Polygamy

[Pateris]

So, now the Liberal government has commissioned a study and legal opinion on polygamy...

Seems to me that the beloved Charter may finally be leading us down the slippery slope...

I wouldn't be surprised if this gets legalized by the courts too. I mean, wouldn't the SCOC say that since peoples from other cultures that allow polygamy have come here, we are infringing on their rights by not allowing it?

I don't have any problem with Same Sex Marriage - I think it's just fine. Polygamy is too much.

[PocketRocket]

  So, now the Liberal government has commissioned a study and legal opinion on polygamy...

Good for them.

Seems to me that the beloved Charter may finally be leading us down the slippery slope...

Nothing like a good sleigh ride.

I wouldn't be surprised if this gets legalized by the courts too.  I mean, wouldn't the SCOC say that since peoples from other cultures that allow polygamy have come here, we are infringing on their rights by not allowing it?

Makes sense.

I don't have any problem with Same Sex Marriage - I think it's just fine.

To each his/her own.

Polygamy is too much. 

Or maybe two much.

In all seriousness, I could care less. How someone wants to arrange their private life, marital or otherwise, bothers me not one bit.

There are already rare cases where people are living in polygamous relationships. I know of two such arrangements. One of these "married" triads are good friends of mine. They see themselves as spouses, and have been together for 9 or 10 years now. They are simply not legally married.

IMO, a piece of legal document does not a marriage make. The commitments made between two, and now perhaps three or more people, is what makes a marriage.

If said marriage is not recognized by law, it does not make it less valid factually, just legally.

Kinda like someone who steals, but has never been caught. The law may not recognize him as a thief, simply because he has not been convicted. But it does not make him less of a thief.

[Shakeyhands]

Gays and Polygamists should be stoned. Amen.

Is that better?

Why would anyone care what someone else chooses to do? Personally, one wife is MOOOORE than enough for me but whatever..... different strokes

[bobocop]

so I choose to marry my 10 year neice, who cares, it's no one elses business. what I choose to do behind shut doors, is my business and mine alone.

so I choose to beat my wife and my religion tells me I am allowed, who cares, it's no one elses business.

different strokes for different folks.

Really.....who cares

[Black Dog]

So, now the Liberal government has commissioned a study and legal opinion on polygamy...

But they're not looking at legalizing it, just evaluating what their options are.

o I choose to marry my 10 year neice, who cares, it's no one elses business. what I choose to do behind shut doors, is my business and mine alone.

so I choose to beat my wife and my religion tells me I am allowed, who cares, it's no one elses business.

different strokes for different folks.

Uh no...see, the Charter "guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Since you'd be violating numerous Criminal Code provisions by marrying a minor, your example would be subject to such "reasonable limits". Such as criminal prosecution.

[Hugo]

I must say I don't see what the problem is. If people wish to enter into an agreement with other people and share certain things, why would that be an issue? More to the point, why would people with far less involvement and far less vested interest get to have a greater say in these agreements than the people making them? That hardly seems fair. By the same token, next time Pateris goes down to Futureshop to buy an MP3 player, I should turn up and stipulate that he has to buy me one too.

[I miss Reagan]

Paul Martin says he'd be willing to have an election over the gay marriage issue. I'd love to see Harper call him on that bluff. Anyway, I'm glad to see that some people are consistent because you can't grant rights to one group without granting them to another group. The problem is, I believe the majority of those who are for gay marriage are likely opposed to legalising polygamy. This is not only inconsistent but bigoted perhaps .

[The Terrible Sweal]

so I choose to marry my 10 year neice, who cares, it's no one elses business. what I choose to do behind shut doors, is my business and mine alone.

Yours? How about your neice?

[The Terrible Sweal]

People who attempt to equate the situation of same-sex marriage with polygamy are simply ignorant of important aspects of civics.

[Black Dog]

Paul Martin says he'd be willing to have an election over the gay marriage issue. I'd love to see Harper call him on that bluff.

He can't. It wouldn't be a confidence vote.

Anyway, I'm glad to see that some people are consistent because you can't grant rights to one group without granting them to another group.

Equating same-sex marriage with polygamy is a matter of apples and oranges.

