Polygamists argue gay marriage defence

[onetwo_threefour]

I was pro-SSM, but remain largely anti-polyamoric marriage (I may have just made that word up).

While I disagreed with the arguments raised against SSM because I saw them as strictly moralistic, with little or any objective evidence to support harm, I concur with Peter12's view that comparison with other primate societies, and historical examples of polygamous human societies suggest that polygamy creates fundamental changes in the organization of societies. Where there is much higher competition between males for an artificially scarce supply of females because males can hoard females through formalized polygamy, the very nature and ambition of young males wil likely be warped. While that wouldn't 'necessarily' be bad, my personal view is that it probably would be. (Bountiful being a micro-example of this.)

Furthermore, our tax code would also be affected drastically, since there would be arguments about income-splitting and dependants that would be hard to deny if polygamy is formalized. I view marriage as something that you can justify granting certain benefits for on the basis that it tends to establish stable family structures in the type of society that we are comfortable with. There is no evidence, anthropologically, that polygamy can provide the same benefits. Homosexual relations are an outlet from the norm of heterosexual marriage, and are inherently self-limiting. If polygamy is allowed and has similar benefits to one-to-one marriage, there is every reason to expect that it will spread, with unknown consequences to society at large.

I'm sorry I missed the first several pges of this debate, as some very interesting points were raised and some serious misinformation...

I agree that the Section 1 arguments will be interesting, but Thunderball's information that morality has no place in the discussion at the SCC is completely wrong. With respect to the discussion about redefining marriage under the Marriage Act, it is true, but that is a non-criminal statute. The Court has recognized time and time again that morality will always be part of the arguments when dealing with the Criminal Code. The Court can indeed analyze the moral basis for the prohibition of polygamy and must show judicial deference to some degree to the Parlianment. It definitely puts this discussion on a different playnig field than SSM. The equivalent discussion would be when sodomy was decriminaized, not when SSM was legalized.

[jammies]

If control of women is your sticking point, the same arguments apply to normal marriage as well as polygamous marriage; if what bothers you is 60 year old men marrying teenagers, that has little to do with polygamy. Certainly this type of marriage is unsavory, but I'm not sure that keeping polygamy illegal is going to have more than an infinitesmal effect on the rates of geezer/jailbait hookups. When you look at the number of polygamists vs the population at large, it is statistically insignificant - even compared to the number of same-sex marriages, this is an issue that is hardly about to tear the social fabric to shreds with widespread potential for abuse.

Further, I'm not sure any legal strictures intended to prevent such marriages would do more good than harm; anytime you start telling people what they can and can't do at the age of consent, you limit freedom and unintended consequences invariably result. Far better to recognize such marriages as legal, and try to include these "cults" in the cultural mainstream where their more extreme ideas are bound to be adjusted to the norm in the long run.

[peter12]

This is one of the better, more balanced discussions on Calgarypuck that I've ever seen. Everyone has made such great points.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

I agree that the Section 1 arguments will be interesting, but Thunderball's information that morality has no place in the discussion at the SCC is completely wrong. With respect to the discussion about redefining marriage under the Marriage Act, it is true, but that is a non-criminal statute. The Court has recognized time and time again that morality will always be part of the arguments when dealing with the Criminal Code. The Court can indeed analyze the moral basis for the prohibition of polygamy and must show juddiical deference to some degree to the Parlianment. It definitely puts this discussion on a different playnig field than SSM. The equivalent discussion would be when sodomy was decriminaized, not when SSM was legalized.

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 noose 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.

[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.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by peter12

This is one of the better, more balanced discussions on Calgarypuck that I've ever seen. Everyone has made such great points.

Totally agree. A credit to CP's membership I think.

With respect to the criminality of polygamy, it might be helpful to set out the Code provision which criminalizes it:
293 (1) Every one who

(a) practises or enters into or in any manner agrees or consents to practise or enter into (i) any form of polygamy, or (ii) any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time, whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage, or

(b) celebrates, assists or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or consent that purports to sanction a relationship mentioned in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii),

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

(2) Where an accused is charged with an offence under this section, no averment or proof of the method by which the alleged relationship was entered into, agreed to or consented to is necessary in the indictment or on the trial of the accused, nor is it necessary on the trial to prove that the persons who are alleged to have entered into the relationship had or intended to have sexual intercourse.

On a closer reading, this is a particularly powerful Code provision. It criminalizes not only people who enter into marriages and have sex with multiple partners, but also people who are in multiple conjugal (sexual) unions falling short of marriage, and people who perform the ceremonies or even celebrate at the wedding. And the Crown doesn't have to prove the exact form of the marriage or how it came to pass.

Another interesting article from Osgoode Hall law school from a couple of years back, anticipating the development of the polygamy issue: Article.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

See I would agree, but I just can't in certain points.

