Is Polygamy Legally Permitted in Canada?

[Zantra]

This:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008 )

Has led to this:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/prop-8-supporter-violently-attacked/story.aspx?guid=%7B665DEBA6-A1B2-41A5-BA45-2ACFEAAA2F48%7D&dist=hppr

and this:

http://www.worldmag.com/webextra/14613

I have to say that as a resident of California I've never seen such discord over a ballot intiative in recent memory. Everywhere I drive, I see gangs of folks on corners with signs. I see more contention over this initiative then over the Presidential race. People are taking this one personally, and passionately. And the commercials are viscious- dragging kids into the middle of it, which though the proposal might indirectly affect, has nothing to do directly with the proposal. IMHO, that smacks of desperation. But as this could have reprecussions on the rest of the country, it's definitely getting a lot of attention.

People do not like change...

Discuss

 

[Ben Niehoff]

Weird, I live in LA and I haven't seen any of this controversy. Plenty of stickers and signs for both sides, but no crowds of people or violence. I don't watch TV, so I have no idea how it's being covered in the news.

 

[lisab]

Well, I cetainly think gays must have the same rights as straights. That's just a matter of fairness.

But there can be a compromise on this, I think.

All unions between two people should be termed by government to be "civil unions."

The word "marriage" should be a religious term, defined by each church as they see fit.

If two people in a civil union want to be married, they should be allowed to go to a church they choose and the church will make the detemination if that should be allowed, based on that church's definition of marriage.

But if two people in a civil union don't want to be "married", they should still have the all same legal rights as couples who are married.

This way, everyone gets the same rights.

 

[siddharth]

The word "marriage" should be a religious term, defined by each church as they see fit.

Why should "marriage" be a religious term? I don't see why churches should be allowed to discriminate based on an individual's personal sexual orientation just because of the churches beliefs. I think it is bigotry.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What has always perplexed me about bans on gay marriage is that the logic against these laws seems clear. First of all, if we are talking about marriage in the legal sense only and void of any religious ceremony, then in fact many if not most churches don't recognized these marriages anyway. For example, I know that the Catholics don't recognize a marriage performed by a judge. A marriage must be performed by a priest or it isn't a marriage in the eyes of God. So how can they object to a marriage that they don't recognize as valid in the first place? As long as the Catholics or whomever wish not to recognize gay marriages, that is their right. They can preach about it all day on Sundays.

What's more, there is no definition of marriage in the Constitution. To use the religious definition for civil matters is a violation of the separation of church and State principle.

But, in the event that another church might recognize gay marriage, as some do, then those that don't, seek here to deny freedom of religion for those who do. So bans are gay marriage are a violation of not only the separation of church and State, but also a violation of religious freedom. And those who wish to ammend the Constitution to define "marriage" are violating the spirit if not the letter of the law with regards to the Bill of Rights.

Of course one might argue that we ban other marriages, such as a marriage between a father and daughter, but these bans can be justified because any offspring would be potential victims.

 

[NeoDevin]

Of course one might argue that we ban other marriages, such as a marriage between a father and daughter, but these bans can be justified because any offspring would be potential victims.

I agree with pretty much everything you wrote except for this. This is not a justification for the ban on a marriage between close (genetic) relatives, only for a ban on procreation by close relatives.

 

[Proton Soup]

What has always perplexed me about bans on gay marriage is that the logic against these laws seems clear. First of all, if we are talking about marriage in the legal sense only and void of any religious ceremony, then in fact many if not most churches don't recognized these marriages anyway. For example, I know that the Catholics don't recognize a marriage performed by a judge. A marriage must be performed by a priest or it isn't a marriage in the eyes of God. So how can they object to a marriage that they don't recognize as valid in the first place? As long as the Catholics or whomever wish not to recognize gay marriages, that is their right. They can preach about it all day on Sundays.

What's more, there is no definition of marriage in the Constitution. To use the religious definition for civil matters is a violation of the separation of church and State principle.

