the polygamy of her husband.

[Oleg Bach]

"There is just not enough good men to go around" was how one of the (female) spouses legitimizes the polygamy of her husband.

If they only knew what a good man is...and yes I agree there just was never enough of me to go around...so before I get any older - come and get an offspring - guarenteed to produce a brilliant musican and artist - and thoughtful human being - well - I'm waiting and don't forget the ....damn...just had a seniour moment...now why the hell did I just come into the kitchen? To late ladies this old boy is fading fast..

[benny]

If they only knew what a good man is...and yes I agree there just was never enough of me to go around...so before I get any older - come and get an offspring - guarenteed to produce a brilliant musican and artist - and thoughtful human being - well - I'm waiting and don't forget the ....damn...just had a seniour moment...now why the hell did I just come into the kitchen? To late ladies this old boy is fading fast..

The age difference at the time of marriage in between males and females has been explained by the fact that marriage is a kind of waiting game.

Edited April 8, 2009 by benny

[Oleg Bach]

The age difference at the time of marriage in between males and females has been explained by the fact that marriage is a kind of waiting game.

This buisness of being with someone your exact age is new - My mother was 15 and my father was 33 - I have been older than all of my three wives..no I did not have them at the same time - now if there is a twenty year difference - I suppose if I am wise and kind and good - I can have a last kick at the can...If you are healthy and adore females - you can mate till you are dead - and the only thing that has ever brought me total happiness and bliss is the company of a woman - does that make me strange or old fashioned - or maybe one of those nasty patriarchs? Good night ..thanks for the lesson..

[benny]

If you are healthy and adore females - you can mate till you are dead

But if you are good like Jesus, you can, after your death, inspire people to make chastity vows.

Edited April 8, 2009 by benny

[Griz]

Oleg--thanks for explaining why you are the way you are

This buisness of being with someone your exact age is new - My mother was 15 and my father was 33 - I have been older than all of my three wives..no I did not have them at the same time - now if there is a twenty year difference - I suppose if I am wise and kind and good - I can have a last kick at the can...If you are healthy and adore females - you can mate till you are dead - and the only thing that has ever brought me total happiness and bliss is the company of a woman - does that make me strange or old fashioned - or maybe one of those nasty patriarchs? Good night ..thanks for the lesson..

[benny]

Is it an unfair advantage to someone if he gets no religious content from public education or is it rather an unfair disadvantage? I really would like to know.

[Visionseeker]

Molly

Again, these are the same bigoted arguments were heard against SSM:

- Why can't they just live together ?

- It's not "normal"

- The state can't afford to pay more benefits.

Did you argue in favour of SSM marriage ? What types of arguments did you encounter against it ?

Well, I give you the first 2 bullets above, but "The state can't afford to pay more benefits" didn't weigh into the opponent argument because that ship had already sailed.

From 1995 (Vogel v. Manitoba) onward, a series of court decisions had acknowledged that the denial of benefits to same-sex couples amounted to discrimination under section 15 of the Charter. In 1999, the federal government settled with two gay applicants for CPP survivors’ benefits and later that year ended the practice of predetermined exclusion of benefits for same-sex claimants.

Again in 1999, the case of M v. H overturned provisions of Ontario's Family Law Act that prevented same-sex partners from applying for spousal support upon relationship breakdown. Meanwhile, the provinces of BC and Quebec were making sweeping changes to numerous statutes to amend the definition of "spouse" to include "marriage-like" or de facto spouse status; thereby eliminating any exclusions to workers’ compensation, occupational health and safety, labour standards, insurance, tax, trust and savings companies, pension benefits, public-sector retirement plans, social assistance and other benefits to which same-sex partners had hitherto been excluded.

For all intents and purpose, the question of same-sex benefits was largely settled by 2000. All that remained was to gain the right to formally, and legally marry.

Having progressively gained the rights to all benefits of married peoples, homosexual couples had everything but the right to a formally recognized marriage. With all the ancillary issues of benefits resolved, the argument came down to a simple one: does the "man and woman" provision for marriage violate the rights of homosexual persons under section 15? At this point, the question was really a no-brainer.

Now it's true that opponents to polygamy say "it's not normal" and "why can't they just live together". But that's were the parallel to SSM ends and, quite frankly, those are not terribly compelling arguments. But I digress...

