Polygamists argue gay marriage defence

[automaton 3]

Lots of great discussion here.

I think it is also important to note that this is not a Reference case like same-sex marriage was.

The Crown surely has a list of witnesses lined up that will add lots of colour and direct evidence to this debate.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

Lots of great discussion here.

I think it is also important to note that this is not a Reference case like same-sex marriage was.

The Crown surely has a list of witnesses lined up that will add lots of colour and direct evidence to this debate.

I'd have to double-check, but I think interveners are allowed in SCC references.

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by 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)

I agree in principle witrh minimizing the government's involvement in private decisions, but at the same time, I worry that as a model society for other nations and cultures, reverting at this time to a wide-open polygamous society could send the wrong message. Many of those cultures are strongly patriarchal and us criticizing their treatment of women and women's rights cuold be weakened. I know it's somewhat apples and oranges, but I also think that you are somewaht overstating the gains that women as a whole have made. I think the urban experience is probably largely as you describe it, but many smaller towns/counties or rural areas still leave women with less choices and opportunities than men.

[Lanny'sDaMan]

My position on marriage is somewhat skewed to begin with. I am never going to be married, as I don't feel that the union of two people requires any ceremonies or papers to solidify (wrong word, I know but it comes close.)

That being said, if any relationship be it homosexual, monogamous, or polyamourous works for the individuals involved who are we to say anything with regards to it? I say let anyone get married that wants to, with the only boundaries in my mind being humans only, and of course age of consent being the society's current age of majority (18 for canada). Marrying a goat or a computer is just plain wrong.

[alltherage]

I just think this is a very slippery slope. When will it end? Adults being married to consenting 14 year olds? People marrying animals? Will the whole premise of cheating and adultery go out the window? This is an extremely grey area that is only going to get murkier and murkier.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by allt

I just think this is a very slippery slope. When will it end? Adults being married to consenting 14 year olds? People marrying animals? Will the whole premise of cheating and adultery go out the window? This is an extremely grey area that is only going to get murkier and murkier.

For better or for worse, this is the society we are evolving toward.

That, or an increase in popularity of central planning will lead to a small group seizing what our free society has produced "for its own good."

[photon]

Originally Posted by alltherage

I just think this is a very slippery slope. When will it end? Adults being married to consenting 14 year olds? People marrying animals? Will the whole premise of cheating and adultery go out the window? This is an extremely grey area that is only going to get murkier and murkier.

Reality is gray.

Unless they change the age of majority of course 14 year olds can't consent, it's well established that children have to be protected. Animals can't consent either.

[Calgaryborn]

For me this isn't a religious issue. Unlike homosexuality the bible doesn't clearly condemn polygamy. Even if it did I would think like homosexuality that it is an issue between the person/people and God.

As I've said before: The government should define marriage as between one man and one woman because the benefit that particular construction of a family brings to society. It almost always ends in children being born and provides the best environment to convey our societies collective values to that new generation of Canadians. They get both a male and female perspective on what it is to be Canadian. I can think of no better special interest group that deserves the support of our government than this family model. Most of us have benefited greatly by having a Mom and Dad guiding us.

Beyond the issues of special status and support I don't see where the government should be concerned with what arrangements adults have with one another. Polygamist shouldn't be offered multiple marriage licences by the government but, on the other hand it shouldn't be illegal for them to live together. Winston Blackmore is only legally married to one wife and she left him some time ago.

Living in Creston I have had the privilege of knowing quite well a couple ex-members of Bountyful. My son's hockey team has 7 of Winston's children on it. They all have different mothers. Usually 2 or 3 of the mothers are with these kids at practice. Nice people. They are committed to feed Creston for three months[or maybe 6 months??] in the case of a natural disaster as part of our town's disaster plan.

What makes polygamy so distasteful to most of our society is the inequality of power within said relationships. I'm not going into the first hand accounts I've been told but, common sense will tell you that it is never good when one man or group of men hold the purse strings and basically decides every aspect of an other's life. A women who leaves bountyful loses all she has because she owns nothing and is told from early childhood to fear outsiders. She loses her hope of salvation and probably doesn't have the education and life skills to fend for herself in every day society. The worst part is her loss of family and community. The fact that women do leave is a testimony to how oppressive their lives are within that closed society.

I've been all over Bountiful's compound. They have a section of nice newer two story houses on a couple of streets with beautiful views of the valley and they've got another area with a trailer park full of old run down old trailers. One man gets to decide who lives where. There is no equality in that place. Yet if you talk to some of the women who left they would tell you that polygamy is a good thing and would be wonderful if the men were not unfair and unreasonable about things. They don't understand that the power they give to these men are what causes the corruption.

I wouldn't use the old polygamy law because that will just create a situation where these women feel like their families are being attacked by an ever increasing evil world. This will cause them to cling harder to these oppressive relationships. What I think the government should do is level the playing field. Change the tax code and make this communal society give a year by year account of all their assets. Also require them to give names of every member of the commune on a yearly basis. Each member has an equal share in the assets of the commune whether you have lived there all your life, married in, or are a new born. If a person decides to leave the commune their share must be rendered to them in cash. A child's share would be put in trust until they are the age of majority if they left with their mother. A women or young man could leave and at least have some means to start a new life. Money is power and by giving these oppressed women/men money you would give them some power to change their own circumstances.

