Legalizing polygamy in Canada.....

[lars573]

It could happen.

The Canadian Press

Date: Sunday Mar. 27, 2011 1:03 PM ET

VANCOUVER — As an army of lawyers debate the future of Canada's law against polygamy in a Vancouver courtroom, the son of the B.C. attorney general who sparked the landmark case has returned from his college classes with some questions of his own.

Wally Oppal was the first attorney general in the province to pursue polygamy charges against the leaders of Bountiful, an insular polygamous commune in southeast B.C. that has been under scrutiny from police and prosecutors for more than two decades.

A few months after the charges were laid against Winston Blackmore and James Oler in early 2009, Oppal lost his bid for re-election. Later that year, the prosecution fell apart when a judge threw out the charges, setting the stage for the constitutional hearings that will return to a Vancouver courtroom this week for final arguments.

Oppal may no longer be involved in the case, but his 21-year-old son, Josh, has brought the debate right into his living room. The former attorney general says his son came home from his classes at Kwantlen Polytechnic University with the very question the court will have to examine.

"He raised the question: 'What business do you have of interfering with the rights of three adults who wish to be involved in this type of relationship?"' recalled Oppal in a recent interview.

"It's a valid question to ask."

Not just valid. It's the crux of what the court must decide.

On one side are members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, a polygamous sect that lives in Bountiful, civil liberties advocates and supporters of so-called polyamorous relationships. They argue the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, and violates the charter guarantee of religious freedoms of those for whom multiple marriage is a tenet of their faith.

On the opposite side are the federal and provincial governments, women's rights groups and self-described "survivors" of polygamy, who insist polygamy inevitably leads to sexual abuse, child brides and human trafficking -- crimes that justify outlawing the practice.

Observers believe the case is ultimately headed to the Supreme Court of Canada, regardless of what the B.C. court decides.

Oppal said he has no doubts about which is the correct answer.

"That's what I was arguing with my son about, you have to look at this in a global sense, the harmful effects of polygamy," he said.

"And you've heard some evidence about that, the abuse of women and children, the fact that the underlying philosophy of a polygamous relationship is demeaning to women."

Soon after he took office in 2005, Oppal asked the RCMP to open a new investigation into Bountiful, and sought outside legal opinions about how to proceed.

The RCMP recommended charges, but the legal experts did not. Like others before them, they raised concerns about the constitutionality of the law, and instead suggested asking the courts to decide whether the law was consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Undeterred, Oppal appointed yet another special prosecutor, who finally sided with him.

The Mounties swept into Bountiful in January 2009 and arrested Blackmore and Oler, charging each with practising polygamy.

A judge later agreed with the men's lawyers that Oppal was improperly "shopping" for special prosecutors. The charges were stayed.

In hindsight, Oppal said it probably would have been easier to simply launch a reference case, which is eventually where the issue ended up. Still, he's unapologetic.

"I was shopping, no question about that," said Oppal. "I think the attorney general, as the chief law officer of the province, has the right to decide who should be prosecuted, who shouldn't be prosecuted, and how you do that. But the court told me I'm wrong, so I've got to live with that."

It was a dilemma that faced a series of attorneys general before him, who were all equally reluctant to pursue polygamy charges in Bountiful, where, for all their secrecy, residents don't deny their polygamous way of life.

One such attorney general was Colin Gabelmann, who held the position under an NDP government in the early 1990s. It was under his watch that officials from the province's Criminal Justice Branch publicly announced they wouldn't pursue charges because, in their opinion, the law was unconstitutional.

Nearly two decades later, Gabelmann said his failure to launch a prosecution wasn't for lack of trying.

The RCMP did not have enough evidence to support charges unrelated to polygamy, such as sexual abuse, said Gabelmann. It's a problem cited by governments arguing in favour of the law: polygamous wives, including young teenagers, are reluctant witnesses.

Repeated legal opinions, including from a former judge, all came back with the same answer.

"An attorney general always has the right to overrule his or her advisers, but to do so in the face of absolutely overwhelming and unanimous opinion would be to really launch into the political realm, rather than the legal realm, and I refused to do this," said Gabelmann.

"I didn't treat it cavalierly. We treated it with a great deal of intensity and concern."

Gabelmann believes the case currently before the court will help clear up decades of uncertainty around the law, while answering important questions about the limits of religious freedom.

