Legalizing polygamy in Canada.....

[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).

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, 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).

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.