The Charter states you cannot discriminate on the basis of innate characteristics such as race or sexual orientation. In other words: you can't give one group a set of rights, but deny those same rights to another group, as is the case with the prohibition on same sex marriage.

Polygamy on the other hand, is a no-no clear across the board. The only way the prohibition on polygamy could be challenged is on the basis of freedom of religion. But religious freedom is not absolute. Unless something is permitted to some religous groups and not others, it's not a violation of freedom of religion.

[August1991]

The Charter states you cannot discriminate on the basis of innate characteristics such as race or sexual orientation.

Where, in the Charter, is the term "sexual orientation" used?

This is the relevant section of the Charter:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

If I'm not mistaken, the Supreme Court chose to read in/add to this section "sexual orientation".

So, what stops a future court from reading in/adding something else? (I think that's the "polygamy/draw a line now" argument.) Answer? Well, I guess nothing.

We are moving back to where we were before the Charter. This is the common law approach anyway.

[I miss Reagan]

The Charter states you cannot discriminate on the basis of innate characteristics such as race or sexual orientation.

Where, in the Charter, is the term "sexual orientation" used?

It's not.

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

[The Terrible Sweal]

This is the relevant section of the Charter:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

If I'm not mistaken, the Supreme Court chose to read in/add to this section "sexual orientation".

Technically, no. 'Reading in' is applied to statutes to correct them to comply with the Charter. It is not applied to the Charter itself.

The provincial courts of appeal have found that the concept of 'every individual ... without discrimination' includes discrimination against persons on the basis of sexual orientation, and that confining marriage to heterosexual unions discriminated on that basis.

So, what stops a future court from  ... adding something else?  (I think that's the "polygamy/draw a line now" argument.)  Answer? Well, I guess nothing.

The court doesn't add anything. It merely how what we wrote in 1982 applies to the circumstances as they arise today.

[Black Dog]

So, what stops a future court from reading in/adding something else? (I think that's the "polygamy/draw a line now" argument.)

How about "the absence of a coherent argument for including polygamy, bestiality etc etc in the Charter"? How about the fact that prohibitions on the above are not discriminatory, as the law applies equally to all? How about the fact that the Charter allows "reasonable limits" on individual rights?

[kimmy]

A year ago, Paul Martin publicly chastized David Kilgour, and relieved him of his post as Secretary of State for Berundi and Belize (or whatever crappy-ass position it was) for asking whether legalizing gay marriage would put us on a slippery slope towards legalizing polygamy. A year later, the Liberals have initiated a study to determine whether legalizing gay marriage has put us on a slippery slope towards legalizing polygamy?

uh-huh... sounds about right.

-kimmy

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear kimmy,

Poor David Kilgour. If you'll recall, Kilgour and Alex Kindy were 'fired' from the PC part for voting against the implementation of the GST. (They both claimed they were merely acting according to the wishes of the overwhelming majority of their constituents). Looks like there is no place for an 'honest politician'!

[August1991]

So, what stops a future court from reading in/adding something else? (I think that's the "polygamy/draw a line now" argument.)

How about "the absence of a coherent argument for including polygamy, bestiality etc etc in the Charter"? How about the fact that prohibitions on the above are not discriminatory, as the law applies equally to all? How about the fact that the Charter allows "reasonable limits" on individual rights?

Look BD, you can't have it both ways.

If the pro-Gay Rights lobby wants to redefine the debate so that anyone against gay marriage appears to be intolerant, it should not be surprising if the pro-Hetero Marriage lobby re-redefines the debate to include polygamy.

Harper, for example, has no objection to gay civil unions and gays having the same legal rights (and obligations) as straights.

The use of the word "marriage" alone is at issue.

So, I think it is extreme to present Harper as intolerant (or anti-Gay) merely because he wants the word "marriage" to be reserved alone for hetero unions.

In the same sense, you and I know that people in favour of gay marriage are not advocating legal polygamy.

Yet, this is how public debates often unfold. Like abortion, this is a hot-button issue filled with "what if hypotheticals".

For example.

What if some future Supreme Court decides it is discriminatory to forbid a woman from marrying her brother? (This is relevant, for example, in terms of pension survivor benefits and immigration law.)