"Society deserves an answer and the people who've been abused deserve an answer," he said. "It would be good to put it all behind us with the feeling of security around the whole question of the potential abuse so we can all feel that won't happen. "

For Oppal, the eventual court decision still might not settle the debate for him and his son, who is considering a law career.

"I encourage him to debate these things with me. This is not a black and white argument, that's why we're here," said Oppal.

"But at the end of the day, I think I'm right."
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20110327/polygamy-hearings-final-arguments-110327/

And if it does my mother will RAGE!!! This is a possibility via the same mechanism that legalized same-sex marriage 7 years ago. Our constitutions charter of rights and freedoms. And the courts nasty habit of upholding it. As the law outlawing polygamy here was written specifically to target Mormons in 1890, and ammended in the 50's to less obviously target Mormons. Something the charter greatly frowns upon. Indeed any charges against the polygamist Mormon sect in BC had a hard time finding traction in the crown prosecutors offices as the law is constitutionally grey.

But unless and until this case goes to the supreme court nothing is decided. If it were legalized however it could create some interesting group marriages . :laugh:

[Beirut]

I don't think it will happen. The Supreme Court will knock it down.

I hope.

[Brenus]

What about polyandry?

[lars573]

Well if a man and a man can get married, why can't a man and a man and a man get married?


I don't think it will happen. The Supreme Court will knock it down.

I hope.
I guess follow the story to see what the Supreme court says.

[Beirut]

Well if a man and a man can get married, why can't a man and a man and a man get married?


In the name of equality we're going to end up with men marrying their mothers, fathers marrying their daughters, guys marrying dogs, it will never end. And there will be people who say anyone who is against any of these things they are just hate-mongers.

Let there be mush.

Groan.

[Jaguara]

To think that someday soon I can go out in public with all my wives at once...of course, first I will have to tell them about each other...:rolleyes:

Well, the Mormons seem to be pushing for acceptance of this across North America. You have that new TLC show, that focuses on a family, mostly portrayed in a positive light. Of course, in typical TLC fashion, they show a well off family...not the beat up trailer in the woods with 25 kids. (Same deal with the "little people" shows...always an affluent family, never someone struggling to deal with grim realities of life)

Myself, I am not very knowledgeable on the subject, other than random curiousity. I have tended toward the interpretation that it often results in exploitation of women...but I could be merely influenced by "feminist propoganda", or bias based on local cults which engaged in polygamy. I certainly have no first-hand experience.

I had heard that often it is very young girls who are introduced into these marriages, when they are easier to "train" and then control. However, the TLC show portrays this as mostly a choice made by more mature women. I have no statistics or information to show one or the other.

I am also aware that many other cultures allowed this sort of arrangement - in Ancient China, in certain sects of Islam, and others. Are some forms more acceptable than others?

So, there are a lot of questions to answer in this legal case.

There are many brands of polygamy - from the man who leads 2-3 different lives, with each ignorant of the others on one side to the religious-based relationships on the other.
Will this allow all forms of polygamy?
Will only Mormon polygamy be allowed or all religious/cultural polygamy be allowed?
Will a woman be able to marry multiple men?

So, any thoughts on any of this?

[lars573]

We'll be a nation of Captain Jack Harkness's and Captain John Hart's. Interesting would be a very mild way of putting it. :party: Still we're getting a bit ahead of our selfs.

[PanzerJaeger]

In the name of equality we're going to end up with men marrying their mothers, fathers marrying their daughters, guys marrying dogs, it will never end. And there will be people who say anyone who is against any of these things they are just hate-mongers.

Let there be mush.

Groan.

Are you really concerned about men marrying their dogs, or is that just exaggeration for effect?

[HoreTore]

The state should not interfere with peoples love life.

Whether I choose to spend my life with one, two, three or more people, or alone, is nobodys business but my own. Love should be an individuals choice, and never regulated by law. End of story.

[Jolt]

If people are willing to marry more than one person, who are we to prevent that? So long as people are not forced into marriage (Which is already a crime by itself), then I don't see a point in forbidding polygamy except to maintain some sort of Judeo-Christian standard of monogamy.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Are you really concerned about men marrying their dogs, or is that just exaggeration for effect?

Well, stranger things have happened notably in Japan. There people marry things like blow up dolls and cushions.

[Hosakawa Tito]

What kinda fool would want more than one wife?

[HopAlongBunny]

I wonder this will mean for spousal benefits.

[Beirut]

Are you really concerned about men marrying their dogs, or is that just exaggeration for effect?

