Quote:
Originally Posted by flylock shox
That is a potentially extremely important point because it clearly distinguishes SSMs from polygamous unions without relying on a ground that also distinguishes them from heterosexual unions.
Basically, that allows for the argument that there is an imbalance of power between parties to a polygamous marriage which may have some detrimental effects. Not an argument you can raise in respect of heterosexual marriages, SSMs, or unions of multiple people who are all equally married to each other. So long as you find some detrimental effects to point to, the point you raise may provide a window for the courts to throw out polygamous marriages (and justifying that action under the Charter).
Just the kind of "out" the Supreme Court might want to rely upon, and a whole new twist on the discussion.
|
Lol new twist is right!
When I pictured an "ideal" of polygamy, I totally assumed everyone was doing everyone else, I guess I naturally assumed everyone else was too. That's why I was getting frustrated with everyone bringing up the bizarre religious compound type setups!
But that makes more sense if people were thinking A B C in a polygamous marriage. A does B and A does C but B and C just happen to live together. I was thinking nights could be AB, AC, BC, ABC, or A by themselves because BC went out.
Wow, such a simple but profound difference.
Couldn't they just stipulate then that in a polygamous marriage everyone has to be married to everyone else? Would that discourage the harem control style arrangements while still allowing the polyamorus arrangement?