It seems that the groups that are doing polygamist marriages are groups where the men are definitely in the position of power and near ownership. These marriages are also usually arranged by the church leaders or community leaders to me that puts these woman into a position no better then that of slave. How much pressure was exerted on these young girls to marry these creepy old men?


It also seems that there is quite a bit of control exerted over these woman.

I think that the government has made a mistake in these charges and should have focused on the underage marriage issues.

There's almost no way that this isn't going to open some supreme court intervention at some point.

And marriages are arranged to very young girls.

[Kidder]

Phenomenal thread. Great dialogue; insightful and respectful from all sides.

This inevitable debate has always intrigued me. Mostly because of my position in the matter. I’ve never taken a firm stance in the SSM debate despite being gay myself. While I obviously empathize with one side I can also see the merit in the arguments of both.

But I’ve always classified a polygamist relationship as wrong. Not necessarily morally, but I feel it undermines the meaning and significance of what we all uphold and cherish in intimate relationships, no matter the genders involved. To me the comparison between SSM and polygamy is apples to oranges, although I’m not sure I can be articulate enough to dispel the apparent hypocrisy.

Not helping in my ability to establish a firm ground is my position of Agnosticism which I warily drifted to from a Christian upbringing. As I try to understand the balance (if any) between being ruled by a supreme being, or by the rules of science, I’ve been confounded by my own experiences.

Growing up, my sexual desires seemed somewhat of a biological blunder. Surely horniness, or sexual desire, is a biological function imperative to promote and ensure sexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction and survival of the species. But since my sexual desire was exclusively for members of the same sex where reproduction is not possible, the desire is not fulfilling its biological purpose. But this realization does not quell or reform the desire.

Intimacy seems to do more than satisfy a primal urge. It ignites the human condition, the need for companionship, love, approval, dependency. To what extent and to what end is unclear. But it requires more than one participant.

There’s something noble and profound about committing yourself fully and completely to another individual. And to me this seemed the pinnacle of human experience. To love, and be loved in return (…till death do you part). This is what I believe (and hope) the SSM movement is about.

But I see this being compromised by the polygamist or polyamory relationships. How can you commit yourself fully to an individual when you are already committed to another? Is your intimate self not divided among all parties, or is there a never-ending supply of intimacy that can be shared fully with whoever cares to return it? Is their human experience cheapened if they are unable to share with more than one person? Or are they cheapening the human experience by doing just that?

Hypotheses such as Photon’s are what completely shake the foundation I’m trying to stand on.

Originally Posted by photon

I think I meant more monogamous pair-bonding when I wondered about marriage existing in 100 years. Times change, needs change. Needs led to monogamy to begin with, and as society changes maybe that need will change or even go away. Maybe it's just reading too many science fiction books with interesting structures for societies and relationships, but I don't really see something magical about pair-bonding that makes it inherently better than other setups, it's just the one that's worked the best for us for the past while. I'm not an anthropologist though.

This notion that monogamy is a temporary construct of our society-- a fleeting fad that will someday give way to another that better suits present-day needs— well it scares the living hell out of me. Certainly plausible, completely possible. But then what are we striving towards? Is intimacy just a tool designed to help navigate through life? Does it matter if we pour it into one soul, or divvy it up evenly to feed 16, like pumpkin pie on Thanksgiving day?


Like I said… unbelievable thread. So many compelling ideas and opinions being put forward. I hope they keep coming.

[onetwo_threefour]

I dunno, Kidder. Seemed pretty articulate to me.

[peter12]

Kidder, that was a great post.

[Ronald Pagan]

There is nothing innately wrong with polygamy.

If consenting adults want to enter into a multiple partner relationship then they should.

The case with Bountiful is far from that. They are hardly consenting or adults. A religious framework is constructed to brainwash and coerce females to join into a polygamous relationship and often these females are not even adults. Just a sick group of individuals in that community.

One of the fallouts often not discussed with the Bountiful members is what happens to the boys.

Because every married man often has more than 5 wives, the arithmetic doesn't work out. The boys need to be culled. Boys are instructed in the community to be completely deferrent to the older males, made to be quiet, made to speak only when spoken to and often held to extremely high standards of conduct and behaviour. When a boy does not comply with these standards they are literally exiled from the community. Many 13 to 18 year old boys are literally dropped off at the side of the road miles from the community and told to beat it. Their world, growing up in an incredibly tight community is now over.

The aftermath is not pretty. These boys usually refer to extreme substance abuse due to deep abandonment issues. Many of them end up as prostitutes and other unseemingly professions because they never get a proper education or training in the community besides strict religious education.

Terribly sad.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Kidder

Hypotheses such as Photon’s are what completely shake the foundation I’m trying to stand on.