I can't imagine that answering that would provide as much entertainment for your imaqination as not answering it.

So, because I care about your quality of life, I'm not going to answer it. :smiley:

[Rhyfelwyr]

State-recognised marriage exists to promote the nuclear family because it was the building block of society.

Polygamous relationships on the other hand are not, but are in fact destructive to it.

If you want to have such a relationship then fine, but don't expect the government to support it.

[Xiahou]

The state should not interfere with peoples love life.

Whether I choose to spend my life with one, two, three or more people, or alone, is nobodys business but my own. Love should be an individuals choice, and never regulated by law. End of story.

But does that mean you should get tax and welfare benefits for it?

[lars573]

What kinda fool would want more than one wife?
Mormons dudes who's womenz have been molded into doormat baby factories by years of indoctrination. Or Muslims who believe in the old ways

[Rahwana]

I support Polygamy, and thinking to get four wife if the circumstances allow it :clown:

[Brenus]

“Love should be an individuals choice, and never regulated by law. End of story. “ Nicely said. End of story? What about divorce? If one wants to divorce how the common property will be divided. There is the point were the law and the State will have to regulate… All incomes will be divided and a quota allocated to the one who wants to go? Housing? I can’t wait to see what will happen with the children when a man will have several wives and within the same marriage, the wife having several husbands…
A new gold mine for lawyers…

I can't wait to see the face of the polygamists when their wives will go in bed with others husbands, in the common house....

[ajaxfetish]

Myself, I am not very knowledgeable on the subject, other than random curiousity. I have tended toward the interpretation that it often results in exploitation of women...but I could be merely influenced by "feminist propoganda", or bias based on local cults which engaged in polygamy. I certainly have no first-hand experience.

I had heard that often it is very young girls who are introduced into these marriages, when they are easier to "train" and then control. However, the TLC show portrays this as mostly a choice made by more mature women. I have no statistics or information to show one or the other.

My understanding, growing up in southern Utah near an FLDS community, is that there is indeed a lot of abuse, arranged marriage of young girls to old men, and indoctrination. The states of Utah and Arizona both had many headaches trying to figure out a legal approach to shutting them down. The biggest problems are the indoctrination and isolation. I don't know if legalizing it would allow greater access and opportunity for intervention in then-hopefully-demonstrable cases of abuse. The level of patriarchy and anti-feminism in the mainstream Mormon church is bad enough, but in the FLDS offshoots it's disgusting.

Ajax

[rory_20_uk]

I'm for it in principle, but I agree that it is something that has many difficult facets.

I don't think that polygamy has the monopoly on brainwashing women into house mice / baby factories.

If polygamy were more widely accepted, there might be less need for certain communities to isolate and indoctrinate. After all, we are indoctrinated to the concept of monogamy, we just consider that "normal" and "right".

~:smoking:

[HoreTore]

But does that mean you should get tax and welfare benefits for it?

If other couples recieve them, yes of course. Why on earth shouldn't they?

[Rhyfelwyr]

If other couples recieve them, yes of course. Why on earth shouldn't they?

For a start, they are not really even a "couple".

[Beirut]

For a start, they are not really even a "couple".

They could call themselves a "several".

[HoreTore]

For a start, they are not really even a "couple".

Do I care about linguistics? Nope. Next argument, please. And make it a valid one this time.

[Tellos Athenaios]

But does that mean you should get tax and welfare benefits for it?

Good point. Why not remove the tax & welfare benefits for married couples? :yes:

[HoreTore]

Good point. Why not remove the tax & welfare benefits for married couples? :yes:

I support this.

[Skullheadhq]

Why not outlaw mormonism instead of legalizing polygamy?

[Beskar]

I support this.

As you all know, so do I.

[Brenus]

“Do I care about linguistics?”: Er, you do. The fact is we debate of polygamy. Polygamy is one man several women.
So it is against human Rights in term of equality of gender.
So the question is does Canada will legalise multiple marriage?
So de facto, will Canada destroy the very notion of marriage and re-emplace it by something new as free union with legal duties and right and will Canada vote new laws in order to protect the rights of each member of such union, including babies (who is the father) in case of dissolution…

[HoreTore]

As I stated in my post, Brenus, I do not support the state interfering with peoples love lives.

That means that I not only support polygamy, but all forms of "people freely deciding to spend their lives together". Your final paragraph is what I support.

Marriage should be erradicated from our system of laws. It has no place there.

[The Stranger]

The state should not interfere with peoples love life.