But, in the event that another church might recognize gay marriage, as some do, then those that don't, seek here to deny freedom of religion for those who do. So bans are gay marriage are a violation of not only the separation of church and State, but also a violation of religious freedom. And those who wish to ammend the Constitution to define "marriage" are violating the spirit if not the letter of the law with regards to the Bill of Rights.

Of course one might argue that we ban other marriages, such as a marriage between a father and daughter, but these bans can be justified because any offspring would be potential victims.

yes, marriage is often considered a rite in many christian denominations, right up there with communion and baptism. so it seems a little odd that the churches would want the government involved in a religious sacrament, anyway.

that said, the institution of marriage has been seen, by the government at least, as procreative. non-consummation of the marriage is justification for annulment.

as for gay marriage, i think the primary motivation is financial. having a partner legally designated as your spouse allows you to put them on your medical insurance. unless someone would like to provide evidence to the contrary, i don't believe a significant number of gay marriages will result in children.

 

[Zantra]

It's commercials like this that bother me:



It's completely untrue. Children are not taught about this in school at all.

Approximately $68 million has been poured into both sides of this debate-21 million of it coming from outside of California.My personal feeling as that while children don't need to necessarily be taught about this in school, they will be exposed to in some fashion, weather it's through television, the media, through interaction with peers. Anyone who is a parent today realizes how difficult it is to shield a child from these things. Short of home-schooling or strict isolation from society, there's no way to prevent your child from learning about these things, so using that as your premise for passing this proposition is a weak position.

 

[NeoDevin]

non-consummation of the marriage is justification for annulment.

Only if the reasons for non-consummation were not known to both parties beforehand (at least in Canada, maybe not in the States?). For example, if a groom is impotent, and his bride to be was aware of this before the marriage, it is not grounds for annulment in Canada.

as for gay marriage, i think the primary motivation is financial. having a partner legally designated as your spouse allows you to put them on your medical insurance. unless someone would like to provide evidence to the contrary, i don't believe a significant number of gay marriages will result in children.

There are a number of reasons homosexuals want marriage. Tax reasons are one (but that falls under financial, I guess). Power of attorney for another (both for medical treatment, and for financial/legal matters should one partner become unfit to make decisions for themselves) being married cuts out a lot of red tape for these issues. For many it is simply a matter of pride and fighting back against discrimination, anything a straight couple can do, they should be allowed to do as well. Gay marriage would make adoption a lot easier for gay couples, as they would be able to demonstrate a stable home for the child. In addition, many gay couples who do want children get a surrogate mother (or a surrogate father, in the case of 2 women) to carry the child for them, marriage would change the guardianship situation for such children in the event that one spouse died.

I think the biggest reason for most homosexuals is pride/discrimination, rather than anything more pragmatic.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I agree with pretty much everything you wrote except for this. This is not a justification for the ban on a marriage between close (genetic) relatives, only for a ban on procreation by close relatives.

True, but it would get dicey to make that distinction. You have to either enforce a sterility law, or pass laws dictating which married couples may and may not have sex. As we all know, in the latter case, that is the job of the wife.

 

[NeoDevin]

Why would it be any more dicey than the current laws against incest? There are laws against incest, and there are marriage laws, the two don't have to have anything to do with each other. Your point was an argument in favor of laws prohibiting incest, not in favor of preventing relatives from marrying.

Edit: As it stands now, in most states age of consent is lower than marriage age, so people are allowed to have sex before they are allowed to marry. In the case of Georgia, age of consent is 16, marriage age is 15 with parental consent. That is, if their parents agree to it, they can be married before they can have sex. So there you have it, there are already situations, in US law, where a married couple cannot legally have sex.
Other states with similar situations: Missouri, Mississipi
In Pennsylvania, age of consent is 16 (or 14 if partners are within 4 years of each other), but the legal age for marriage without parental consent is 10, provided the girl is pregnant (no restriction on the age of the husband, or even if he must be the father).