This notion that monogamy is a temporary construct of our society-- a fleeting fad that will someday give way to another that better suits present-day needs— well it scares the living hell out of me. Certainly plausible, completely possible. But then what are we striving towards? Is intimacy just a tool designed to help navigate through life? Does it matter if we pour it into one soul, or divvy it up evenly to feed 16, like pumpkin pie on Thanksgiving day?

Well everything is a temporary construct in our society, given that our society is temporary in that it hasn't always existed and will likely change enough given enough time that eventually it will be completely unrecognizable to us.

The whole reason monogamy arose was to better raise children; we evolved from highly promiscuous species (and our closest relatives are promiscuous). Early human cultures were more harem type relationships, monogamy seemed to develop as agriculture did, more stable environment allowing for a more stable relationship.

I don't know about the pumpkin pie analogy, you could ask the same thing about your kids, does more kids mean less love and devotion to each one of them?

But then what are we striving towards?

Meaning comes from what meaning we give things, not any intrinsic meaning. Marriage is meaningful because we make it meaningful.

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

There is nothing innately wrong with polygamy.

If consenting adults want to enter into a multiple partner relationship then they should.

The case with Bountiful is far from that. They are hardly consenting or adults. A religious framework is constructed to brainwash and coerce females to join into a polygamous relationship and often these females are not even adults. Just a sick group of individuals in that community.

One of the fallouts often not discussed with the Bountiful members is what happens to the boys.

Because every married man often has more than 5 wives, the arithmetic doesn't work out. The boys need to be culled. Boys are instructed in the community to be completely deferrent to the older males, made to be quiet, made to speak only when spoken to and often held to extremely high standards of conduct and behaviour. When a boy does not comply with these standards they are literally exiled from the community. Many 13 to 18 year old boys are literally dropped off at the side of the road miles from the community and told to beat it. Their world, growing up in an incredibly tight community is now over.

The aftermath is not pretty. These boys usually refer to extreme substance abuse due to deep abandonment issues. Many of them end up as prostitutes and other unseemingly professions because they never get a proper education or training in the community besides strict religious education.

Terribly sad.

That is exactly my point. You start off by saying there is nothing innately wrong with polygamy, but then you point out what I feel to be an unavoidable consequence of formalized polygamy within a society. The math will never work out. Granted, it may not seem likely that polygamous family structures will suddenly start to predominate and make this a society-wide problem (a la one of the sillier arguments for opposing SSM), but as Photon hypothesized before, societies do change over time and it could happen. The question for me is whether we prefer a society where there is a kind of 'forced balance' in terms of reproductive supply and demand as we have now, or a society where polygamy is accepted and the young men are in an even more charged competitive environment to reproduce than we have now with the present laws.

My view is that the latter society is less desirable because it reverts back to a potential harem society and could further exacerbate socioeconomic disparities. While criminalization of polygamy is inherently artificial, it remains a useful restriction for our society in my view, because it potentially minimizes sexual conflict both on an individual and inter-generational level.

Now, I am not about to go out and protest in the streets if polygamy becomes legal. I would expect in the long term that, if I am right and it causes problem, the social mores will revert back to monogamy as they have shifted in the past, but I would be disappointed to think that the historical and evolutionary evidence might be ignored as a result of political correctness or a misapplication of freedom of religion.

My view is that a restriction on polygamy is a justifiable restriction on freedoms in a free and democratic society and the the Section 1 test should be winnable, but my mind is still open.

EDIT: So photon posted while I was drafting this post and mentions harems as well. It was kind of coincidental, but I think that it is instructive that we are both thinking about harem societies even though we are coming at this issue from different sides.

My thoughts are that multi-spouse groupings as family structures will create too much social friction on a sexual level that would have the effect of distracting us from more advantageous pursuits. By having a 'legislated monogamy' the vast majority of people will have reproductive options and we won't have power concentrations derived from control of 'sexual capital' so to speak. It may be overly simplistic and Weberian (If not Marxist) in terms of an analysis, but it feels right to me.

[MrMastodonFarm]

I watched Big Love last night, and am now on the fence. Three hot wives, yes please; three women to keep happy, no thanks.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

I watched Big Love last night, and am now on the fence. Three hot wives, yes please; three women to keep happy, no thanks.

You're a heathen.

[flylock shox]

The concept/risk of harem-building is one which I think may be overstated given the progression of our current society.

Women are becoming increasingly independent from men, particularly when it comes to their financial resources. As a consequence, they have less need to attach themselves to powerful and wealthy men. Not only that, but our culture now places significant value on strong women who are independent - patriarchal structures and paternalism are increasingly frowned upon. This reduces the likelihood of harem-building being problematic: women have less need to rely on men for their financial well being, and they have less desire to be reliant upon men generally. Paradoxically, the empowerment of women and their equality in our society create an argument in favour of legalizing polygamy: there is less risk now than ever that women would choose to enter into such relationships and, if a woman did choose to do so, why should we not respect that choice rather than have the state intervene in a paternalistic fashion?