Whether I choose to spend my life with one, two, three or more people, or alone, is nobodys business but my own. Love should be an individuals choice, and never regulated by law. End of story.

mariage is not about love its about property. and as locke says property is a natural right which should be garantueed by the government. thus marriage is a case of law.

[HoreTore]

mariage is not about love its about property. and as locke says property is a natural right which should be garantueed by the government. thus marriage is a case of law.

Get with the times.

People arrange their lives in multiple ways now, marriage is no longer dominant. People live together and raise children without being married. The laws should reflects this, thus marriage should be removed from the laws and replaced by new ones determining how people can share property.

Oh, and I'm a socialist, I have no respect for Locke ~;)

[The Stranger]

Get with the times.

People arrange their lives in multiple ways now, marriage is no longer dominant. People live together and raise children without being married. The laws should reflects this, thus marriage should be removed from the laws and replaced by new ones determining how people can share property.

Oh, and I'm a socialist, I have no respect for Locke ~;)

the laws have actually done this, its called a contract. and when both sides sign it they will legally bind themself to whatever is in it. marriage is one form of this contract. i dont see why it should be removed from the law since people do still marry and marriage is still dominant though not as dominant as it used to be and no longer at such an early stage in life and it rarely lasts as long :P

"Thou shall not mock Locke or I will unleash my fury upon thee!"

somewhere in the bible.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Get with the times.

People arrange their lives in multiple ways now, marriage is no longer dominant. People live together and raise children without being married. The laws should reflects this, thus marriage should be removed from the laws and replaced by new ones determining how people can share property.

Oh, and I'm a socialist, I have no respect for Locke ~;)

You are talking against yourself. You say that marriages should be removed from the law system because the state has no right to interfere into peoples love lives. However, you support the state interfering into how people can share their property?

[lars573]

Get with the times.

People arrange their lives in multiple ways now, marriage is no longer dominant. People live together and raise children without being married. The laws should reflects this, thus marriage should be removed from the laws and replaced by new ones determining how people can share property.

Oh, and I'm a socialist, I have no respect for Locke ~;)
Having a legal system based on British Common law, there is a provision for couples living together and not being officially married. It's called Common law marriage. If you live together for a set period of time, of have children together. The law considers you de facto married.


“Do I care about linguistics?”: Er, you do. The fact is we debate of polygamy. Polygamy is one man several women.
So it is against human Rights in term of equality of gender.
So the question is does Canada will legalise multiple marriage?
So de facto, will Canada destroy the very notion of marriage and re-emplace it by something new as free union with legal duties and right and will Canada vote new laws in order to protect the rights of each member of such union, including babies (who is the father) in case of dissolution…
Well without reading the actual anti-Moron polygamy law. I can say that in 2004 the marriage act was changed from talking of 1 man and 1 woman to 2 persons. But marriages are the legal jurisdiction of the provinces. However the federal parliament can order them changed.

[The Stranger]

You are talking against yourself. You say that marriages should be removed from the law system because the state has no right to interfere into peoples love lives. However, you support the state interfering into how people can share their property?

yes! go read locke!!

[HoreTore]

You are talking against yourself. You say that marriages should be removed from the law system because the state has no right to interfere into peoples love lives. However, you support the state interfering into how people can share their property?

Uhm..... Yes?

How does "interfere love" equal "interfere with property"...? I see no reason for the government to control who I freely choose to have sex with. I do, however, see a need for the law to regulate the status of ownership of things bought with other people, just like there is a need to regulate what owning stock in a company allows people to do.

@lars: indeed it does! Which is why there won't be any property issues if we remove the word "marriage" from the books.

[The Stranger]

if there is no issue why bother. its just a word brother nothing changes. because people actually make a fuss bout things like this the goverment is so damn ineffective XD

[HoreTore]

if there is no issue why bother. its just a word brother nothing changes. because people actually make a fuss bout things like this the goverment is so damn ineffective XD

Uhm.... Because the law is it currently is prohibits marriage between more than two people....?

[The Stranger]

but law doesnt forbid more than 2 people living together, screwing around (i mean loving each other) and having kids.

you say marriage is about love, i say its about property. im right, and since we both agreed that property is a government issue, nothing should change.

i have spoken.

