BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?

Subject: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 04:38 PM

The British Columbia Supreme Court will consider whether polygamy is a protected constitutional right of freedom of religion in Canada.

The case stems from the case of two Mormon men from Bountiful, B. C. Prosecutors laid the charge of polygamy against the two men, but the case was thrown out.
Observers say the case is destined to make its way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Certain advantages accrue to having a second wife-

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: pdq
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 04:49 PM

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, aka Mormon Church, banned polygamy in the mid 1890s.

They put real teeth in the decision in about 1920 when taking a second wife would result in automatic ex-communication from the church.

These guys can't really be Mormons. They can claim to be anything they want including Muslims, a group that still does allow polygamy.

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: GUEST,cs
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 04:53 PM

Why not make it legal for anyone who *wants to* to have multiple marriage partners (so long as all are consenting), not only male members of one made-up American cult?

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 05:00 PM

Well polyandry should be legal too then.

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: Amos
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 05:13 PM

Polyamory among cnsenting adults is a victimless crime, and in some case may be a real act of compassion and strength. Whereby does some civil authority have the right or even the interest to prohibit it? Why is it in any regard less positive than the dual version?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: gnu
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 05:46 PM

I thought it was all about the children. No?

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 05:50 PM

The community of Bountiful, B. C. is composed of members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), an offshoot of the group in Texas, Arizona and Utah. The comunity is not incorporated, but comprises more than 1000. They practice polygyny (one man, multiple wives).

If the Courts decide that polygyny is legitimate under Canada's freedom of religion stance, polyandry would be considered legitimate as well.

I have been told that the case may be thrown out, without ruling. This would allow the community to continue in its practice, as it has for some 65 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 05:52 PM

The case in Canada is not legally related to the cases in the United States.

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 06:10 PM

Why not make it legal for anyone who *wants to* to have multiple marriage partners

"Making it legal" should be a non-issue under US law, since the "legal license" is a civil agreement to allow joint actions for both, for either to act for both, and joint ownership (and responsibility) for property.

A truly "hands-off" treatment here could permit anyone to "live with as many people as those people find appropriate," and they might be "joined in a religious sacrament" which they can call marriage if their religion chooses to do so; but under existing civil law no person is permitted to participate in a civil marriage with more than one other person.

A main difficulty is that civil law has an "interest" in the dirty sex that might occur within the group, since we have never figured out a way to treat children except as "property" in the law.

Children, being "property," must belong to "someone," so the civilly married partner of one who procreates with another must be the sharing owner of the property of the "legal partner" with all the attendant responsibilities; and we have not figured out a way to give the "partner by sacrament-but-not-by-civil-law" an appropriate separate "ownership" of the property (including the children and the assumed powers of attorney) of the non-civil (sacramental) marriage.

The civil marriage law has no established way for the one with multiple partners to "split" his/her interest in property "shared" differently with different partners. (who should inherit which and what is a significant puzzle, and which speaks for whom under simultaneously existing - and possibly conflicting - powers of attorney screams of conflicts?)

The "shared property" (custody) difficulty where more than two "partners" are involved is partially addressed by some divorce laws, but there is virtually no acceptance of "prior agreement" (pre-nuptual contracts) that's generally effective, and the burden on the courts to allow application of exisitng "custody" resolutions would be horrendous, since in effect each case requires a "decision" about what to do because the "law" didn't work.

Anything that requires a license is a civil action that should have virtually nothing to do with religion. There should be no need to intrude "sacred rites" as a requirement in them.

The "sacred rites" should be left to the churches, with the minimum "workable" intrusion by civil law.

We've been arguing about which is what for far too long now, although even figuring that out leaves a lot of questions that likely will never be addressed until that is done unequivocally.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 06:25 PM

Perhaps if I were a member of such a community I might feel differently but as it is, I don't have a problem with someone having one 'legal' wife and multiple 'sister wives', as some in the Fundamentalist Mormon church are doing. Surely no law has an issue with someone committing to support any number of people.

However, within that same Fundamentalist group the sister wives and their children are supported, based upon their income, by the state. Given that, I can see how a state or city would find fault with the arrangement.

'Child' brides are a whole different matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: Amergin
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 06:43 PM

Having one wife is bad enough....why would anyone want another one?

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: Micca
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 06:59 PM

The principle drawback to polygamy maybe multiple Mothers in Law!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 07:16 PM

Polygamy is one thing.

But, Poly-Grip is just plain bad, and people need to know it.

My neighbours had five wives (all at the same time, the lucky trout). But, he always seemed to say he was feeling lousy....and, he never looked too good either. We just thought it was related to exhauston from having too may wives.

