Polygamous Marriage

[FiveParadox]

:arrow: Introduction

After having participated in a short debate on the issue of polygamous marriage on another thread (for those who may not be aware, a polygamous relationship is one in which more than two persons may be members), I am curious as to where the general membership of Canadian Content would stand on this intriguing issue.

:arrow: The Question

Would you be in favour of enacting a piece of legislation, such as P-1 as suggested below, for the purpose of enabling the recognition of unions between more than two persons in the interest of satisfying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and such persons' religious convictions?

An Act to amend the Civil Marriage Act, and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

Preamble

WHEREAS the Parliament of Canada is committed to upholding the Constitution of Canada, and Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that each and every person is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal benefit of the law without descrimination;

WHEREAS the Supreme Court of Canada has determined that Parliament has legislative jurisdiction over marriage but does not have the jurisdiction to establish an institution other than marriage for relationships of more than two persons;

AND WHEREAS, in order to reflect values of tolerance, respect and equality consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, access to marriage for civil purposes should be extended by legislation to relationships consisting of more than two persons;


NOW, THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

Marriage — certain aspects of capacity

1. Section 2 of the Civil Marriage Act is replaced with the following:
Marriage, for civil purposes, is the union of two or more persons to the exclusion of all others.

Freedom of conscience and religion and expression of beliefs

2. Section 3.1 of the Civil Marriage Act is amended by adding the following words after the word "sex":
or between more than two persons

Marriage not void or voidable

3. Section 4 of the Civil Marriage Act is amended by adding the following words after the word "sex":
or that the marriage is between more than two spouses

Consequential Amendments

5. (1) Subsection 237.5(2)(a) of the Canada Business Corporations Act is amended by replacing the word "partnership" with the word "relationship".

(2) Subsection 237.5(2)(b) of the Canada Business Corporations Act is amended by adding the following words after the word "two":
or more

6. (1) Subsection 337.5(2)(a) of the Canada Cooperatives Act is amended by replacing the word "partnership" with the word "relationship".

(2) Subsection 337.5(2)(b) of the Canada Cooperatives Act is amended by added the following words after the word "two":
or more

7. The definition of "spouse" in subsection 2(1) of the Divorce Act is replaced by the following:
"spouse" means any of two or more persons who are married to each other;

8. Section 5 of the Federal Law and Civil Law of the Province of Quebec Act is replaced by the following:

5. Marriage requires the free and enlightened consent of two or more persons to be the spouses of each other.

9. Subsection 6.21 of Section 149.1 of the Income Tax Act is amended by adding the following words after the word "sex":
or between more than two persons

 

[Machjo]

So how should I vote; any recommendations?

Here's where I stand on the issue:

I believe marriage should legally be granted to only one man and one woman, while recognising all marriages previously legally recognised either in Canada or abroad.

What this would mean is the following. If I'm not yet involved in a same sex or polygamous marriage, the government would not grant one should I request it.

On the other hand, if I should already be legally so married (let's say, for instance, that I got legally married into a poligamous relationship in another country, or got legally married to someone of the same sex at a time when it was in fact legal), then such a marriage would still be upheld.

So according to this, what would be the appropriate vote in the poll?

 

[FiveParadox]

Consider this instead; if I were to amend P-1 so as to amend all legislation currently in the consolidated Statutes so as to replace all occurrences of the word "marriage" with instead "civil union," and left "marriage," as in the Godly union, exclusively to Churches and religious institutions (they would no longer be automatically recognized by the Government, heterosexual and homosexual couples, in addition to polygamous couples through some mechanism, would be required to apply for civil unions for the purpose of taxation and medical decisions and legal recognition).

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Polygamous Marriage

Consider this instead; if I were to amend P-1 so as to amend all legislation currently in the consolidated Statutes so as to replace all occurrences of the word "marriage" with instead "civil union," and left "marriage," as in the Godly union, exclusively to Churches and religious institutions (they would no longer be automatically recognized by the Government, heterosexual and homosexual couples, in addition to polygamous couples through some mechanism, would be required to apply for civil unions for the purpose of taxation and medical decisions and legal recognition).

This I have no problem with.

In fact, I thought during the SSM debate that the sensible course would be for the Gov't to get out of the "marriage" business altogether, and leave it to religious institutions.

 

[Jo Canadian]

Re: RE: Polygamous Marriage

...the sensible course would be for the Gov't to get out of the "marriage" business altogether, and leave it to religious institutions.

The non religious types couldn't get married then??? Civil ceremonies/unions are gov't based and if that's taken away they'd be left out in the cold eh.

Anyways, Religious institutions are so varied among one another what will you be doing when one of them allows mulitple spouse marriages/ssm, like they may do in other parts of the globe?

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Polygamous Marriage

...the sensible course would be for the Gov't to get out of the "marriage" business altogether, and leave it to religious institutions.

The non religious types couldn't get married then??? Civil ceremonies/unions are gov't based and if that's taken away they'd be left out in the cold eh.