[Noncommunist]

“Do I care about linguistics?”: Er, you do. The fact is we debate of polygamy. Polygamy is one man several women.
So it is against human Rights in term of equality of gender.
So the question is does Canada will legalise multiple marriage?
So de facto, will Canada destroy the very notion of marriage and re-emplace it by something new as free union with legal duties and right and will Canada vote new laws in order to protect the rights of each member of such union, including babies (who is the father) in case of dissolution…

How does a marriage with more than two members violate equality of gender? If everyone entered of their own free will, then where is the violation?

[HoreTore]

but law doesnt forbid more than 2 people living together, screwing around (i mean loving each other) and having kids.

It doesn't forbid it, but it does discriminate against it, since being married gives benefits. Not just financial, but also because it won't allow having multiple partners all listed as "next of kin", which has a very real consequence in case one of them gets hospitalized.

All the arguments for gay marriage applies here. Sure, two men could live together before gay marriage, but they nissed out on the benefits an official relationship(marriage) gets.

[The Stranger]

too be honest i do not care if it gets legalised or not. though i do foresee alot of fraude potential. not that is a reason to not pass the law.

[ajaxfetish]

“Do I care about linguistics?”: Er, you do. The fact is we debate of polygamy. Polygamy is one man several women.
So it is against human Rights in term of equality of gender.


Technically, polygamy just means having multiple spouses. While the usual practice has been one man several women, the term itself is gender neutral. If you want to be more specific, polygyny is having multiple wives and polyandry is having multiple husbands.

Ajax

[Beirut]

“Do I care about linguistics?”: Er, you do. The fact is we debate of polygamy. Polygamy is one man several women.
So it is against human Rights in term of equality of gender.
So the question is does Canada will legalise multiple marriage?
So de facto, will Canada destroy the very notion of marriage and re-emplace it by something new as free union with legal duties and right and will Canada vote new laws in order to protect the rights of each member of such union, including babies (who is the father) in case of dissolution…

We'll end up a country so intent on protecting every conceivable perceived "value" that we'll end up having no vaules at all.

What's that line from Frederick the Great? He who defends everything defends nothing.

[Strike For The South]

Are they Consenting Adults?

They are?

Next question plz

But no doubiling up on teh benifits

Cheeky polagmists

[Jaguara]

So, nobody has any issues regarding alleged exploitation of women within polygamist circles?

(The debate here seems entirely based on recognition...in which case as HoreTore points out, it just deals with the same issues of recognizing other marriages...but are there any other issues at play here?).

An extreme example are certain cults (this is not code for Mormons...I mean hardcore cults) which have formed a religion in which they teach (brainwash) their members a doctrine which includes subservience of the women along with polygamy. Women are not extended the same rights, and for a woman to have multiple partners would be considered abhorrent.

I am not familiar enough with the Mormon or Muslim versions of this to comment. I have heard allegations regarding the Mormons that they indoctrinate the girls young to convince them this is God's will and then marry them off as early as 14. I do not know if these allegations are founded or if they are merely anti-Mormon/Anti-Polygamist propoganda.

I am curious about:
1. People who might have more knowledge or insight into this.
2. How everyone might think this might/could/should effect the legalization of the practice

[Banquo's Ghost]

So, nobody has any issues regarding alleged exploitation of women within polygamist circles?

(The debate here seems entirely based on recognition...in which case as HoreTore points out, it just deals with the same issues of recognizing other marriages...but are there any other issues at play here?).

An extreme example are certain cults (this is not code for Mormons...I mean hardcore cults) which have formed a religion in which they teach (brainwash) their members a doctrine which includes subservience of the women along with polygamy. Women are not extended the same rights, and for a woman to have multiple partners would be considered abhorrent.

I am not familiar enough with the Mormon or Muslim versions of this to comment. I have heard allegations regarding the Mormons that they indoctrinate the girls young to convince them this is God's will and then marry them off as early as 14. I do not know if these allegations are founded or if they are merely anti-Mormon/Anti-Polygamist propoganda.

I am curious about:
1. People who might have more knowledge or insight into this.
2. How everyone might think this might/could/should effect the legalization of the practice

One suspects that this is a problem of women's rights and religious practice rather than polygamy per se. Women are just as abused in monogamous marriages and relationships if they are not accorded equal rights.

[Beirut]

So, nobody has any issues regarding alleged exploitation of women within polygamist circles?

(The debate here seems entirely based on recognition...in which case as HoreTore points out, it just deals with the same issues of recognizing other marriages...but are there any other issues at play here?).