Anyways, all this is just to emphasize that there are already many cases in the US in which a couple can legally marry but not legally have sex (I don't know that charges would ever be brought up in such a case, but it is still illegal).

Marriageable Age
Ages of Consent

 

[Moonbear]

I already went through this sort of debate when I lived in OH 4 years ago. It was VICIOUS!

I agree with lisab that civilly, civil unions should be granted to anyone and everyone willing to fill out the right paperwork to define their rights and obligations under the law, regardless of gender, race, religion, fertility status, etc. There should be no discrimination legally.

If religious groups want to have other special ceremonies that further define "marriage" among their membership, that's fine, and protected by freedom of religion, but it should have no functional consequence in the public eyes. For example, Catholics who have previously been divorced cannot be married in a Catholic church, because the church doesn't acknowledge divorce, but someone previously divorced still can be married in a civil ceremony. This is an example of a situation where the religious definition of marriage differs from the civil definition. The Catholic church not giving their "blessing" for such a marriage has no influence outside of the church on matters such as taxation and legal rights should one partner of that marriage become incapacitated for the sake of medical decisions. This is how it should be in all cases.

 

[mgb_phys]

Well, I cetainly think gays must have the same rights as straights. That's just a matter of fairness.

All unions between two people should be termed by government to be "civil unions."

The word "marriage" should be a religious term, defined by each church as they see fit.

This way, everyone gets the same rights.

Now that's just being reasonable.
You are aware that this is an issue involving religion sex and politics aren't you!

 

[Evo]

I don't agree with the term "marriage" as being a religious one. I was married by a judge in a civil ceremony both times, and I was "married", I don't need some religion to allow me that status. Religions need to butt out and realize that all they do is perform a religious ceremony, the church still needs to file the proper legal paperwork otherwise the couple is not "legally" married. Churches are allowed to file the legal paperwork on behalf of the couple, that's all.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't agree with the term "marriage" as being a religious one. I was married by a judge in a civil ceremony both times, and I was "married", I don't need some religion to allow me that status. Religions need to butt out and realize that all they do is perform a religious ceremony, the church still needs to file the proper legal paperwork otherwise the couple is not "legally" married. Churches are allowed to file the legal paperwork on behalf of the couple, that's all.

In principle I agree, and of course you were married by the legal definition, but the fact is that most objections to gay marriage are religion based. And I would bet that the legal contract of marriage does indeed find its origins in religion.

Either way, the distinction between religious marriages and civil marriages is already made in the eyes of the churches. So, as you said, let them worry about their own institutions. To me, bans on gay marriage are an imposition of religious beliefs on the general population.

 

[Math Is Hard]

I voted No. Mainly because Mr. Sulu just got married.

 

[NeoDevin]

History of Marriage

the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history

I don't know of any religion which can make this claim. The legal definition may have been clarified by some churches along the way, but marriage definitely did not originate in any modern religion.

Edit: This was in response to Ivan's post.

 

[Moonbear]

In principle I agree, and of course you were married by the legal definition, but the fact is that most objections to gay marriage are religion based. And I would bet that the legal contract of marriage does indeed find its origins in religion.

Either way, the distinction between religious marriages and civil marriages is already made in the eyes of the churches. So, as you said, let them worry about their own institutions. To me, bans on gay marriage are an imposition of religious beliefs on the general population.

I think you've just voiced my opinion quite clearly. I don't really care what the civil union is called. If it has the name "marriage" or just "civil union" it doesn't matter one way or another to me. What's important to me is that everyone be given the same legal rights. Religious organizations can add their own set of rules of who has what status within their organization, and doesn't have to recognize all the marriages or civil unions that the state recognizes, as long as it has no bearing on legal rights.