[Daradon]

Wow, great post. Can't say I agree 100% but it's a very good post!

In fact the only thing I would disagree with is the assertion that a male/female family structure is the most beneficial to society. I guess perhaps in a perfect world, but we all know we live in a far from perfect world. I came from a male/female family and it was pretty messed up. And I know several others with similar stories.

Heck, in a perfect world you could argue that a polyamorus lifestyle would be even MORE beneficial to the kids because there are more people to take care of them, and more people for them to learn and get perspective from.

Course it's not a perfect world.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Winston Blackmore is only legally married to one wife and she left him some time ago.

I wasn't aware of that. Maybe I'm missing something here but if he's not married to these women what is he doing thats illegal? I sometimes see 2-3 different women at the same time, their not happy when they find out about it it but i'm sure I wouldn't go to jail for doing it either!

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

As I've said before: The government should define marriage as between one man and one woman because the benefit that particular construction of a family brings to society. It almost always ends in children being born and provides the best environment to convey our societies collective values to that new generation of Canadians. They get both a male and female perspective on what it is to be Canadian. I can think of no better special interest group that deserves the support of our government than this family model. Most of us have benefited greatly by having a Mom and Dad guiding us.

Men and women are going to get married and have babies (or not) regardless of the government's definition of marriage. Recognizing same-sex marriage doesn't take anything away from the "traditional family".

It doesn't stop "traditional families" from doing what they've always done.

There is not a single person alive who decided to not have a heterosexual marriage and children because SSM is recognized by the government.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by T@T

I wasn't aware of that. Maybe I'm missing something here but if he's not married to these women what is he doing thats illegal? I sometimes see 2-3 different women at the same time, their not happy when they find out about it it but i'm sure I wouldn't go to jail for doing it either!

I think the difference is in they conduct a marriage ceremony. Winston and maybe a few others would be licenced to conduct marriage ceremonies by the province. Even without the government certificate I would imagine the legal jeopardy comes from conducting the ceremony. I'm only guessing though.

[Daradon]

RE Rouge: ^^^ True, but I think the poster was more talking about what happens to the next generation in families that aren't male/female. Of course it's a main talking point that gay parents may not be as suited to raise children as a traditional male/female. In this case, if only because they wouldn't be able to present a perspective from the other sex.

While that may be true in theory in a perfect world, I have to disagree for our world because there's a lot worse things that can happen to a child than not having the other perspective. They just need people who love them and want them around and are able to take care of them. There are obviously lots of male/female partnerships that never ever come close that.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Heck, in a perfect world you could argue that a polyamorus lifestyle would be even MORE beneficial to the kids because there are more people to take care of them, and more people for them to learn and get perspective from.

I think there's truth to this, the old cliche that it takes a village to raise a child.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Men and women are going to get married and have babies (or not) regardless of the government's definition of marriage. Recognizing same-sex marriage doesn't take anything away from the "traditional family".

It doesn't stop "traditional families" from doing what they've always done.

There is not a single person alive who decided to not have a heterosexual marriage and children because SSM is recognized by the government.

Yes marriage in all its arrangements has no need of the government to exist. The government got involved in issuing marriage licences because they wanted to protect the institution and provide special benefits to strengthen it. This was because of the social benefits this institute provides for society.

We are getting off topic.

[Lanny'sDaMan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The government got involved in issuing marriage licences because they wanted to protect the institution and provide special benefits to strengthen it. This was because of the social benefits this institute provides for society.

Seriously? You cannot be so naive as to believe the government had altruistic motives such as the ones you defined. They stepped in because it was yet another way to get monies from their populace. Licences, fees ect ect.

Just another cash cow.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Lanny'sDaMan

Seriously? You cannot be so naive as to believe the government had altruistic motives such as the ones you defined. They stepped in because it was yet another way to get monies from their populace. Licences, fees ect ect.

Just another cash cow.

But they lose money on the proposition. If your wife stays home even for a year once babies start coming the marriage deduction and dependant deductions more than make up for the cost of the licence. I suppose long term the likelihood of the marriage producing little future taxpayers would be a net gain but, unless your a Ralph Klein or something you won't be in power to gain the benefit.

Again off topic.

[edn88]

If being married to multiple people is part of their religion, then giddy up - just don't be breaking the other rules like forcing children into marriage.

I think at interesting legal component would be - if a man has 4 wives and one divorces him, how much does she get - half, 20%, would the other wives be responsible?

[Bobblehead]

Some excellent points of view and issues so far in this thread.

Especially good post by Kidder, and kudos to Calgaryborn for giving a first have impression of Bountiful.

5 stars!

[DementedReality]

well wait, i think there are two different issues at play ...

i am for consenting adults marrying each other (ie ... everyone is marred to everyone, so if i had two wives, my wives would each have a husband and a wife)

i am against one party having multiple spouses but those spouses are not married to the others. like in bountiful, the wives arent married to each other right?

in one case, its a mutual relationship of love amongst each other. in the second case, its a power and control issue.

so seems there are different scenario's at play.