Anyways, Religious institutions are so varied among one another what will you be doing when one of them allows mulitple spouse marriages/ssm, like they may do in other parts of the globe?

No. That's the point. Civil ceremonies of any type would still be government, but "marriage" would be left to religious institutions. They could "marry" whomever they liked, however they liked.

Government just sidesteps all the acrimony.

 

[Jo Canadian]

What I was pointing out is that there's most likley agnostic/aethiest people who would like to get married rather than going through a civil beaurocracy.

Marriage has been around longer than religion man, and it can be applied socially, politicaly, and religiously. Not just religiously.

You want to get married by religion..go right ahead.

If I want to have my peice of paper signed by a beaurocrat...I may.

Maybe I want a family accepted ceremony with none of the above instead.

 

[poligeek]

I agree with the post above, the most sensible course would be for the government to be out of the "marriage" business all together.

This would mean that all "marriage" licenses granted by the government would become "civil unions" or "partnerships" or whatever they want to call it. The legal/government use of the word "marriage" would dissapear entirely. Leaving the use of the word "marriage" to religious institutions. This would allow churches that do not approve of SSM (Same Sex Marriage)to not "marry" SS Couples and allow churches that do have SS congregations to marry SS Couples.

In legal / secular terms I see no difference between a SSM and a HSM (Heterosexual Marriage). They both involve two consenting adults making a commitment to each other, and it is no business of the government what two consenting adults do in their bedrooms.

That being said, I do not agree that it is legally the best time to consent to polygamous relationships.

While I do approve of the availability of Swing Clubs, based on the evidence that the users of Swing Clubs are consenting adults I do not think we can prove the same of the trend towards polygamous marriage.

A basic cursory reading of most women's activits groups that deal internationally will show that the majority of polygamous marriages occur between one man and two or more women. In a number of these marriages that is statistically significant the women are not equal partners in the marriage.

Cultures that encourage polygamous marriage are not typically cultures that have strong women's rights.

Now I recognize that it would be naieve and wrong to presume that polygamous marriage directly leads to the exploitation of women.

However, there is definately a statistical trend that can be used to demonstrate that women typically hold less power in polygamous marriages, many "religious" (and I put that in quotes becuase it tends to be religious cults and should not reflect on the wider religious community) groups use polygamous arrangements to justify male leaders having power (frequently sexual power) over young female members.

I think legislation needs to be balanced between public need and public protection.

I don't see a loud outcry demanding the need for polygamous marriage. There is also at least some good statistical evidence the polygamous marriage has a negative impact of the well being of women involved in these relationships.

SSM came about because the SS Community was able to show that it was no different than HSM. There was a large need in the SS Community to be recognized as equal to the HS Community in rights and culture.

There is no current prescident for Polygamous marriage, and it would by definition not be a partnership, but a contract agreement among multiple members.

It is really very recently in the span of time that women have achieved equal legal rights in the marriage laws.

While I can see how a "text-book" case of polygamy itself is not harmful to those involved, I don't think there has been a large enough number of people requesting polygamy compared to the numbers of people who seem to be hurt by it.

 

[Curiosity]

Golly gee

I don't see the word "love" in any of this.

The writers here could be talking about a corporate merger.

Soon we'll be gestating children in machines so we won't inconvenience anyone for the nine month "growing" period.

No child care problems either, there will always be a surrogate
handy in the household.

It's so tidy isn't it?

 

[missile]

If certain people want to take more than one mate..no problem! As long as they are required to take a sanity test beforehand :?

 

[NSA]

Golly gee
I don't see the word "love" in any of this.
The writers here could be talking about a corporate merger.
Soon we'll be gestating children in machines so we won't inconvenience anyone for the nine month "growing" period.
No child care problems either, there will always be a surrogate
handy in the household.
It's so tidy isn't it?

That's because "love" isn't part of the government's prerogative. While people are supposed to get married for that reason, the law does not force them to prove it. And wisely so.

Anyway, I think that this proposal is not akin to SSM simply because you can easily allow SSM simply by saying "two *people* of either sex can get married", and change nothing else - all the property laws etc. stay the same but can apply to two men or two women who are married. Group marriages on the other hand would make these aspects a LOT more complicated. You'd have to really take the time to ensure that nobody got screwed in the event of a divorce etc.

Robert Heinlein had an interesting idea in his novel "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". He portrayed a "line marriage" which was basically an economic union, where the group marriage basically functioned like a co-op. You could "buy into" the marriage which made you a shareholder, and the group contained various romantic pairings etc but not all members were romantically attached to each other (eg a person could join out of love for one member but not be expected to hop into everyone's bed). The other interesting aspect was that the "line" was multigenerational so it kept GOING... and consequently accumulated a lot of wealth, as well as functioning like an extended family. I don't think Heinlein was necessarily suggesting people should DO this - but he loved to throw well-formed, but unusual, ideas out there in his books...