Though, as someone who's still single, I also am not fond of the laws that treat married couples differently from single people in terms of things like taxation. I do understand adjusting taxes to account for children being supported by a couple, but if a married couple has no children, I don't think they should get more of a tax break than someone who is still single. If anything, those of us who are single have a harder time affording homes without another person to contribute to the purchase, so I really think it's unfair to give special status to people just because they chanced upon someone to marry.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Though, as someone who's still single, I also am not fond of the laws that treat married couples differently from single people in terms of things like taxation. I do understand adjusting taxes to account for children being supported by a couple, but if a married couple has no children, I don't think they should get more of a tax break than someone who is still single. If anything, those of us who are single have a harder time affording homes without another person to contribute to the purchase, so I really think it's unfair to give special status to people just because they chanced upon someone to marry.

I responded to that in the Obama Tax calculator thread: See the marriage tax penalty. Since the late 60s, I think it was, married people actually pay a higher tax rate, for one because the combined incomes take them to a higher tax bracket than they would be in as individuals. There was also an offset for the personal deduction, but I think that has been changed again.

This may be why Obama's plan gives a larger break to married couples. He may be attempting to correct the unfair tax bias against marriage.

 

[Moonbear]

I responded to that in the Obama Tax calculator thread: See the marriage tax penalty. Since the late 60s, I think it was, married people actually pay a higher tax rate because the combined incomes take them to a higher tax bracket than they would be in as individuals.

That's quite a myth. Every married couple I know benefits from being married. Of course, that's above a certain income level. There's a range of income where it's a penalty, but it's such a low income level that it's hard to imagine any couple actually earning that low of an income as a couple. If I look at tax tables for my income and look at the married tax tables for double my income (i.e., if I had a spouse making exactly the same income I make), it's always better to be married. It's actually the main reason many people I've known have even gotten married. A lot of my social group are fairly progressive and don't hang a lot of weight on the concept of marriage, but are pragmatic enough to decide to get married if there's an advantage to being married over just living together with their partner.

 

[mgb_phys]

There are disadvantages as well.
Married couples get lower state pension than two single people and you get reduced social security if you are cohabiting (at least in the UK). But they weren't allowed to consider a same sex couple as co-habiting.

Ironically some gay rights groups took the government to court over this. There was a law which banned local government spending money on promoting gay relationships - the group claimed that by notrecognising gay couples and paying them more social security it was inbreach of it's own laws.

One of the first celebrity couples to 'marry' (it's not exactly a gay marriage in the UK) is now getting divorced - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7688970.stm

 

[siddharth]

I read that this ban passed? That is quite sad. Are there any statistics on an age-wise break up of the voting? I'm guessing most of the younger people would have voted against the ban. Which would mean, once all the old & discriminatory people die of natural causes, the ban can be overturned.

 

[LowlyPion]

I read that this ban passed? That is quite sad. Are there any statistics on an age-wise break up of the voting? I'm guessing most of the younger people would have voted against the ban. Which would mean, once all the old & discriminatory people die of natural causes, the ban can be overturned.

There will always be inbred pockets that will cling tight to their Bibles. I think you are right that in time this intolerance too will pass.

At least for a time now, the idea that there would be a US Constitutional Amendment banning it, can be set aside.

 

[NeoDevin]

I was just reading somewhere that there are upwards of 3 million absentee/provisional ballots which still need to be counted for prop 8, so there may be hope yet.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

My opinion is that the government has a legitimate interest in seeing people in stable relationships. I think such people live longer, commit fewer crimes, and earn more. I can't back any of that up, I just think it. I also think that the legal commitment that marriage entails is instrumental in securing the government's interest in the matter. Without the legal commitment, the stability disappears with the first spat. I can't imagine what legitimate interest the gov't has in preventing people from making this kind of commitment.

 

[mgb_phys]

Even if it doesn't pass the effect will be the same.
The real complaint is that same sex couples aren't treated the same for mortgages / pensions / adoptions etc - not just that you don't get to wear matching tuxs to city hall.

