Polygamy Law goes to BC Supreme Court

[Michael Hardner]

CBC Story

The constitutional validity of Canada's polygamy law will be tested by the B.C. Supreme Court on Monday, following the province's failed prosecution of two leaders from the religious community of Bountiful last year.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/11/22/bc-polygamy-hearing.html#ixzz1620q5fzK

My take is that it is religious freedom, and this option needs to be permitted.

Edited November 22, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[Argus]

CBC Story

My take is that it is religious freedom, and this option needs to be permitted.

Doesn't really matter. The federal government, mostly due to the Liberals, has abrogated any right to control or even define what constitutes marriage. The SC will rule that any number of people may marry if they so choose.

[charter.rights]

Doesn't really matter. The federal government, mostly due to the Liberals, has abrogated any right to control or even define what constitutes marriage. The SC will rule that any number of people may marry if they so choose.

And there you are...unmarried and alone....and some men get two or three women a night....

[Oleg Bach]

And there you are...unmarried and alone....and some men get two or three women a night....

Truely it is no ones business if a person is stupid or greedy enough to have multiple partners...when there is a re-definition of life and sex itself the concept of polygamy is a non-starter - woman declare themselves men - men declare themselves woman - transexuals now want the right to shower with your 12 year old daughter at the pool - well - what can I say...the world has turned to shit...polygamy is the least of our worries - as for any "supreme" court....all of the rulings sent down by these creeps seem to be an attack on the good health and happiness of the population - best to ignore these creeps also.

[eyeball]

Should polygamy be legal ?

Yes

No

Other/Unsure/NA

It seems to me who cares should also be an option. You could marry a potted petunia for all I care.

[Michael Hardner]

Should polygamy be legal ?

Yes

No

Other/Unsure/NA

It seems to me who cares should also be an option. You could marry a potted petunia for all I care.

Who Cares = Other

[Guest TrueMetis]

Where's the "as long as all parties have and can consent" option?

[Michael Hardner]

Where's the "as long as all parties have and can consent" option?

That's "yes"

[dre]

Where's the "as long as all parties have and can consent" option?

The problem is that for whatever reason these relationships result in a lot of child abuse, and the child cant consent.

[Michael Hardner]

The problem is that for whatever reason these relationships result in a lot of child abuse ...

What does that mean ? Do you mean that this is something that happens in those communitites ?

[Guest TrueMetis]

That's "yes"

Yes it is then.

[guyser]

What does that mean ? Do you mean that this is something that happens in those communitites ?

Apparently so according to some. Abuse of young children for one.

[The_Squid]

CBC Story

My take is that it is religious freedom, and this option needs to be permitted.

My take is that how consenting adults spend their time together is none of The State's business. And I will go further and assert that The State should have no role in "marriage". If people want to be married, let them do so in a church. Whatever church they wish, whatever kind of marriage they wish.

What business does The State have in sanctioning my relationships? The State should get out of the marriage business altogether.

[The_Squid]

Apparently so according to some. Abuse of young children for one.

Then arrest them for child abuse. This is already illegal.

[Guest TrueMetis]

My take is that how consenting adults spend their time together is none of The State's business. And I will go further and assert that The State should have no role in "marriage". If people want to be married, let them do so in a church. Whatever church they wish, whatever kind of marriage they wish.

What business does The State have in sanctioning my relationships? The State should get out of the marriage business altogether.

Alright then, have fun figuring everything out if you get divorced. marriage is a contract and as such the state plays a role in enforcing that contract.

[The_Squid]

Alright then, have fun figuring everything out if you get divorced. marriage is a contract and as such the state plays a role in enforcing that contract.

How do they do it with people that never get officially married now then? Are they in some sort of divorce limbo? Of course not. Treat everyone in that manner (common-law marriage).

[Guest TrueMetis]

How do they do it with people that never get officially married now then? Are they in some sort of divorce limbo? Of course not. Treat everyone in that manner (common-law marriage).

When you're in a common-law marriage the state recognized you and treats you as essentially married.

[The_Squid]

When you're in a common-law marriage the state recognized you and treats you as essentially married.

Exactly. But there is no paper work, no cermony with a JP, etc. Just treat everyone in that fashion. No more State marriage.

[Michael Hardner]

Apparently so according to some. Abuse of young children for one.

Maybe banning the community, or the religion is the answer then. Since child abuse is already illegal.

[guyser]

When you're in a common-law marriage the state recognized you and treats you as essentially married.

Has to be for a consecutive period (3yrs IIRC) or the union of a child, however you are not treated exactly the same.

There are some changes with respect to division of property

[Guest TrueMetis]

Has to be for a consecutive period (3yrs IIRC) or the union of a child, however you are not treated exactly the same.

There are some changes with respect to division of property

5 years and that's why I said essentially.

[Wilber]

I told my wife she could pick the next car or my next wife. She said she was picking the next car and her next husband.

[msj]

Not sure where the 3 years (or 5 years) is coming from for common law marriage.

If you live together in a conjugal relationship for 12 months then you are common law in Canada.

Under the Income Tax Act this makes you exactly the same as being married.

For CPP this makes you the same as being married.

Under various provincial laws, well, it depends (which is why gay marriage was so important - splitting property, having a say at the hospital are two legal areas that some gay people were put at a disadvantage).

I'm against polygamy but will answer as "other" because I have no problem with many people shacking up together if they so choose.

I'm against the state recognizing any kind of extra rights beyond having one spouse at a time.

Even this is more so for practical reasons than anything else.

[dre]

What does that mean ? Do you mean that this is something that happens in those communitites ?

Yes. Women are objectified and often pressured to enter arranged marriages at a very young age. Young boys are often driven out because the community can only work if theres more women than men.

And to me the "consent" is meaningless. Youre taking young women and theyre pressured by their community, parents, religious leaders etc to allow themselves to be married off. "Consent" in this case is highly coerced.

Edited November 23, 2010 by dre

[Bonam]

My take is that it is religious freedom, and this option needs to be permitted.

Why does it have to be a "religious" freedom? What matters here is individual freedom. Religion doesn't come into it. If three or more voluntarily consenting adult individuals, for whatever reason, wish to become part of a multi-member marriage, that's up to them. The state has no business dictating who may or may not marry whom. At least, that is the only valid argument I can see for advocating for the allowance of polygamy.

One may argue against it on the basis of the fact that not all individuals in such arrangements are truly consenting in a meaningful way, as dre does, and that too is a valid point.

But religious freedom? Seriously, screw religion. It's a matter of the rights of the individual and determining whether they are best protected by allowing people to marry as they choose or by preventing types of marriage that are considered unequal and thus to infringe on the rights of some of the individuals participating in them.

Edited November 23, 2010 by Bonam