Why should the law dictate how your marriage ought to work, rather than your individual marriage dictating how things ought to work? You and I are not the same, I'm probably nothing like your wife, and the choices I make with my life probably don't reflect many of your personal values and moral assumptions. So why should any law dictate how my marriage, to someone who is completely different from you, ought to function? To me those sound like issues for the individual marriage contract, not some grand sweeping formula we all ought to be forced to fit into even if it makes no sense on a personal level.
BCCLA calls for charges to be dropped in polygamy cases
- Thread starter L Gilbert
- Start date
Why should the law dictate how your marriage ought to work, rather than your individual marriage dictating how things ought to work? You and I are not the same, I'm probably nothing like your wife, and the choices I make with my life probably don't reflect many of your personal values and moral assumptions. So why should any law dictate how my marriage, to someone who is completely different from you, ought to function? To me those sound like issues for the individual marriage contract, not some grand sweeping formula we all ought to be forced to fit into even if it makes no sense on a personal level.
and I'm curious why you automatically apply the right to plural marriages only to men. A right to marry more than one person would go both ways
You are right, karrie, in principle it may work the other way also (one woman marrying several men).
But let us be realistic here, how many men would want to share their woman with another man? It is a gross insult to his manhood, it just isn’t done. If we do get an odd couple or two like that, I expect they will make national headlines, book deals, endorsements etc., they will become rich.
One man and several wives on the other hand, will be much more prevalent. Especially in Muslim societies I expect most marriages will be polygamous marriages. So for each couple of one woman and several husbands, I expect there may be thousands of couples with one man and several wives.
So the situation of one woman and several men will be just a curiosity, nothing more.
You are right, karrie, in principle it may work the other way also (one woman marrying several men).
But let us be realistic here, how many men would want to share their woman with another man? It is a gross insult to his manhood, it just isn’t done. If we do get an odd couple or two like that, I expect they will make national headlines, book deals, endorsements etc., they will become rich.
One man and several wives on the other hand, will be much more prevalent. Especially in Muslim societies I expect most marriages will be polygamous marriages. So for each couple of one woman and several husbands, I expect there may be thousands of couples with one man and several wives.
So the situation of one woman and several men will be just a curiosity, nothing more.
Last edited:
Why should the law dictate how your marriage ought to work, rather than your individual marriage dictating how things ought to work?
Law does not work like that, karrie, the law has to lay down everything precisely, in black and white.
Thus it has to specify the mechanism by which a man may get married in polygamous situation. If the law does not say anything about the consent of current wives, that only means that the law does not require the consent of current wives for the man to marry another woman (at least that is how it will be interpreted by the courts).
The law has to be as a precise as possible. It has to say something about consent of the current wives, even if it stays silent, that will mean that it has said something (that consent of current wives is not required).
Law does not work like that, karrie, the law has to lay down everything precisely, in black and white.
Thus it has to specify the mechanism by which a man may get married in polygamous situation. If the law does not say anything about the consent of current wives, that only means that the law does not require the consent of current wives for the man to marry another woman (at least that is how it will be interpreted by the courts).
The law has to be as a precise as possible. It has to say something about consent of the current wives, even if it stays silent, that will mean that it has said something (that consent of current wives is not required).
I wouldn't go that far. But, yeah, he doesn't have a lot of patience for the judgmental types who try to dictate how everyone else should live their lives based on what works for them.
And how many women share their men with another woman? equally as fewer (dare I say fewer). There are equally as large insults to different peoples opinions, but some men really don't care. That is why open relationships exist. And they don't get national headlines now.
Thousands out of millions good for them, and if the women want to live that way, good for them.
So sayeth you, but your logic all will be a curiosity. less than a percent of all marriages.
almost all our written laws, disagree with that. Hell most of our laws are based on the "reasonable man" test, with no definition of what a reasonable man is.
No, thats not how courts will interpret this. They aren't going to say "the current marriage law allows polygamy" anymore than they said "the current marriage law allows homosexual marriage", they will say the charter is being violated, rewrite the marriage laws to comply with the charter.
That is something you are pulling out of thin air in your interpretation.
And then the law can be written, and changed, as necesarry. There is no existing law yet, it has yet to be written.
And how many women share their men with another woman? equally as fewer (dare I say fewer).
