Canadian Government Study Suggests Legalizing Polygamy

Friday January 13, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Canadian Government Study Suggests Legalizing Polygamy

By Terry Vanderheyden

OTTAWA, January 13, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A study conducted for the Canadian federal Justice Department has recommended that Canada ditch its laws banning polygamy.

“Criminalization does not address the harms associated with valid foreign polygamous marriages and plural unions, in particular the harms to women,” the report states, as reported by The Canadian Press, who obtained the research through the Access to Information Act. “The report therefore recommends that this provision be repealed.”

The Liberals commissioned the polygamy study last winter, driven by the fear that opening the door to same-sex “marriage” would also pave the way for legalization of polygamy. The study was paid for by the Justice Department and by Status of Women Canada, and conducted by three law professors from Queen’s University in Kingston.

Lead author of the study, Martha Bailey, argued that keeping polygamy illegal served no useful purpose. “Why criminalize the behaviour?” Bailey said. “We don't criminalize adultery. In light of the fact that we have a fairly permissive society, why are we singling out that particular form of behaviour for criminalization?”

--

Is this serious? It begs the question: Will Canada abolish marriage altogether? If there are no boundaries, what is the limit?

Uncle

Decriminalizing is not the same thing as legalizing and recognizing those unions.

After polygamy (or simultaneously with it) they must legalize polyandry.

Finally it will end with the government no longer upholding one lifestyle, while criminalizing another, provided that those in it do no harm to their fellow citizens.

The narrow definition of marriage, as most churches define marriage, will remain as a sacrament of the church, for those who wish to undergo it, separate from any legalistic construct.

(Separation of Church and State, don’cha know.)

That is what the Canadian Charter of Rights promises.

It’s called Freedom, Uncle Percy.

Do you hate our Freedom?

[quote="Virtual Burlesque"]After polygamy (or simultaneously with it) they must legalize polyandry.

Finally it will end with the government no longer upholding one lifestyle, while criminalizing another, provided that those in it do no harm to their fellow citizens.

The narrow definition of marriage, as most churches define marriage, will remain as a sacrament of the church, for those who wish to undergo it, separate from any legalistic construct.

(Separation of Church and State, don’cha know.)

That is what the Canadian Charter of Rights promises.

It’s called Freedom, Uncle Percy.

Do you hate our Freedom?[/quote]

No, I don't hate freedom, but I dislike your arrogant attitude, reeking of superiority. You are on very shaky ground, Herbert.

Uncle

Do tell VB, I have never found anything that separates Church and State in the Charter of Rights & Freedoms. I would appreciate it, if you would point it out. Thanks.

To be clear, the study commissioned by the former Liberal Government of Canada made no notable reference to legalizing polygamy; but rather, removing the particular provision concerning polygamy from the Criminal Code of Canada.

While I can accept Canada recognising polygamous marraignes (after all, it shouldn't try to break up marriages, which can only cause more damage), I'm still opposed to Canada itself granting such marriages. A possible appropriate punishment for Canaidans who try to use this loophole to leave Canada, engage in a polygamous marriange abroad and then return could perhaps lose the right to vote or run for office locally or nationally, for example, for as long as the marriage endures. No jail term or fines, though.

And I'd be in favour of a similar policy for gay marriage. Recognised from abroad, but no license given in Canada, and the right to vote is declined, along with running for office locally or nationally.

Well the only sex that would benifit would be male. I can't imagine any woman wanting more than one husband. God the tought of having two husbands gives me nightmares.

Having more than one wife gives me nightmares too; I don't think I could keep up! How do those poligamists do it?

it is easier to have many than one, but easier yet to have none. however, that changes if rules like those of Islam come into play where all wives must be treated equally.

We should not be so bound by one tradition. We should allow polygamy/polyandry. There are a lot of things we should do though, and many may never come to be.

I dont care if polygamous marriage is decriminalized. People live this way right now and nothing is done about it. However homosexual marriage is just another step in destroying marriage altogether, next is polygamy..then what beastiality!

There are going to be homosexuals and polygamists no matter what we do, so we don't need to ban this behavior. Let people live freely and do what they want as long as marriage is kept naturally for a man and a woman.......damnit I can't believe marriage is no longer traditional.....and citizens of Canada never had a say in it!

