Jump to content

Polygamy Law goes to BC Supreme Court


What do you think ?  

15 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

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 by Michael Hardner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by dre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Bonam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...