[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

You're right to an extent. But I'm referring more to the legalization of polygamy, rather than the decriminalization. Once its off the criminal code, the moral arguments end. Even so, there is the limiting factor of the charter, and again, that poorly written document is going to hang like a nuce around the prosecution. They have to somehow prove that polygamy belongs as a criminal offense, but also that it has no religious or cultural value... and hence, deserves no protection under the charter. This is why the former Solicitor General of BC did not want Bountiful touched... he knew it was likely to be a loss and another precedent setter.

The criminality of polygamy is likely to be challenged first by the defense, because once they have answered the question as to why it should be legal, they can lay waste to moral objections. They will likely point to the fact that adultery is not a crime, yet shares some similarities as moral misconduct with real damage, and that philandering also leads to "fundamental changes in the organization of societies." Noting that people find it offensive to limit the actions of consenting adults, they will note that polygamy laws do the same thing. They might even point to the fact that sodomy was a crime, and by allowing SSM, they are giving full government approval to an act that was long considered to be criminal, a complete 180. They will likely point to arranged marriages as a cultural rite that is protected by the Charter, and use that to illustrate religious protection. Then, finally, they will likely use the SSM debate to prove marriage laws can and should be changed to accomodate a minority that would otherwise be limited in its rights and freedoms.

Like I said, I'm opposed to it. I just saw this coming, and unfortunately, it seems a pretty open and shut case for the polygamists. SSM is a precedent in favor of changing traditional values to accomodate a minority that claims aggrieved status, whether people want to admit it or not. Would have been a lot easier if the government walked away from granting marriages.

I guess the first challenge for the defense is to overturn the law that is already on the books. The SCC has shown that it will not overturn a law that infringes upon religious freedom if the law had a secular purpose. Canada has never banned Mormons from entering the country. In fact, the law only cites polygamy as being illegal, it doesn't mention any religion. Personally, I think it's unlikely they will make it past this initial step.