I'm with BG on this. Women are often exploited in monogamous marriages, so using that criteria to outlaw polygamy would end up making monogamous marriage illegal as well. And it would be the women who would be P.O.d about that a lot more than men, methinks.

[Andres]

Personally, I think there should be an optional legal framework for all forms of cohabitation between consenting adults.

It has to be optional of course; either you live together with whoever and how many you want and make your own arrangements or no arrangements at all (which will make you wish you had made them once whatever form of cohabitation you're into comes to an end) or you do the same, but chose for the legal framework offered by the government.

I'd also write the word "marriage" out of the law, because people are always so sensitive when you talk about "marriage", but most don't give a :daisy: if it's about "legal framework for cohabitants".

In my ideal world, you can still "marry" for the religion/atheist sect of your choice, but that should only be symbolic with no legal consequernces whatsoever. To get the legal framework, some sort of declaration for a government offical will do (for those fond of ceremonies, you can get a ceremony there if you pay for it).

:shrug:

[The Stranger]

ehm... men are exploited and abused too but that just never gets any attention. they numbers are like 40% male cases 60% female. atleast in western europe, perhaps not in the other parts of the world where men have remained real men!!

[Papewaio]

Consenting adults. Not an issue.

Arguing that polygamy = gender inequality or child abuse. Issue.

Enforce the laws that exist against sex trafficking, child abuse, marital abuse, grooming etc.
Don't try and make a law to attack issues that are second order if they are at all. Make a law for a primary reason.

The state is involved in who you *insert rhyming word here*. Because of the outcomes ie she gets knocked up, or either/several or you get an STD. The state is expected to step in if there is any short comings in your ability to look after yourself (welfare, health, child support). Its also there to protect those involved to make sure they are consenting adults.

Consenting adults have to be of sound mind and reasoning ability. Dogs are not of that ability, and no Lassie barking that Jim is lost in a well does not count.

Mind you all this does make three men and a baby more plausible.

[Beirut]

Daddywaio! :bow:


Consenting adults have to be of sound mind and reasoning ability.


Under the assumption that a sound mind and reasoning ability means you can count to 7 without using your fingers, then I agree.

If we limited marriage and baby making to people who are actually of sound mind and reasoning ability, the world's population would plummet like a cow off a cliff.

Not that that's a bad thing...

[Skullheadhq]

but law doesnt forbid more than 2 people living together, screwing around (i mean loving each other) and having kids.

you say marriage is about love, i say its about property. im right, and since we both agreed that property is a government issue, nothing should change.

i have spoken.

How is it a government issue?

[gaelic cowboy]

Marriage should be erradicated from our system of laws. It has no place there.

In total agreement with you here the whole idea is so 19th century all tied up with property and sucession rites etc.

[Dîn-Heru]

First of all the issues of abuse and so on in a polygamous marriage are not a result of the relationship form, but of power-hungry individuals. As Papewaio said there are already laws in place to deal with these issues.

As long as we are talking about consenting adults they are free to engage in any contract they want (for the most part, and I'm assuming this is the case in Canada as well), marriage is a form of standardized contract and as such there should not be any significant limitations when it comes to extra content of this contract.

As for property rights I can't speak of Canadian law, but in Norwegian law each partner in the marriage retains the ownership and user rights of everything they have before the marriage is made and whatever they buy with their own money during. (there are some exceptions, like one party not being able to sell the family home without the agreement of the other party) There is also a law concerning two or more people owning something together.
My point is that property issues in a polygamous relationship should not be too difficult to find a solution to as the issues have probably already been addressed in other laws.

When it comes to end of the relationship the principal rule is equal sharing of the value of the possessions, but not if you have a pre-nup. To prevent a messy division of possessions if a polygamous marriage ends because one party leaves it one could make the pre-nup the standard and not 50-50 division.

Children, might be better to have more "parents" to nurture and support. And kids are more resilient to things that differ from the norm as long as it is explained to them. (ie not telling them it is weird or disgusting, if people are actually mature and reasonable enough to not do so is a different issue entirely)

Before this gets too drawn out, my belief is that seeing as marriage is a societal construct, there is no reason for it to maintain a specific form just because it has been so for a long time. The so-called issues are not insurmountable obstacles, but rather issues that are already resolved in other laws than marriage law and can be incorporated into it or be clarified in other laws.

[The Stranger]

How is it a government issue?


In total agreement with you here the whole idea is so 19th century all tied up with property and sucession rites etc.

he answered your question.