It seems he had been using poly-grip for years (you know, zink for the dink). Now we know, from the poli-grip recall, that it was the zink causing many of his problems, not the dink.

Seems the Zinc contained in Poligrip can deplete copper levels, resulting in the neuropathy and other neurological injuries by zinc poisoning.

Now you know it. And avoid it like the plague....poly-grip, not Polygamy.

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: Amos
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 07:17 PM

That would be a drawback whether it was polygamous or polyandrous.

The civil issue John describes seems straightforward; the responsibility for child Z is carried by his father X and his mother Y. If they are also married to other adults A,B,...n, it has no bearing on the parental duties for that child. In other words, it is an independent issue. If that burden transfers by reason of legal action, as it sometimes does in dual-person marriages, so be it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 08:27 PM

I think it's religious sects' insistence on calling their polygamous living arrangements "plural marriage" that many people have a problem with. There are plenty of people who practice some sort of multi-partnered alternative domesticity without calling it anything at all. Nobody cares what goes on in their bedrooms as long as it doesn't frighten the horses.

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 08:38 PM

"Nobody cares what goes on in their bedrooms as long as it doesn't involve the horses".

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: open mike
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 08:48 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygyny
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollyanna
polly want a cracker
polly wolly doodle

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 03:30 AM

Sometimes I wonder if Polygamy isn't a bad idea. Not for me personally but it would be interesting to know whether or not men or women have secret affairs outside the Polygamous relationships or still feel the need to visit prostitutes.

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 05:13 AM

An interesting article:

what happens when rights collide?

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 05:36 AM

This is probably a silly qustion but is it only the man that can select many wives or is it possible that women might want to marry a couple of men as in 'Paint your Wagon' which I know isn't real just a movie, has there been any cases of that? I can't see that situation being tolerated somehow but I could be wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 06:17 AM

I cant see any difference between a man or woman having more than one wife? Both are OK with me, as long as I am not involved :).

So, what are the real concerns about having more than one legal marriage at the same time? Let's say if all involved know about each other, are willing, and if no minors are involved?

I realize it is not the norm in society, it goes against some religious beliefs, and in some cases there are concerns for minors, as there should be for all minors in society. For discussion purposes, if one separates the cultish aspects out of the example, what are the concerns?

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 06:40 AM

Perhaps, ... just maybe ... discussions of what's legal and what's not would be facilitated if all licensed joinings of persons could be called "civil unions" or some such other thing, so that at least a few more would understand that "legal marriage" and "sacred marriage" are two distinct and different things. (?)

(But probably not.)

John

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 06:43 AM

Why is this always about having multiple "wives"???

I mean, why don't we ever hear of women having multiple "husbands"???

And, why would anyone want multiples "whatevers"???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 06:52 AM

And, why would anyone want multiples "whatevers"???

Because of the life-long search for the elusive multiple orgasism, possibly?

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: GUEST,cs
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 07:00 AM

As for marriage v's civil partnership, I don't know why anyone other than a practicing member of a particular religion would want an explicitly religious ceremony? Why would any atheist or agnostic wish to be bound together in a religious rite?

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 07:46 AM

>And, why would anyone want multiples "whatevers"???

Because of the life-long search for the elusive multiple orgasism, possibly? <

Ed T, I think you have hit the nail on the head.

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 07:53 AM

Oh, so it boils down to nails and heads??? Hmmmmm???

If it's okay, I'll just stick (no pun intended) with my one wife, thank you...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: Penny S.
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 03:57 PM

From what I have read, the existence of polygyny in Islam began at first by cutting down on the allowed number of wives (though later men used concubines and other relationships to extend their harems). It was also allowed because in the setting up of the religion by warfare, the number of men was reduced, and this made it possible for women to be protected by a man.

While the number of men is less than that of women, this seems reasonable. Where polygyny becomes possible only by reducing the number of men through artificial means, such as creation of eunuchs or expulsion of the young men, it clearly becomes wrong. If polyandry were allowed at the same time, and accepted by the men, this would not be a problem, would it?

I gather that Mormon polygyny started in a similar way because of the deaths of founder members, but it seems to have a "theological" foundation now, with men believing that their place in heaven depends on the number of wives, and women believing that theirs depends on the superiority of the man they are bound to. Polyandry is not going to arise in a religion with those sort of beliefs about the inferiority of women. Young men have to be expelled to allow their elders their "rights". Younger and younger women have to be acquired without choice to extend the herd.

