Social conservatives like to say that same sex marriage will lead to polygamy and point to the BC government’s unwillingness with the situation with Bountiful as some kind of proof. In so arguing, they demonstrate not only their ignorance of the now voluminous literature on polygamy, but also their ignorance of the long history of BC government’s dealings with the people of Bountiful. Pace what the local wing nut may have told you, the reluctance of the BC government to deal with community long predates the great debates about SSM. For example, The BC attorney general thought about pressing ahead with charges in 1992, but declined because of “charter considerations”. What were those charter considerations? They most certainly do not have to do with concerns about the legal prohibition against polygamy being struck down. They are partly evidential and are partly due to concerns about freedom of religion.
In a strict legal sense there is no polygamy in Canada and no one is arguing that there should be a change to the law. Indeed, far from arguing for the legalization of polygamy, Blackwell et al’s out has always been to claim that never mind what people say about these religious marriages. Check the books; no one in Bountiful has more than one legal wife. This is what makes the social conservatives warnings so fucking ridiculous.
The issue at hand is and will remain whether a religious ceremony (i.e., a “marriage”) with no force of law constitutes a violation of Canada’s laws against polygamy. Seeing as how social conservatives are so found of lumping same sex marriage in with polygamy, I will give them such an analogy. Many churches conducted same sex “marriages” long before June 2003 even though these “marriages” meant nothing in the eyes of the law. Going after the people of Bountiful for “marrying” more than one person would be somewhat
analogous to the police having gone after those churches for "marrying" same sex couples prior to 2003.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The government should go in and take ALL of their children. Teh girls are raped. The boys are dropped off on a road somewhere and abandonned so there are young girls to rape for the old rapists.
Remove all of their children. Why this wasn't done decades ago, I have no idea.
SSM is not the slippery slope that so-cons claim it is. If they want to point fingers it will probably be the right to religious freedom that could justify polygamy because it is practiced by some muslms, some christians and a host of other religions. If they want to plug a hole, thats the route to go.
SSM just made the law pertaining to marriage gender neutral.
Sorry, but I'm having trouble following your arguments.
In a strict legal sense there is no polygamy in Canada and no one is arguing that there should be a change to the law. Indeed, far from arguing for the legalization of polygamy, Blackwell et al’s out has always been to claim that never mind what people say about these religious marriages. Check the books; no one in Bountiful has more than one legal wife.
This can often be the case with some Muslims in North America as well. In fact, it isn't even restricted to them. I saw a documentary a few months ago about a couple in the States who were legally married, but then decided to take on two more 'co-wives'.
It's happening out there, but covertly.
People can argue back and forth on the issue - about "consenting ADULTS". When children are involved it's another story. It's child abuse.
The actual Mormon Church abaondoned polygamy in the late 1800's as part of their doctrine - so to me the others are cults and that's also a different matter.
Bigamy is against the law for any religion or sexual orientation so why not polygamy?
In Canada you are not allowed to have more than one spouse at the same time and if you do, I guarantee to you the authorities will go after you.
That's true. And isn't that called Bigamy, which is an entirely different situation?
Plural unions are a common law arrangement without any legal entitlements.
What we are talking about here is not 'marriage'; rather it is decriminalization, which is totally different.
Post a Comment