Polygamy at The Root of Problem

[scribblet]

Here we have it, pandora's box has been opened. Canada needs to deal with this issue now and put something in place to protect minors.

Polygamy at ‘the root of problem:’ lawyer

National Post [email protected]

In Canada, there has been a legacy of failed legal attempts to deal with the issue, utilizing either the anti-polygamy law, Section 293, which carries a five year term, the Human Rights process, or, most recently, a section of the Criminal Code prohibiting adults from having sex with minors when the adult is in a position of authority

-snip-

However, Katherine Young, a professor of religion at McGill University, believes the legalization of same-sex marriages has changed the rules.

“Once you start to change definitions there can be a whole set of repercussions,” she said. “[Now] you’re going to have to argue whether there’s any substantial reason to restrict marriage to two people. The last argument was whether we have to restrict to two people of different sex, now we have to make an argument why it should be restricted to two. And now we have even weaker grounds for doing it.”

http://digital.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

[maldon_road]

However, Katherine Young, a professor of religion at McGill University, believes the legalization of same-sex marriages has changed the rules.

“Once you start to change definitions there can be a whole set of repercussions,” she said. “[Now] you’re going to have to argue whether there’s any substantial reason to restrict marriage to two people. The last argument was whether we have to restrict to two people of different sex, now we have to make an argument why it should be restricted to two. And now we have even weaker grounds for doing it.”

Very well said. Before, with SSM, we were getting into pretty new territory and many courts have ruled it a constitutional right. How can we now deny polygamy which is practiced by many religions?

Susie now can have two mommies. Before long she will be able to have two mommies and a daddy too.

[Renegade]

How can we now deny polygamy which is practiced by many religions?

As with SSM, it should have nothing to do with religion.

Susie now can have two mommies. Before long she will be able to have two mommies and a daddy too.

Sure, and why sholuldn't she. BTW, she will also be able to have 2 daddies and one mommies, or multiple mommies and multiple daddies.

[maldon_road]

As with SSM, it should have nothing to do with religion.

True, but religionists will be able to use the Charter religious rights provision to press their claim.

[margrace]

I honestly believe that there is nothing wrong with polygamy, however we need laws to protect young people and acertain whether they are being forced into this.

[fellowtraveller]

However, Katherine Young, a professor of religion at McGill University, believes the legalization of same-sex marriages has changed the rules.

“Once you start to change definitions there can be a whole set of repercussions,” she said. “[Now] you’re going to have to argue whether there’s any substantial reason to restrict marriage to two people. The last argument was whether we have to restrict to two people of different sex, now we have to make an argument why it should be restricted to two. And now we have even weaker grounds for doing it.”

True, but religionists will be able to use the Charter religious rights provision to press their claim.

I agree with Ms Young, though I do not think it has much to do with freedom of religion. The Supreme Court first, then Parliament (which is backwards and disturbing) decided that marriage of two persons of any gender was permissible as a human right. Polygamy/polyandry will be argued on the same grounds, that there is nothing in the Charter that prevents consenting adults from marrying in any number of people or combination of genders. The restriction of marriage to two persons is no less arbitrary than the restriction of the acknowledgement of a marriage to one man and one woman.

Opponents will haul out the old warhorse that the women are minors and therefore not consenting, but this is ultimately a separate issue and really has no legal linkage to the practice of polygamy between consenting adults. Minors cannot legally marry anyway under existing laws, nothing will change when polygamy is acknowledged as no less valid than traditional marriges, including same sex marriage.

I just do not see any legal basis for denying the rights of people to adopt whatever combination of legal partners they choose.

I believe that the Dept of Justice feels the same way, which is why there have been no prosecutions for polygamy in Canada since I think 1932.

[Canuck E Stan]

I just do not see any legal basis for denying the rights of people to adopt whatever combination of legal partners they choose.

I believe that the Dept of Justice feels the same way, which is why there have been no prosecutions for polygamy in Canada since I think 1932.

10th Anniversary of the right to bare......