I hope Paul Martin dies a painful death from Cancer

I'm assuming your support for traditional marriage comes from a belief in God, as is the case with me. I'd still rather allow polygamy and homosexual marriage over praying for a person to die a painful death from concer!

That doesn't help the cause Hank....

I wanted him to loose the election, not his life.

sorry folks a hint of sarcasm is just too damn hard to show when your typing

never the less I don't hate Paul Martin, I hate who he is and what he has done. Hate the sin not the sinner.....

Good to know, Hank, that you would rather the Right Honourable Paul Martin die by tumour than let me marry somebody, eh? Well, whatever.

Nonetheless, I haven't seen any degradation in our society since the Civil Marriage Act was enacted six months ago. The Apocalypse has not come, God has not stricken Canada from the face of the Earth, and believe it nor, heterosexual marriages weren't dissolved as a result of the enactment.

That's why we don't type things like that...

Our Government is pathetic....They need to stop worrying about all the <deleted> immigrants and foreigners that come here and <deleted> about our <deleted>.

<mod note: Edited just a tad here and there, ha ha. Whadda mouth on the guy . . . The Hag>

i don't think polygamy alone is a problem. My concern in this matter is one of women's rights. I have heard of cases in Alberta and BC where certain sects of the morman faith have have marrages as young as 14. This I think must be closely enforced.

Overall I'm not certain if legal marraige is importaint.

If women's rights in these relationships (or men's rights, as the case may be) can be protected, then I would see no reason to keep the provision in relation to polygamous relationships retained in the Criminal Code of Canada.

Five, do a search of Bountiful in BC and you may change your mind. The leader of this cult is marring 14 year old girls.

I am aware of the horrendous activities that have taken place, and are taking place, in Bountiful. I was saying, Sassylassie, that if we can find some way to correct such criminal behaviour in such communities, I would see no reason to keep that provision in the Criminal Code.

My assertion would apply only where we can find a way to protect women, children (and men, as the case may dictate) from the possible abuses that a polygamous relationship could entail.

Sorry Five, but give me one example of any male that has been in a Polygamous relationship where there is more than one husband that has been victimized. There was an article in my local paper by a reporter that couldn't find any society (World wide) that this existed. Polyagamy is male dominated period. In China the poor males brothers often share the same wife, lord what a thrill that must be for that woman. Two for the price of one, shoot me now-one Mother-in-law two husbands.

Sassylassie, I only meant to say that if we were to ever legislate anything to the effect of protecting persons involved in polygamous relationships, we should ensure that there are provisions that would protect both genders (I would argue that the need to protect women would be more prominent, but legislators should be prepared for any eventuality).

What would be the term for the remaining partners of a legal polygamous marriage upon the death of a member? Is the terminology the same as in, "The grieving widowed couple mourned for a year before marrying another man and woman last June." or entirely different?

How do the Mormons deal with this?

I was waiting for that Old Hiccup of Retoric. It's becoming a marriage mantra of sorts.

sry i jsut can help my self sometimes

in the united States members of the church of Jesus Christ and Laterday Saints were offered to be allowed to prcatise polygamy, the church reffused and is today one of the strongest advocates of family values and is renowed for preserving history for the purpose of geneology.

Bountiville is a cult and women's rights is an issue. There are also problems with limiting the oppertunities of women in other religious communities such as Hutterite colonies.

Bountiful and the like are anomalous perversions of polygamy. The most likely examples of such to be encountered in our everyday lives, (unless you live in Creston), would be metrosexual or hippy types of relationships rooted in the polyamory movement.

well in that case it is maby less importaint to reconize and define marrages as it is family units, and to encourage any sort of succesful family unit and restricting abuse to any member of a family unit or family units which encourage abuse.

The discussion on this topic is interesting, but far away from what I was thinking. If polygamy is not a crime, then what will happen if Rupert goes on welfare (for whatever reason)? Then, of course, here come his wives, Hannah, Gertrude, Audrey, Annie, Betty, Melba, Sue, and Myrtle. Of course, there are 17 children to consider.

Where do you set the limit? In the US, the amount of welfare is based on the number of dependants you have. Will wives be considered as children? Wherein lies the responsibility of the Canadian government? Are you sure you want to open this door?

Uncle