Plenty, Zzarchov, plenty. They will be forced to share, in Islamic societies in Canada and USA. They won’t have any choice. They may have choice by law, but the Islamic society will see to it that in practice they don’t have a choice. If polygamy is legal, I expect most Muslim marriages will be polygamous marriages.
Also I expect increasing number of Mormon marriages will be polygamous. The leader of LDS Church will have another ‘revelation’ from God telling him that polygamy is God ordained once again.
Thousands out of millions good for them, and if the women want to live that way, good for them.
Oh, I don’t expect it will be more that a few thousand, perhaps 100,000 max per year. After all how big is the Muslim community in Canada? Perhaps a couple of million.
And how would you know that women want to live that way? Today Muslim women in Canada are subject to all kinds of practices that are not legal (including honour killings). What makes you think that they won’t be coerced into polygamy?
So sayeth you, but your logic all will be a curiosity. less than a percent of all marriages.
So sayeth me, Zzarchov, it is only my personal opinion.
almost all our written laws, disagree with that. Hell most of our laws are based on the "reasonable man" test, with no definition of what a reasonable man is.
Perhaps not, but then the courts impose the definition of what a ‘reasonable man’ is. And if the law does not say that written consent of current wives is required, I think the law will interpret it to say that the consent is not required.
No, thats not how courts will interpret this. They aren't going to say "the current marriage law allows polygamy" anymore than they said "the current marriage law allows homosexual marriage",
And that is not what I said either. Here I am talking of a law written by the parliament to permit polygamy. If in that law it does not specifically say that the written consent of current wives is required, the courts will interpret the law to mean that the consent is not required.
Here I am talking of post the decision of Supreme Court and subsequent passage of the law by the Parliament to legalize polygamy.
Plenty, Zzarchov, plenty. They will be forced to share, in Islamic societies in Canada and USA. They won’t have any choice. They may have choice by law, but the Islamic society will see to it that in practice they don’t have a choice. If polygamy is legal, I expect most Muslim marriages will be polygamous marriages.
Also I expect increasing number of Mormon marriages will be polygamous. The leader of LDS Church will have another ‘revelation’ from God telling him that polygamy is God ordained once again.
Thousands out of millions good for them, and if the women want to live that way, good for them.
Oh, I don’t expect it will be more that a few thousand, perhaps 100,000 max per year. After all how big is the Muslim community in Canada? Perhaps a couple of million.
And how would you know that women want to live that way? Today Muslim women in Canada are subject to all kinds of practices that are not legal (including honour killings). What makes you think that they won’t be coerced into polygamy?
So sayeth you, but your logic all will be a curiosity. less than a percent of all marriages.
So sayeth me, Zzarchov, it is only my personal opinion.
almost all our written laws, disagree with that. Hell most of our laws are based on the "reasonable man" test, with no definition of what a reasonable man is.
Perhaps not, but then the courts impose the definition of what a ‘reasonable man’ is. And if the law does not say that written consent of current wives is required, I think the law will interpret it to say that the consent is not required.
No, thats not how courts will interpret this. They aren't going to say "the current marriage law allows polygamy" anymore than they said "the current marriage law allows homosexual marriage",
And that is not what I said either. Here I am talking of a law written by the parliament to permit polygamy. If in that law it does not specifically say that the written consent of current wives is required, the courts will interpret the law to mean that the consent is not required.
Here I am talking of post the decision of Supreme Court and subsequent passage of the law by the Parliament to legalize polygamy.
Plural marriages should only be legal between consenting adults. That means everyone in the marriage would have to agree, otherwise it lack consent.
Bisexual men and women might desire being married to both a man and a women. Some women might want children and a career, without being a super mom. Some women might want to dedicate themselves to running a house hold and child rearing yet have the advantage of more than one income. Some women may not be happy/satisfied with just one husband.
Human behavior and motivations are complex and we should not expect everyone to find happiness the same way. This issue is about the freedom to make personal choices. No one should dictate to others how they should live.
Bisexual men and women might desire being married to both a man and a women. Some women might want children and a career, without being a super mom. Some women might want to dedicate themselves to running a house hold and child rearing yet have the advantage of more than one income. Some women may not be happy/satisfied with just one husband.
Human behavior and motivations are complex and we should not expect everyone to find happiness the same way. This issue is about the freedom to make personal choices. No one should dictate to others how they should live.
Human behavior and motivations are complex and we should not expect everyone to find happiness the same way. This issue is about the freedom to make personal choices. No one should dictate to others how they should live.