Ontario's general definition of public indecency changed forever in December 1996, when the province's Appeal Court ruled women had the right to expose their chests in public places- -- just as men could.

The landmark case was brought through the court system by Gwen Jacob, a former university student who was charged with committing an indecent act in 1991 after she took her top off while walking through the streets of Guelph.

"I think there is still probably a strong concern with harassment," says Jacob. "But I hope as people's attitudes change it will be easier for future generations to do it."

What next besides polygamy will "human rights" demands attach itself to?

[sucker punch]

Polygamy is the root of the problem? Please. People who think that, in my opinion, are either completely confused, or are using the issue as a means to another end.

Polygamy is not the root of the problem. Sick, twisted, pedophiles that like to rape little girls, and control women are the root of the problem. Polygamy is just an excuse/pathway they use to achieve their goals.

Heroin junkies use syringes to get their fix. Are syringes the root of the problem? Should they be outlawed?

If I love two women, I want to marry both of them, they want to marry me back, and they understand the situation, there is no reason to not allow us to do that. There shouldn't be laws against actions that have no victim.

[maldon_road]

People are continually talking about what the courts should do. And unfortunately that is going to be the case. But I don't regard SSM or polygamy as "human rights" to be determined by judges appointed by the government. This is social policy and should be within the domain of Parliament. But, alas, this is post-Charter Canada. If can't get what you want politically, see if the courts will give it to you. :angry:

[Keepitsimple]

We are probably heading down a road that will bring the "notwithstanding" clause into play. When Trudeau tried to bulldoze the Charter of Rights into our constitution, the provinces would only allow it if they had access to a "notwithstanding" clause - in other words, the ability to "over rule" the Supreme Court on an issue by issue basis. If Polygamy was viewed as a Charter "right" by the Supreme Court, I would hope that ALL provinces would use the notwithstanding clause and make it illegal in every corner of Canada. There may be a fringe element that would find Polygamy acceptable but I feel that I'm on pretty solid ground in saying that Polygamy is at odds with core Canadian values.

[sucker punch]

There may be a fringe element that would find Polygamy acceptable but I feel that I'm on pretty solid ground in saying that Polygamy is at odds with core Canadian values.

Like what, for example?

[maldon_road]

We are probably heading down a road that will bring the "notwithstanding" clause into play. When Trudeau tried to bulldoze the Charter of Rights into our constitution, the provinces would only allow it if they had access to a "notwithstanding" clause - in other words, the ability to "over rule" the Supreme Court on an issue by issue basis. If Polygamy was viewed as a Charter "right" by the Supreme Court, I would hope that ALL provinces would use the notwithstanding clause and make it illegal in every corner of Canada. There may be a fringe element that would find Polygamy acceptable but I feel that I'm on pretty solid ground in saying that Polygamy is at odds with core Canadian values.

It's marriage so it's federal jurisdiction. Parliament would have to invoke the N/W clause. And I'm not sure they would. If the Courts have determined polygamy to be a fundamental right, using the N/W clause could be construed as trampling on those rights.

[betsy]

Very well said. Before, with SSM, we were getting into pretty new territory and many courts have ruled it a constitutional right. How can we now deny polygamy which is practiced by many religions?

Susie now can have two mommies. Before long she will be able to have two mommies and a daddy too.

What next besides polygamy will "human rights" demands attach itself to?

Next will come the pedophiles' rights!

Edited August 13, 2007 by betsy

[maldon_road]

Next will come the pedophiles' rights!

Spot on. If you can marry another guy or do with the plethora of women you are married to, why not with an 8-yr old girl? After all, it's just another sexual form of sexual orientation. :angry:

[Renegade]

Spot on. If you can marry another guy or do with the plethora of women you are married to, why not with an 8-yr old girl? After all, it's just another sexual form of sexual orientation. :angry:

Nonsense. An 8-year old girl cannot be presumed to give informed consent, however an adult can.

You can only have marriage between consenting adults.