 

[Curiosity]

Golly gee
I don't see the word "love" in any of this.
The writers here could be talking about a corporate merger.
Soon we'll be gestating children in machines so we won't inconvenience anyone for the nine month "growing" period.
No child care problems either, there will always be a surrogate
handy in the household.
It's so tidy isn't it?

That's because "love" isn't part of the government's prerogative. While people are supposed to get married for that reason, the law does not force them to prove it. And wisely so.

Anyway, I think that this proposal is not akin to SSM simply because you can easily allow SSM simply by saying "two *people* of either sex can get married", and change nothing else - all the property laws etc. stay the same but can apply to two men or two women who are married. Group marriages on the other hand would make these aspects a LOT more complicated. You'd have to really take the time to ensure that nobody got screwed in the event of a divorce etc.

Robert Heinlein had an interesting idea in his novel "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". He portrayed a "line marriage" which was basically an economic union, where the group marriage basically functioned like a co-op. You could "buy into" the marriage which made you a shareholder, and the group contained various romantic pairings etc but not all members were romantically attached to each other (eg a person could join out of love for one member but not be expected to hop into everyone's bed). The other interesting aspect was that the "line" was multigenerational so it kept GOING... and consequently accumulated a lot of wealth, as well as functioning like an extended family. I don't think Heinlein was necessarily suggesting people should DO this - but he loved to throw well-formed, but unusual, ideas out there in his books...

LOL - NSA - What's Love Got To Do With It? eh

Well put - and you are right it isn't the work of government.

But to raise a healthy society through our children, should we not have pairing and upbringing in the most natural of ways. I realize I am shooting for the impossible because some marriages are nasty and result in terrible outcomes including murder.

I have seen children of the communal setting as you describe in your "line" marriage a la Heinlein and have never known a more mentally abused collection of skewed humanity produced from one source. Not physically abused - mentally abused.

Marriage is about children and procreation of the species. Otherwise why get married at all in any form. Why not cohabitate and stay childless - and have friends stay for the odd interim when boredom takes hold. There are many arrangements adults can make and still remain intact, free-will individuals.

But I hope they do not make children together - that in itself would be premeditated psychic murder of a child.

When the population decreases because of a "no child" doctrine, then what does a country do? Manufacture a mass population of new babies to replace the aging one?

This whole thing is nightmarish and I cannot imagine those who approve of this kind of society entertaining the idea of procreation. It is pure narcicissm - in which nobody can commit to another - and certainly cannot love another. Self is all.

All that said - I believe in free will - and yes even selfish promotion of one's own comfort. Just don't make babies.

 

[tracy]

There are plenty of reasons to get married other than procreation.

I don't see why polygamous marriages should be recognized. There is nothing discriminatory in allowing only 2 people to get married since no religion requires polygamy.

 

[Martin Le Acadien]

If certain people want to take more than one mate..no problem! As long as they are required to take a sanity test beforehand :?

Best said statement about the institution so far.

What about Poly andry? 8O

 

[Jay]

I dunno...maybe I'm wrong. But didn't people just spend last year, on another thread saying that SSM marriage would lead to other types of unions, and members out in left field were saying it would never happen and people were called this and that for even suggesting it....and now we have a left leaning, member of the gay community proposing Bill P-1?

Am I wrong here....did I miss an important piece of the puzzle?

 

[poligeek]

Re: RE: Polygamous Marriage

I dunno...maybe I'm wrong. But didn't people just spend last year, on another thread saying that SSM marriage would lead to other types of unions, and members out in left field were saying it would never happen and people were called this and that for even suggesting it....and now we have a left leaning, member of the gay community proposing Bill P-1?

Am I wrong here....did I miss an important piece of the puzzle?

I think all the reasons why a two-person marriage regardless of sex of the two people is equal still stands because it is two consenting adults.

The prescident was not set to officiate sexual orientation, but only if it is legitimate to control how two consenting adults are allowed to enter into a contract.

The contract is exclusive to two consenting adults and there were no reasons other than sexual orientation that held up as non-discriminatory for not allowing SSM to take place.

Polyagamy is by definition not two people and the benefits extended to two people by marriage would not be able to be equally extneded once a partnership becomes a tripartate (or more) contract.

The nature of the agreements is different.

I still say the best way to handle this is for the government to get out of the business of marriage all together.

 

[FiveParadox]

No, this is just 'cause I saw a documentary about this on television, and somehow a discussion sparked in another thread, off-topic; all I did was moved the discussion to this thread, so that we can have a debate on the matter properly.

As for same-sex marriages leading to other types of marriage, I don't think that's true at all. Same-sex civil marriage is not related at all to polygamy, besides the fact that both are types of relationships; then again, heterosexual couples are, too.

As for a member of the "gay community," no. I happen to be gay. Haven't been to any of the meetings or conventions yet.

 

[missile]

Never realized that certain cities had gay ghettos! Here,they live among the rest of us and get along smoothly,too.