Anything that is government (eg adoptions/tax) will go to the supreme court under discrimination/equal rights legislation. Anything commercial (eg. mortgages) will bend their rules for anyone with money - you think right now a bank is going to turn down an offer for a foreclosed house because it's from an unmarried couple?

Turning down the prop might actually do more to reduce the importance/status of marriage than passing it!

 

[Riogho]

Of course one might argue that we ban other marriages, such as a marriage between a father and daughter, but these bans can be justified because any offspring would be potential victims.

And the offspring of gays wouldn't be potential victims?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

And the offspring of gays wouldn't be potential victims?

Gays are allowed to marry, they can even marry each other. The only rule in the ban is that there has to be one of each gender.

 

[mgb_phys]

And the offspring of gays wouldn't be potential victims?

I'm assuming the offspring of two gay guys would be YY and so a sort of tougher version of Chuck Norris - although perhaps with better fashion sense!


Gays are allowed to marry - so long as the wife doesn't find out about his boyfriends!

 

[noumed]

To me, bans on gay marriage are an imposition of religious beliefs on the general population.

Can't agree with you more on this one.

Talking to some of my friends who are way more religious than I am, however, they feel like the atheists and agnostics are imposing on them on this issue. That's why they're voting Yes on the proposition.

Maybe the compromise between 'civil union' and 'marriage' might be the best solution that would make everyone happy. Even if the proposition is passed today, I don't see this issue going to rest anytime soon.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Homophobia is the next barrier to be torn down. The problem with people is when they think of homosexuals they get too wrapped up in the sexual act, so what they view is the sexual act and not the people themselves.

 

[LowlyPion]

My opinion is that the government has a legitimate interest in seeing people in stable relationships. I think such people live longer, commit fewer crimes, and earn more. I can't back any of that up, I just think it. I also think that the legal commitment that marriage entails is instrumental in securing the government's interest in the matter. Without the legal commitment, the stability disappears with the first spat. I can't imagine what legitimate interest the gov't has in preventing people from making this kind of commitment.

That's a far too sensible approach. So sensible that it cries out for the interjection of a religious imprimatur or too to throw any consideration of it off kilter.

 

[LowlyPion]

... they feel like the atheists and agnostics are imposing on them on this issue.

No one is urging them to gayness. The only thing apparently sought is legal recognition for the purposes of civil issues. If the Fundamentalists want to worship their God of such intolerance then the Freedom of Religion in the country surely permits that. The only real objection is in their attempts to impose their intolerance on those that don't share their beliefs.

 

[BobG]

Of course one might argue that we ban other marriages, such as a marriage between a father and daughter, but these bans can be justified because any offspring would be potential victims.

I agree with pretty much everything you wrote except for this. This is not a justification for the ban on a marriage between close (genetic) relatives, only for a ban on procreation by close relatives.

Marriage laws have always assumed the couple would have kids and marriage laws tend to reflect that (the laws about inheritance, parental rights, etc).

One could argue that since a gay couple can't procreate, their relationship falls outside the bounds of marriage. The problem, logic-wise, is that heterosexual marriages aren't revoked if the couple never has kids.

Regardless of what you call it, a person should have the right to choose who's going to get their stuff, who's going to make life or death decisions about them if they're incapacitated, etc, even if the person chooses a close friend or one of their kids instead of their spouse.

The argument over what you call the relationship is kind of trivial.

(I guess it would be kind of an interesting situation where a person gets hit by a bus while they're in the middle of getting a divorce, but still married. You might not want a person trying to avoid alimony payments making the decision about whether you're removed from life support or not.)

 

[Proton Soup]

No one is urging them to gayness. The only thing apparently sought is legal recognition for the purposes of civil issues. If the Fundamentalists want to worship their God of such intolerance then the Freedom of Religion in the country surely permits that. The only real objection is in their attempts to impose their intolerance on those that don't share their beliefs.

so civil unions are an acceptable compromise?