Polygamy Law goes to BC Supreme Court

[Michael Hardner]

"Consent" in this case is highly coerced.

In that case, people don't consent to joining a religion either, since they're coerced from a young age. Should we just ban religion for those under 18 ?

[Michael Hardner]

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.

Religious freedom is the best way to see that polygamy is legalized, as there's no significant push to get this done otherwise.

[guyser]

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.

Comes from Ontario Family Law. Must be together 3 years + to be considered Common Law. Seems weird that Fed law says 12 months, but there's the confusion.

[Jack Weber]

What's next???

People marrying Aardvarks?

[The_Squid]

What's next???

People marrying Aardvarks?

Can an aardvark form consent?

Edited November 23, 2010 by The_Squid

[Oleg Bach]

Who Cares = Other

If you make same sex unions a legal entity..then polygamy should be legal...and I do care....for instance at present it seems I suddenly have 3 woman in my life...and I might just keep them all...and THAT is my business... The reason for instance that the American government took down Mormon Polygamy - was on the premise of some moral concept..BUT the truth was they did not want block votes forming..In other words ONE man could instruct a family of 80 people to vote a certain way - the decision was political to out law polygamy..because it creates kingdoms and OTHER sources of power...that obstruct and defy the state.

[guyser]

The reason for instance that the American government took down Mormon Polygamy - was on the premise of some moral concept..BUT the truth was they did not want block votes forming..In other words ONE man could instruct a family of 80 people to vote a certain way - the decision was political to out law polygamy..because it creates kingdoms and OTHER sources of power...that obstruct and defy the state.

Gosh, youre so brilliant, 80 votes could have swung the numbers around, afterall, only like 20 some odd million voted or some such.

80...oh my gawd, the horror.

Meanwhile back at the oasis, the Arabs were eating their dates.

[Oleg Bach]

Gosh, youre so brilliant, 80 votes could have swung the numbers around, afterall, only like 20 some odd million voted or some such.

80...oh my gawd, the horror.

Meanwhile back at the oasis, the Arabs were eating their dates.

As per usual you are short sighted and do not look off into the future...there are some people that do and their long term plans are intergenerational . China thinks ahead by a century or so - so do Muslim nations - we in the west think a week ahead and that is it. IF polygamy is legalized and in time institutionalized..it will become a force to be reaconed with...it will create a powerful tribal system.. And we in the west really are not manly enough to deal with tribalists..as we see in Afghanistan...

Personally if I could have a hundred wives and 500 children...I would - and YOU would have to respect me...cos when you mess with me YOU ARE MESSING WITH THE WHOLE FAMILY....

[Oleg Bach]

As per usual you are short sighted and do not look off into the future...there are some people that do and their long term plans are intergenerational . China thinks ahead by a century or so - so do Muslim nations - we in the west think a week ahead and that is it. IF polygamy is legalized and in time institutionalized..it will become a force to be reaconed with...it will create a powerful tribal system.. And we in the west really are not manly enough to deal with tribalists..as we see in Afghanistan...

Personally if I could have a hundred wives and 500 children...I would - and YOU would have to respect me...cos when you mess with me YOU ARE MESSING WITH THE WHOLE FAMILY....

By the way that is a joke....point being - polygamy..is ancient and empires were based on this type of family unit - liberals in Canada hate family units where there is a patriarch...wonder if they would be more eccepting of a matriarchy? Where a woman has 20 husbands...now that sounds real messy...

[Michael Hardner]

As per usual you are short sighted and do not look off into the future...t

I contend that you look off into the future perhaps too much. Standing on the corner... gazing off into the future....

Plant your feet and discuss the here and now, my friend.

[wyly]

I don't believe polygamy should be illegal, what consenting adults do is their own business..the marriage of unwilling minors is another matter...the only issue IMO is making it work within our laws, there would be some adjustments to be made...

[Bonam]

Religious freedom is the best way to see that polygamy is legalized, as there's no significant push to get this done otherwise.

Sounds like a fundamental flaw in the mentality of our society. Why do people care so much about the freedoms of religions but not about the freedoms of individuals?

[Guest TrueMetis]

Comes from Ontario Family Law. Must be together 3 years + to be considered Common Law. Seems weird that Fed law says 12 months, but there's the confusion.

I got 5 years from my law teacher, my understanding is that some of the very last fed benefits take 5 years to be recognized.

[Michael Hardner]

Sounds like a fundamental flaw in the mentality of our society. Why do people care so much about the freedoms of religions but not about the freedoms of individuals?