It does not seem to have occurred to anyone that if God had intended us to be polygamous, he would have arranged for a very large difference in the numbers of men and women. Nor that in animals with large harems there is a much greater difference between male and female size than exists between humans.

I think that no state should financially support people who follow such arrangements, or, if it does, it should insist on a liberal education for all its people, including the young women. Human rights mean rights for them, not religions.

The only advantage I can see for sister wives is that they don't have to put up with the selfcentred slob who does not see his wives as helps meet for a man, his equals, created from his side to be an equal, not from his foot to be beneath him, as companions with minds to be met and communed with, as much as they might have to if they were his only chattel. I don't see how the relationships reported from such groups are anything other than slavery, even if the women have been educated differently.

And I hope that, in the next life, far from being the creator of a world where he has the equivalent of the 72 virgins, the men at the heads of these mistaken sects find themselves at first enslaved as they enslaved, while their wives are brought to the realisation of what being fully human means.

Penny - don't know what brought this rant on, but hey....

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 04:28 PM

..."if God had intended us to be polygamous, he would have arranged for a very large difference in the numbers of men and women"

You don't need many men to inpregnate a lot of women (and, there are more men than women born in the world). I expect the extra males is to ensure genetic diversity" But, that's just a guess. It could be merly just to keep sports and pubs afloat?

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: gnu
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 05:10 PM

Okay, I'll volunteer to engage in a study on this. If the government will fund it, I will spend day and night studying this question, including in depth analysis and research including field studies stimulating real world situations. I am willing to sacrifice myself for the progress of legislation in this regard.

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 05:52 PM

Well, there was a long program on US TV about this just as this thread was started....about the 2 US trials of cult leaders and one group moving to Canada. The story was 'Canada has laws against Polygamy, but had not enforced them vigorously until recently.

Now, there are questions about forcing marriage on young girls bubbling up all over. It's gone way beyond just "freedom of religion" issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: frogprince
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 06:05 PM

Is polygamy another name for that stuff where you fold paper into shapes with lots of sides?

My wife is 10 years younger than me, and is...a loving sort...l have all I can do to keep up with one of her.

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 06:08 PM

naawww.. that paper folding stuff is Oligarchy ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 06:54 PM

A GUEST said, in part:

Why not make it legal for anyone who *wants to* to have multiple marriage partners (so long as all are consenting), not only male members of one made-up American cult?

Like it or not, Guest, ALL religions are "made-up".

And while the Latter Day Saints started in America, it's far from limited to the United States today.

I take it that your "not only male members" etc. means you'd favor public marriage rules that would allow polyandry, or multiple husbands to a wife, if multiple wives are to be allowed. If so, I'd go along with you.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 23 Nov 10 - 09:00 AM

Several of me in a marriage would probably put any male soul off marriage for life methinks whatever the religion. I think wife swap would send me back on the first day!

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: Penny S.
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 04:21 AM

It always amuses me that in discussions about polygyny, men contributors always assume that they would be the man with the many wives. The larger the number of wives per husband, the greater the probability that most men would have no partner at all.

Its like memories of past lives. Very few people remember the strings of lives lived as oppressed peasants (or, in the context of this thread, eunuchs), but many feel that they were someone significant.

The difference in the number of males and females born is slight, and balanced by the vulnerability of male children to early death. That is excluding the effect of female infanticide. Otherwise, the proportions are pretty close to equal.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 05:36 AM

I'm not sure I'd be interested in having more than one spouse at a time, myself. As my wife knows (and approves), I am a devout romantic and regularly develop mad crushes on various women despite the fact that I'm married; but I haven't figured out a good way to deal with that and don't want to leave or betray the spouse that I have.
However, since adultery is almost universally legal, it seems ironic to outlaw attempts to legitimize polyandry or polygamy. If all the parties consent, why not? But no,  I'm  not going to do that.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 05:49 AM

Joe I agree as long as children are still protected. It wouldn't be for me either but on the otherhand there is nothing worse for a child learning secondhand from a school chum or bully about an illicit affair that his or her father has had or the other way round of course the mother. With polygamy where everyone is known to each other the unsuspecting children aren't going to get a nasty surprise in the playground. I suspect there are many youngsters that have to put up with that kind of bullying all because of someone elses actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 05:54 AM

At least the Canadian government has this all in mind at the highest levels(?)

Just what is 'Canadian sex,' eh?

updated 11/23/2010 3:19:33 PM ET

OTTAWA — A small but significant slip of the tongue had Canada's industry minister pleading for "more Canadian sex stories" on Monday ... .