Hell, I'd say we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. But it's not the bridge we're at now.

[Black Dog]

If the pro-Gay Rights lobby wants to redefine the debate so that anyone against gay marriage appears to be intolerant, it should not be surprising if the pro-Hetero Marriage lobby re-redefines the debate to include polygamy.

I'm not surprised they've brought up polygamy, just that they could save themselves some time by wearing T-shirts that read "I'm with stupid" with an arrow pointing up.

Polygamy is a red herring.

How can I spell it ouit?

Gay marriage=apples.

Polygamy=oranges.

[Pateris]

Black Dog,

They are not apples and oranges... They are both issues for which the activist courts will read the Charter not literally but figuratively.

I expect that within 2 years polygamy will be legalized too.

And maybe they'll lower the age of sexual consent too. It is the ridiculously high 14 right now.

[Anti-Rightwing]

I am not for polygamy, but I am a little tired of hearing how gay marriage, and polygamy would end society as we know it, and ruin the world.

What link is there between polygamy and gay marriage, are you afraid that homosexuals that are married will want to have another partner as well?

This whole issue of gay marriage has nothing to do with polygamy, it is all just been used to manipulate the people of Canada into being afraid of something that in reality they have nothing to fear. The facts in this situation have been twisted and mutated into something which they are not.

[Guest eureka]

The Charter is not to be read literally as, I think Black Dog made clear earlier. Words change in import and societal conditions change also.

Polygamy is a silly scare tactic for marshalling the forces of the "moral majority." It is completely irrelevant.

That said, I am against homsexual "marriage. I think that the labelling of this as a "Rights" issue is the other side of the coin. Marriage is a distint institution with only one meaning and that meaning will be made meaningless with the proposed changes.

However, the mass of those who wish to appear to be in the vanguard of "progress" will decide.

[Slavik44]

Gays and Polygamists should be stoned. Amen.

Is that better?

Why would anyone care what someone else chooses to do? Personally, one wife is MOOOORE than enough for me but whatever..... different strokes

because if one guy chooses to have three wives, there is less to go around, its just not fair, there is already more males then females in the lower demographics in Canada no need to make it worse. :angry:

[Shakeyhands]

Good thing Harper isn't selling used cars or you all would be driving pieces of crapola.... Keep lapping up the rhetoric my right wing friends!

[Black Dog]

They are not apples and oranges... They are both issues for which the activist courts will read the Charter not literally but figuratively.

I expect that within 2 years polygamy will be legalized too.

They are apples and oranges in the sense that legalizing same sex marriage does not have any connnection with polygamy. If someone wanted to challenge the polygamy provisions in the Criminal Code they could have done sop at any time. Changing the civil definition of marriage from "one man and one woman" to "two persons" doesn't have any bearing on polygamy. To believe otherwise betrays a woeful ignorance of constitutional law.

And maybe they'll lower the age of sexual consent too. It is the ridiculously high 14 right now.

Again, this has absolutely no bearing on gay marriage.

[The Terrible Sweal]

If the pro-Gay Rights lobby wants to redefine the debate so that anyone against gay marriage appears to be intolerant, it should not be surprising if the pro-Hetero Marriage lobby re-redefines the debate to include polygamy.

The 'pro-Gay rights lobby' doesn't see any bona fide basis for 'debate'. People opposed to same-sex marriage have had months (if not years) to articulate a sensible basis for their objections and they have consistently come up with nothing that amounts to anything. Based on this failure, it has come to the point that it is only sensible to view calls from that quarter for 'debate' as merely window dressing for prejudice.

While tactically it is not unexpected for SSM opponents to draw in polygamy, it is nevertheless the argument of an ignoramous, based on a profoundly uninformed understanding of our legal and political system.

Harper, for example, has no objection to gay civil unions and gays having the same legal rights (and obligations) as straights.

The use of the word "marriage" alone is at issue.

Exactly. There is no content to this 'debate' except that it represents the symbolic goring of the ox of prejudice.

So, I think it is extreme to present Harper as intolerant (or anti-Gay) merely because he wants the word "marriage" to be reserved alone for hetero unions.

Before making that conclusion, I think it is necessary to ask WHY he holds that position.