SSM was attained through a systematic erosion of all the barriers to equivalent to spouse benefits. Having attained the status of de facto marriage, it was a simple and logical conclusion that the status might as well be de jure if and when the parties should seek it.

I don't see polygamy taking this progressive path and, as a result, I don't see an analogous legal argument. Further, even if polygamists strive to follow the same example, I don't think they'll successfully free themselves of the restrictions of Section 1.

Edited April 8, 2009 by Visionseeker

[Visionseeker]

VS

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.

If you accept arguments of religious exceptionalism, the law finds itself buried in exceptions and contradictions that are unsustainable and quite possibly contradictory. You cannot have one law of marriage for followers of one religion and another for the followers of other faiths. One law for all, as fair as it can be.

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.

The kirpan argument didn't have to go that far because the case centred on comparable behaviour: if a Christian can wear a cross, a Sikh can wear a kirpan. It never was a section one issue. But polygamy will have to overcome that test and the only way it can is by demonstrating that the limitations are unreasonable.

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.

Like I said before, I like ducks. My personal preferences have nothing to do with my reasoned view of the matter at hand. And if you must know, I find nothing distasteful with the CONCEPT of consensual plural marriage. And even media exposure of its most deeply flawed practitioners doesn't change this opinion. But I also recognize the state's need to place reasonable limitations on freedoms. And I simply don't see a proper argument that could have polygamy overcome section one of the Charter.

[tango]

Because it already exists, in several cultures.

So why not?

[WIP]

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.

I haven't found any of your posts on this subject deal with the fact that there are clear examples of harm to people within polygamous cults, and to the general society as a whole if the institution of polygamous marriage becomes commonplace. On the contrary, for all the arguments I've heard from conservatives condemning gay marriage, I haven't found one example that recognizing same sex marriages would harm others. And that should be the determining factor here. Who cares what people are offended or not offended by, it's a matter of what effects allowing polygamy will have on society that determines whether it should or should not be allowed.

And if we are going to maintain some organized, civil society, we are going to have to put an end to this concept that religious freedom trumps everything. Different religions all have their own so called perfect divine laws and standards. Allowing people to live by their own religious codes, even where they violate state law means we end up legitimizing Jehovah's Witnesses refusing to allow blood transfusions for their children, Muslims using an unfair legal code, illegal and inhumane methods of animal slaughter (kosher and halal butchery), polygamy, Christian Science and other cults who refuse to vaccinate their children....and the list likely goes on and on. Sometimes the government steps in immediately to stop religious idiocy, while other times they are too afraid to offend a potential voting block to take a stand for the principle of having rules and laws that apply to everyone.

[Molly]

Polygamous 'cults', WIP?

Separate that out. Aspects of the 'cult' may well be harmful/deeply undesireable, but is actual polygamy, sans cult, harmful to either the individual or society in general? I mostly doubt it. We aren't talking about throwing a wrench into particular religious groups (and would be committing direct religious discrimination if we were), but are limited to actual multiple marriage, which may or may not have any religious connection at all.

and Tango... "Why not?" How about, as I've pointed out a few times, because multiple marriage doesn't fit, and can't be readily made to fit, existing law pertaining to marriage, so blanket exemptions to the point of rendering it 'name only', or wholesale rewrites, would likely have to accompany the change.

It's a cheap retort to ask in response, "Why?", but it's the question I've been seeking an answer to all along here. What is there about multiple marriage that makes it important, or desireable to define, licence, record and legally acknowledge it? What benefit (even benefit of improved fairness) accrues to anyone because of it? ("Others do it" is not a reason. "Others" jumping off a cliff does not compell us to follow.)

[Molly]

It's all very well to say ' We should allow multiple marriage', but at some point we are going to have to define what that actually means. Entitlements and commitments were clear and obvious with regard to SSM, but even the very basics of plural are... out there, unaddressed.

I ask again, within a threesome, would we percieve all three to each have two spouses, or would one have two, and those two only be married to one?

In the real world, and with just a bit of hyperbole: If a 'good man' dies, are his sister-wives still married to one another, and required to either divorce one another, or only marry again as a collective unit? If not, then are we clearing the way for marriage chains, in which I sponsor an immigrating spouse(or two, or three), who sponsors a spouse, who sponsors a spouse, who sponsors a spouse....

Anybody?

Edited April 8, 2009 by Molly