Quite right, earth_as_one, I fully agree. The question is whether the government should sanction such relationships. If somebody wants to live in polygamous relationship today, who is stopping them?
But when they want the government to recognize their relationship, with granting of related rights and benefits, then we are entitled to probe deeper into the practice of polygamy and wonder how it stacks up against the Constitution and the Charter.
Quite right, earth_as_one, I fully agree. The question is whether the government should sanction such relationships. If somebody wants to live in polygamous relationship today, who is stopping them?
But when they want the government to recognize their relationship, with granting of related rights and benefits, then we are entitled to probe deeper into the practice of polygamy and wonder how it stacks up against the Constitution and the Charter.
The government should sanction the behaviour if it continues to sanction and grant rights to similar groups.
There is no reason not to grant rights, even you call them rights. People are entitled to their rights.
If they were privelages that would be a different matter.
There is no reason not to grant rights, even you call them rights. People are entitled to their rights.
If they were privelages that would be a different matter.
People in polygamous relationships should have the same legal rights as people in monogomous relationships.
I am talking about legal recognition of their marriages, survivor benefits, child custody, divorce rights... Once these people win their case, family law will have to change.
I am talking about legal recognition of their marriages, survivor benefits, child custody, divorce rights... Once these people win their case, family law will have to change.
The reason why the crown has been hestitant to charge consenting adults with bigamy is that they know they will loose. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes the right to make personal choices. That has been interpreted to included homosexual relationships and soon it will also include polygamous relationships.
That is just it, earh_as_one, I don’t think they will lose. I think chances are very high that the courts will rule that polygamy violates the Charter.
But win or lose, I think the issue should be decided by the courts. Anyway, from the original post (by Gilbert) I get the impression that they have been charged with polygamy. So presumably the issue will be settled in the near future.
But win or lose, I think the issue should be decided by the courts. Anyway, from the original post (by Gilbert) I get the impression that they have been charged with polygamy. So presumably the issue will be settled in the near future.
For those of you who are pro-polygamy, am I understanding you correctly?I That polygamy among "adults" is okay but that "forcing" children to marry "older" men is not and should be dealt with separately? To me, one is part of the other.
Polygamy is about power in most cases. The man is the ruler and he decides if and when and who he should marry. I doubt if the women have any voice in that matter at all, no matter that people here have stated otherwise. Perhaps in "secular" relationships that may be true, but most polygamists follow a religion of sorts.
I truly hope that polygamy is ruled against as was Sharia law. It'll be a real travesty if it's allowed.
JMO
Polygamy is about power in most cases. The man is the ruler and he decides if and when and who he should marry. I doubt if the women have any voice in that matter at all, no matter that people here have stated otherwise. Perhaps in "secular" relationships that may be true, but most polygamists follow a religion of sorts.
I truly hope that polygamy is ruled against as was Sharia law. It'll be a real travesty if it's allowed.
JMO
Dixie, I don't think the girls at Bountiful are forced to marry older men, I think people there are brainwashed into believing it is acceptable. We are talking about the oldest and largest brainwashing in history, you know; religion.
There's a TV show out there called "Big Love"...it shows both sides of the coin when it comes to polygamous marriages. It stars Bill Paxton in the leading roll. Bill and his wives do not live in a commune but he is connected to one as that is where he came from. His marriages have been ones where all consented to adding another wife. The wives refer to each other as "sister wives". It does not to bad a job of looking at the different faces of polygamy, both the good and the bad. It shows how, if religios zealotry is kept out, a polygamous marriage can work when all involved are included in the desision making.
"Big Love" shows the lengths that Bill and his amily must go to to keep their "arrangements" secret because of society's view of polygamy. A view that, when applied to Bill and his family, does not ring true. He does not and has not married "young" girls. His marriages have not been "arranged". His marriages have been with the full consent of his other wives and they ALL work hard at making the "marriage" work.
It should be an eye opener to anyone that views it with an open mind.
"Big Love" shows the lengths that Bill and his amily must go to to keep their "arrangements" secret because of society's view of polygamy. A view that, when applied to Bill and his family, does not ring true. He does not and has not married "young" girls. His marriages have not been "arranged". His marriages have been with the full consent of his other wives and they ALL work hard at making the "marriage" work.
It should be an eye opener to anyone that views it with an open mind.