"We need more Canadian sex stories," Tony Clement told an Ottawa crowd during a speech on the government's digital strategy.

A roar of laughter prevented him from correcting himself for a few seconds. "We need more Canadian SUCCESS stories ..." he said, pausing to emphasize the correction, "... like RIM and its world-famous — and now ubiquitous — BlackBerry."

Teased by reporters about the slip, Clement insisted he had not been thinking about sex.

"The male brain is a very strange organ at times, isn't it? I have no explanation," he said.

"It really was not on my mind. I want to stress that for the record. It just sort of blurted out."

John

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 11:02 AM

There was some famous author who confessed that he carefully avoided using 'circumscribed' in a sentence, lest he .......

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: gnu
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 01:42 PM

... circumvent?

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: frogprince
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 02:23 PM

Circumscribed: adjective: having a tattoo all around one's whatzis.

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 04:54 PM

Canada's anti-polygamy law was enacted in 1890.
The first Mormon colony in Canada was established in 1888, by Charles Card. Prime minister John A. Macdonald told him that he wanted no truck with polygamy. By 1890, both mainstream and dissenting Mormons still favoring multiple spouses settled on the Prairies.
The law at the time was Mormon-specific; not until the 1950s was the word Mormon removed so that the law could apply to all (Muslims, etc.).
Extracted from a CBC article.
The town of Cardston is named for Card; oneof the temples was built there.

Mormons control much of the sugar beet industry in Alberta, and are also big in stock-raising; one ranch in southern Alberta owned by Mormons is over 40 sections.

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 10:13 PM

Education of children in these closed communities restricts them from experiencing much of the outside world. Young girls are raised to become child brides believing any dogma that they are fed. Child abuse is the real issue, and that does not seem to be properly addressed in the court case. The shame lies with the government of BC allowing Bountiful to home school these young victims!

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 03:29 AM

Another thing that occured to me is a house full of PMT including daughters who in their right mind would want that?

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 12:40 PM

The British Columbia School Act (section 12) provides parents with the statutory right to educate children at home.
The right cannot be lifted for one group and not others; that would be discriminatory.
Alberta has similar statutes. Evangelical groups or dissenting parents of one stripe or another educate their children outside of the public or charter systems.

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 12:51 PM

Further note regarding home schooling in British Columbia:
"Home schooling is the full responsibility of the parent, is not supervised by a British Columbia certified teacher, is not required to meet provincial standards, and is not inspected by the Ministry of Education."
British Columbia Ministery of Education-
Home Schooling

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 12:54 PM

Sorry-
http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/home_school

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: gnu
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 01:38 PM

Over 40 sections? Wow! That's a lotta beets!

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 03:14 PM

The 40 section ranch is mostly cattle. The beet farms are large, but not that size.

Most Mormon kids in Alberta go to public schools. In places like Cardston, they are by far the majority. I have heard complaints from non-Mormons who had to go to schools there, of bullying. The usual thing that happens to a minority group.

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 11:49 PM

Under the Canadian constitution education is the responsibility of the province so the government of BC controls the act, but home schooling is not a constitutional right. The BC government can change it tomorrow and take control of educating children away from religious wingnuts and make them conform to uniform standards of teaching. In other words if they don't or won't meet required standards for the children's education the government could and should intervene. If the government of BC has not placed uniform standards in place then they damn well should do so quickly! This is nothing short of child abuse and the shame on the BC government remains!

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 01:38 PM

Many people in British Columbia consider home schooling a constitutional right, and legislative members will not vote against it.
Personally, I believe in strong standards, but I don't see them taking hold in B. C. for everyone.

One of the most interesting exceptions to uniform education is in Alberta, where the 166 Hutterite colonies educate their children to a modified standard, mostly basic subjects, to age 15, grade 9 equivalent, in English and their version of Low German. The children are treated as adults at age 15. The local public school board provides the teachers and the Hutterite colony provides the facilities, for which they charge the local school board.

Subject: RE: BS: Polygamy a Protected Practice in Canada?
From: 3refs
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 03:00 AM

"The principle drawback to polygamy maybe multiple Mothers in Law!!!!"
The very thought caused me physical pain!

Let's just change all the laws that inhibits/prohibits any one person from doing whatever that one person wants to do. Furthermore, if two or more people find compatibility in what ever it is they do....AMEN!
The other side is: There's more of me than there is of you, and me says you can't do that!

That doesn't count for much in this country these days! "Individual Rights" doesn't mean you can screw everyone else!

100,000 dead Canadians lay dead on foreign soil and I'd bet not many would be too happy about the "individuals" that find our traditions and customs to be offensive.