[lars573]

As for property rights I can't speak of Canadian law, but in Norwegian law each partner in the marriage retains the ownership and user rights of everything they have before the marriage is made and whatever they buy with their own money during. (there are some exceptions, like one party not being able to sell the family home without the agreement of the other party) There is also a law concerning two or more people owning something together.
My point is that property issues in a polygamous relationship should not be too difficult to find a solution to as the issues have probably already been addressed in other laws.
In common law when you enter into a marriage contract all assets of both parties become communal property of the marriage. And unless you outline what was yours before (in a pre nup usually) it gets divided as a marriage asset in a divorce.

[Dîn-Heru]

In common law when you enter into a marriage contract all assets of both parties become communal property of the marriage. And unless you outline what was yours before (in a pre nup usually) it gets divided as a marriage asset in a divorce.

I'm sorry, I probably was a bit unclear. It is technically the same here. While each of the parties retain the property rights and user rights it is counted as communal property. Meaning that unless you have a pre-nup or there are good reasons as to why the assets should be divided unevenly the value of the will be divided 50/50 (not the objects in themselves though only the value of the objects). The manner in which is done is that you find the net value of each party's assets and then you give 50% of that to the other party and vice versa. So as an example if one has assets to a net value of $100.000 and the other $50.000 the first one will give away $50.000 and get $25.000 back and the reverse for the latter (gets $50.000 and gives away $25.000)

[Scienter]

Personally, I think there should be an optional legal framework for all forms of cohabitation between consenting adults.

[snip]

In my ideal world, you can still "marry" for the religion/atheist sect of your choice, but that should only be symbolic with no legal consequernces whatsoever. To get the legal framework, some sort of declaration for a government offical will do (for those fond of ceremonies, you can get a ceremony there if you pay for it).

:shrug:

I tend to agree with you. I'm not personally wired for polygamy, but it's really none of my business if other people are. So long as everyone involved consents. There's a lot of room for abuse in this type of situation (I'm thinking about women from poor countries who marry men to move away to a better place).

Another thing that gives me pause is that groups of people could use a legal framework to get tax benefits, etc. Imagine a bunch of grad students living together and decide to get 'married' as a group to get tax benefits, etc. This is abuse of the law to me, and I don't know how the gov't would prevent such a thing from happening.

[Jaguara]

I tend to agree with you. I'm not personally wired for polygamy, but it's really none of my business if other people are. So long as everyone involved consents. There's a lot of room for abuse in this type of situation (I'm thinking about women from poor countries who marry men to move away to a better place).

Another thing that gives me pause is that groups of people could use a legal framework to get tax benefits, etc. Imagine a bunch of grad students living together and decide to get 'married' as a group to get tax benefits, etc. This is abuse of the law to me, and I don't know how the gov't would prevent such a thing from happening.

Well, here in Canada...except maybe in Quebec...it is actually often a negative benefit to be in a marriage situation. I am not sure how students could benefit from it at all, as they already get substantial benefits. They usually have negligable income & taxes anyway.

There is currently no income splitting in Canada (the Conservatives are promising this in 2015 - yeah right). Also on Federal taxes you only get one full-value dependant (though the others count for social benefits & social assistance).

Most government social benefits & assistance are already based on household income (not even just spouses), so unless they commit outright fraud and do not disclose the other spouses' incomes, the low income wives would lose their benefits by joining such a union. However, anyone willing to do that is likely doing it already, and just not gotten caught.

Where there could be exploitation is in things like where one person works and gets family benefits - such as dental care. These policies would likely change in the face of polygamy legislation, or one working person could claim dental benefits for themselves, all the spouses, and all the children. If 2 or 3 did, then the plans can double-up to the point of the ridiculous.

Now, as opposed to students, if a group of single mothers got together with a man...with an intent to commit fraud, it is still not clear that they would benefit. They would lose any social assistance if any members of the family were working, if the working members incomes were high enough, there could be tax savings from additional dependants, but would it be enough to offset the low-income benefits that would have come to the non-working ones? I strongly doubt it.

I know a woman with 3 kids who made close to $1000 a month in social assistance plus another $1000 a month in child-tax benefits (total of provincial and federal), those amounts both tax free. The tax benefits to a high-income earner would not come close to that.

So, actually, I think the fears of fraud - in Canada - are somewhat limited.

In the US, where the tax advantages are potentially high, and social benefits are lower...it would likely be a different matter.

[Tuuvi]

So, nobody has any issues regarding alleged exploitation of women within polygamist circles?