Another argument against it is, beyond rather isolated cultures like that which exists in Bountiful, what benefit would most women see in marrying a man who had 3 wives already, rather than select a mate from the supposedly larger pool of males that polygamy would produce?

It would be good to get a few more female voices chiming in on this one.

(and Kidder, yours was one of the most eloquent posts I've seen on CP, and one of the best statements of the point of view it represents)

[frege64]

HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE set the precedent for polygamy. One man being allowed to marry another MAN has nothing to do with one man marrying more than one WOMAN. One man being permitted to marry one WOMAN sets the OBVIOUS precedent for one man marrying more than one effing WOMAN.

Same-sex marriage might impel whatever you want to call "gay polygamy"- "tribadism" or something like that- but when the leap from allowing HETEROSEXUALS to marry each other is not only logical but is historically evident (look at Arab cultures, all you homophobic dumbasses) as going hand-in-hand with polygamy, the "solution" is obvious: ban heterosexual marriage. It's a slippery slope.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by frege64

HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE set the precedent for polygamy. One man being allowed to marry another MAN has nothing to do with one man marrying more than one WOMAN. One man being permitted to marry one WOMAN sets the OBVIOUS precedent for one man marrying more than one effing WOMAN.

In a sense this is true, because the "original" or "heterosexual" definition of marriage was a union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. So there were really two components to it: gender (man-woman) and number (one plus one).

The argument for polygamy is an argument against the number restriction, whereas the argument for gay marriage was an argument against the gender restriction. So they are two different arguments.

The arguments merged, however, when the gender restriction was rejected by the successful gay marriage movement. Gay marriage demonstrated (or at least argued successfully) that the gender restriction was arbitrary. Once that was done, the second restriction in the original definition of marriage suddenly became more vulnerable. Why, if you can throw out the gender restriction, can you not throw out the number restriction? Are they not equally arbitrary?

So while the arguments differ, they are related in their effects upon the original definition of marriage. And because the gay marriage argument was successful with respect to the gender restriction, it has effectively paved the way for a similar argument against the number restriction.

It's a point that has been brought up before in this thread. Once you conclude that "tradition" is not an adequate justification of the gender restriction, you can't argue that "tradition" is an adequate justification of the number restriction.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by frege64

HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE set the precedent for polygamy. One man being allowed to marry another MAN has nothing to do with one man marrying more than one WOMAN. One man being permitted to marry one WOMAN sets the OBVIOUS precedent for one man marrying more than one effing WOMAN.

Same-sex marriage might impel whatever you want to call "gay polygamy"- "tribadism" or something like that- but when the leap from allowing HETEROSEXUALS to marry each other is not only logical but is historically evident (look at Arab cultures, all you homophobic dumbasses) as going hand-in-hand with polygamy, the "solution" is obvious: ban heterosexual marriage. It's a slippery slope.

LOL

I know you're being tongue-in-cheek, but to be specific, the precedent SSM set for polygamy is two-fold:
- Bending Societal Norms to accomodate a minority group
- Willingness to alter the definition of traditional marriage

Heterosexual (traditional) marriage really sets the precedent to allow both on a government policy level that features something as vague and overpowering as the Charter. Especially since traditional marriage boasts most of the "drawbacks" of both the "fringe" marriages, since adultery (no longer illegal), exploitation (only illegal in extreme cases), and sodomy (no longer illegal) can be found in a random traditional marriage sample.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

LOL

I know you're being tongue-in-cheek, but to be specific, the precedent SSM set for polygamy is two-fold:
- Bending Societal Norms to accomodate a minority group
- Willingness to alter the definition of traditional marriage

Heterosexual (traditional) marriage really sets the precedent to allow both on a government policy level that features something as vague and overpowering as the Charter. Especially since traditional marriage boasts most of the "drawbacks" of both the "fringe" marriages, since adultery (no longer illegal), exploitation (only illegal in extreme cases), and sodomy (no longer illegal) can be found in a random traditional marriage sample.

In a sense, it is a shame that the interveners against same-sex marriage failed to realize that the true definition of marriage or relationships should be monogamy, not man-woman. It would have been a compromise, but it would have set a precedent that would have helped make the case against polygamy.

The failure of social conservative groups to compromise represents a tragic breakdown in dialogue in this country. It's the same with the abortion decision. The courts basically left it, gave it to the legislature, Mulroney tried to compromise and the "so-cons" rejected anything but absolute victory. Now we have a country with absolutely no statistical or otherwise abortion restriction or legislation.