That's wordplay. Freedom of religion is the freedom for an individual to practice their religion.

Broadly speaking, you have freedom to pursue a happy life.

[dre]

That's wordplay. Freedom of religion is the freedom for an individual to practice their religion.

Broadly speaking, you have freedom to pursue a happy life.

That depends entirely on what effect your pursuits have on others. In the case of polygamy it has a negative effect on the women and children in these communities.

Im not expounding any specific policy here. Iv had a hard time getting off the fence on this one, and I can see some good points on both sides.

But there definately IS a public interest issue here, and I dont see why it isnt something we cant regulate or prohibit if we want to. A ruling that this illegal on religious grounds would be extremely unfortunate.

Edited November 23, 2010 by dre

[guyser]

As per usual you are short sighted and do not look off into the future..

..Ok lets keep reading....

.there are some people that do and their long term plans are intergenerational . China thinks ahead by a century or so - so do Muslim nations -

...and of course good parts of China are still living in times we had 100 yrs ago, as for Muslims nations some of them are just as bad.

Nice try though, but nope.

If you had 100 wives I'd be glad for you. You wouldnt hasve time to post tripe for one thing.

Small miracles and all.

[Bonam]

That's wordplay. Freedom of religion is the freedom for an individual to practice their religion.

Broadly speaking, you have freedom to pursue a happy life.

The freedom of an individual to make the decisions they want in life should be independent of their religious affiliation. For example, if polygamy was allowed on the basis of freedom of religion, then one would need to be a member of a religion which practices polygamy in order to be allowed to have a polygamous marriage by the government.

Consider the example of the Obama's health care law. It mandates everyone to purchase health insurance, even people who may not want it. By doing this, it raises more money to pay for people who do need health insurance. Individuals do not have the freedom to opt out. However, if your official religious affiliation is that of a Christian Scientist, you are exempted from this requirement, on the grounds of "religious freedom", because they believe in faith healing as opposed to conventional health care. The government gives Christian Scientists the choice of whether or not they want to get health insurance or not, but not other individuals, in the name of freedom of religion. Here, again, the simple argument SHOULD be individual freedoms, but it is not, and hence people of different religions end up with different rights and choices as a result of government policy.

That's just one convenient example. There are many such examples of religious freedom trumping individual freedom and giving some rights and choices to some individuals while withholding them from others.

Back to polygamy. Maybe I'm an atheist and happen to find three women that all like me very much and want to be my sister-wives. Why shouldn't I be allowed to marry all three while a member of a religious cult would be?

[Argus]

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

Some men get money and intelligence too, yet there you are, poor and stupid.

[Argus]

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

The reason is provincial cowardice. Just as in Ontario, where you have a spineless provincial government which won't enforce laws for fear of violent natives, the provincial government in BC is terrified of violent religious crazies if they crack down on underage marriage.

Easier to do nothing.

[Michael Hardner]

That depends entirely on what effect your pursuits have on others. In the case of polygamy it has a negative effect on the women and children in these communities.

You can't separate the effects of polygamy from those communities.

And, like criticizing a religion, you can only do it relative to your values. There is a measure of objective benefit to being outside of those communities ... but most who have a great deal of contempt for those people don't like religion anyway, so...

[dre]

And, like criticizing a religion, you can only do it relative to your values.

Thats what laws are. An approximation of societies aggregate values. And while in THEORY polygamy itself is not in conflict with those in any way that I can see, the way its practices is. Children in general are neglected, young men get chased out, and women often have no choice at all over who they marry... the marriages are "arranged".

[Michael Hardner]

Thats what laws are. An approximation of societies aggregate values. And while in THEORY polygamy itself is not in conflict with those in any way that I can see, the way its practices is. Children in general are neglected, young men get chased out, and women often have no choice at all over who they marry... the marriages are "arranged".

These are not givens of polygamy by any means. There were similar arguments against gay marriage that were simply thinly-veiled homophobic rants.

[dre]

These are not givens of polygamy by any means. There were similar arguments against gay marriage that were simply thinly-veiled homophobic rants.

Apples and oranges.

[Jack Weber]

Can an aardvark form consent?

I'm sure some moral relativist will find a way to prove it....

[Jack Weber]

These are not givens of polygamy by any means. There were similar arguments against gay marriage that were simply thinly-veiled homophobic rants.

I'm a homophobe because I support the traditional,and only the traditional form of marriage???