(The debate here seems entirely based on recognition...in which case as HoreTore points out, it just deals with the same issues of recognizing other marriages...but are there any other issues at play here?).

An extreme example are certain cults (this is not code for Mormons...I mean hardcore cults) which have formed a religion in which they teach (brainwash) their members a doctrine which includes subservience of the women along with polygamy. Women are not extended the same rights, and for a woman to have multiple partners would be considered abhorrent.

I am not familiar enough with the Mormon or Muslim versions of this to comment. I have heard allegations regarding the Mormons that they indoctrinate the girls young to convince them this is God's will and then marry them off as early as 14. I do not know if these allegations are founded or if they are merely anti-Mormon/Anti-Polygamist propoganda.

I am curious about:
1. People who might have more knowledge or insight into this.
2. How everyone might think this might/could/should effect the legalization of the practice

As far as the mainstream Mormon church goes, it hasn't practiced polygamy in about a hundred years. Some of the polygamous sects which broke away from the main church on the other hand, do exploit young women and indoctrinate them into marrying extremely young. The leader of the FLDS polygamous church, Warren Jeffs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Jeffs), was arrested and went on trial for rape as an accomplice for arranging and performing marriages of underage girls.

[Beskar]

In my ideal world, you can still "marry" for the religion/atheist sect of your choice, but that should only be symbolic with no legal consequernces whatsoever. To get the legal framework, some sort of declaration for a government offical will do (for those fond of ceremonies, you can get a ceremony there if you pay for it).

:shrug:

We completely agree and that is what I have been advocating!

[Andres]

I tend to agree with you. I'm not personally wired for polygamy, but it's really none of my business if other people are. So long as everyone involved consents. There's a lot of room for abuse in this type of situation (I'm thinking about women from poor countries who marry men to move away to a better place).

Another thing that gives me pause is that groups of people could use a legal framework to get tax benefits, etc. Imagine a bunch of grad students living together and decide to get 'married' as a group to get tax benefits, etc. This is abuse of the law to me, and I don't know how the gov't would prevent such a thing from happening.

Here in Belgium, in tax law most differences between people who are married or just living together have been worked away. There's still some work to do (and certainly so in the social benefits department), but it's not impossible for the legislator to get rid of all differential treatments of people just living together and people who are married. I don't think one group should have any advantage over the other regarding tax law and social benefits. I think the circumstance of having a household together or not should be decisive. Besides, plenty of people are married and don't live together, so why should they be treated as if they are living together. Really, your marital status should be completely irrelevant when it comes to taxes and social benefits.

The legal framework should only have consequences on the private (civil? or is that the same over there; here it's "burgerrechtelijk") law level; in other words: only consequences for those in the legal framework. Marriage/living together is a strictly private affair, imo. Providing a legal framework that people can chose for seems like a no-brainer to me; living together has consequences and the state has a responsibility to at least provide some sort of framework (optional of course) to deal with those consequences (especially with the situation once the living together has ended). But that should be it.

Anyway, whatever the legal framework, getting a prenuptial is always a good idea.

[drone]

When a marriage contract includes more than 2 people, isn't there a possibility of abuse through incorporation?

If I'm married and the wife dies, the contract is ended but for tax purposes I can "inherit" the wife's possessions for free. When I kick it, then the estate is taxed.

If I'm married to 3 wives, and one goes, what happens? Say I add a younger wife, and then we add a younger husband to the mix before I die? Can the marriage contract be extended indefinitely in this manner?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Hahahahahaha!

I applaud polygamy being legalized! One more step to making the civil institution of marriage completely meaningless. After that, hopefully someone will try to marry each and every one of their siblings, to the point where "marriage" serves merely as a contractual agreement between parties and we drop the absurdity we call civil marriage. Religious marriage for me, please. One man, One woman, marrying one another with God's blessing. I don't respect the rest of them because why should I?

[ICantSpellDawg]

When a marriage contract includes more than 2 people, isn't there a possibility of abuse through incorporation?

If I'm married and the wife dies, the contract is ended but for tax purposes I can "inherit" the wife's possessions for free. When I kick it, then the estate is taxed.

If I'm married to 3 wives, and one goes, what happens? Say I add a younger wife, and then we add a younger husband to the mix before I die? Can the marriage contract be extended indefinitely in this manner?

Get rid of it the whole thing - it's pointless!

[Shibumi]

My girl often has noted that she could need another set of hands dealing with me.