[maldon_road]

Nonsense. An 8-year old girl cannot be presumed to give informed consent, however an adult can.

You can only have marriage between consenting adults.

You are correct. My post was intended to be sarcastic. The politicians will bend over for the polygamists - no pun intended. But we can presume they will grow some testicles when it comes to the man-boy pedophiles.

Edited August 13, 2007 by maldon_road

[Renegade]

You are correct. My post was intended to be sarcastic. The politicians will bend over for the polygamists - no pun intended. But we can presume they will grow some testicles when it comes to the man-boy pedophiles.

Really it has got very little to do with with politicians. Adults who have informed consent can choose any type of relationship between themselves. I'm confident that the SCC will uphold that. However any relationship whether monogamous or polygamous that involves a child will be disallowed because the child cannot be presumed to be freely consenting in the same way an adult can.

[Shakeyhands]

boy, whats with this new conservative scary scary scary...?

[Melanie_]

Susie now can have two mommies. Before long she will be able to have two mommies and a daddy too.

Susie already can have two mommies and two daddies, or more, through divorce and remarriage. If we accept that she will be OK in this situation (and I do), we can probably accept that she will be OK in a polygamous family as well.

[maldon_road]

Really it has got very little to do with with politicians. Adults who have informed consent can choose any type of relationship between themselves. I'm confident that the SCC will uphold that. However any relationship whether monogamous or polygamous that involves a child will be disallowed because the child cannot be presumed to be freely consenting in the same way an adult can.

It's beyond belief that either the courts and/or the politicians would approve of any sexual relationship where informed consent was not possible. And I don't agree with the argument put forth by the religious right that SSM became a slippery slope and after that polygamy became inevitable. In fact I think it was only a matter of time before polygamy became legal and it had nothing to do with SSM. The case for polygamy is much stronger than that of gay marriage.

[maldon_road]

Susie already can have two mommies and two daddies, or more, through divorce and remarriage. If we accept that she will be OK in this situation (and I do), we can probably accept that she will be OK in a polygamous family as well.

There is no reason to believe otherwise. If one person can raise a family then so can three.

[Moxie]

And Susie's husband gets tired of supporting his hoard of 12 plus kids, goes on welfare (for life in NS) and passes on his beliefs to the taxpayer. No thanks the left's desire to social engineer the new definition of family always cost me money. When a socialist tax is implimented towards those who want my money to destroy this countries culture then knock yourselves out. Until then stop expecting us high earners to pay for your most tolerant of social programs. I'm sick of paying for the left's utopia. Contrary to their lack of beliefs Canadians are sick of the weak, lame and perverted in the name of tolerance.

[sucker punch]

And Susie's husband gets tired of supporting his hoard of 12 plus kids, goes on welfare (for life in NS) and passes on his beliefs to the taxpayer. No thanks the left's desire to social engineer the new definition of family always cost me money. When a socialist tax is implimented towards those who want my money to destroy this countries culture then knock yourselves out. Until then stop expecting us high earners to pay for your most tolerant of social programs. I'm sick of paying for the left's utopia. Contrary to their lack of beliefs Canadians are sick of the weak, lame and perverted in the name of tolerance.

Are you serious, or are you being a sarcastic caricature of ignorance, a la Stephen Colbert?

[Melanie_]

Susie was the kid in this analogy, but anyway....

You've made quite a leap in logic there, Moxie! I didn't see any mention of social programs for polygamists, other than your assumption that they will go on social assistance. How is that different from a monogomous family on social assistance, by the way? And can you explain what you mean by "Contrary to their lack of beliefs Canadians are sick of the weak, lame and perverted in the name of tolerance." Whose lack of beliefs are you talking about? And what have you got against the weak and lame?

[sucker punch]

Whose lack of beliefs are you talking about? And what have you got against the weak and lame?

They drag the rest of us down! We should really get rid of the people we arbitrarily decide are weak and lame, then we could create A Supreme Race! That would be fantastic! Why has no one though of this before!?