Is Polygamy Legally Permitted in Canada?

[G01]

Kenneth Oberman Commentary:



I think this sums up my overall view on the subject. It's not about what you believe, it's about live and let live- it's about doing unto others as you'd you have them do unto you. So much for love thy neighbor. That is one of greatest contradictions/hypocrisies of religion. 70 years ago it was Jews. 30 years ago it was blacks. The human condition never improves- it only seems to morph into different forms of intolerence. 30 years from now I'm guessing we'll still be going through this same song and dance about some segment of the people: the next target of organized religion and small-minded, fearful bigots. If nothing else, human beings are predictable.

This was a good commentary. It sums up my views completely.

What is it to these people if gay people can get civil marriages? Their church does not have to recognize it. They don't have to recognize it. How would civil gay marriages affect any religion's definition of marriage? They don't have to even be involved.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that some people want separation of church and state, but they only want it to apply to church's other than their own.

 

[russ_watters]

Interestingly enough, Elton John "came out" in favor of the "nuclear option" today:

In December 2005, John and Furnish tied the knot in a civil partnership ceremony in Windsor, England. But, clarified the singer, "We're not married. Let's get that right. We have a civil partnership. What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off, the word marriage."

http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2008-11-12-elton-john_N.htm

I agree. By calling it "marriage", it makes people think they are trying to hijack the institution.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't know what you just said (sorry, it's morning), but let me explain: Until recently marriages were largely arranged and people stuck to each other because they were told to. It's still like that in places.

Arranged marriages are unnatural. My point was that humans, left to their own devices, would tend to make partnerships of a form that we now consider "marriage" just like other animals do. And arranged or not, the biological purpose is procreation.

If marriage is the ultimate expression of love between two people, then yes, I'd say they'd like to be able to show their love for each other like anybody else.

In that case, Proposition 8 was correctly shot down: There is no need to get a piece of paper from the government to confirm that you love someone. If you want to hold a ceremony pledging your love for another person before your friends and family and whatever God you worship, there is nothing in current law preventing it.

 

[russ_watters]

Kenneth Oberman Commentary:



I think this sums up my overall view on the subject. It's not about what you believe, it's about live and let live- it's about doing unto others as you'd you have them do unto you. So much for love thy neighbor. That is one of greatest contradictions/hypocrisies of religion. 70 years ago it was Jews. 30 years ago it was blacks. The human condition never improves- it only seems to morph into different forms of intolerence. 30 years from now I'm guessing we'll still be going through this same song and dance about some segment of the people: the next target of organized religion and small-minded, fearful bigots. If nothing else, human beings are predictable.

So where do you stand on the polygamy issue?

The video is pretty much just an emotional response to something he doesn't try to understand (at least he admits it). It's evident in his tone of voice and the way he quivers when he talks. One quote in particular:

These people want the same chance at permanence and happiness...they want what you want, a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

How in the world does the passage of Prop 8 prevent people from living happily with their partner?!

For that matter, how can we deny those who want two wives the chance to live happily with their partners?

 

[LowlyPion]

I agree. By calling it "marriage", it makes people think they are trying to hijack the institution.

I'd say the only people trying to hijack the word "marriage" are those looking to narrowly define it to meet their own prejudicial social agenda.

 

[LowlyPion]

In that case, Proposition 8 was correctly shot down: There is no need to get a piece of paper from the government to confirm that you love someone.

Except of course Prop 8 was passed.

Proposition 8 is a California State ballot proposition that would amend the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman.

There is no motivation that I can see other than spitefulness by social conservatives that sought to forward the proposition in the first place.

 

[Evo]

I'd say the only people trying to hijack the word "marriage" are those looking to narrowly define it to meet their own prejudicial social agenda.

I agree, religions have no right to the term and no right to dictate what the legal definition of marriage is.

 

[LowlyPion]

For that matter, how can we deny those who want two wives the chance to live happily with their partners?

The reasons for bigamy laws flows from the issues of property and responsibility for children and inheritance.

If you want to sort out the spaghetti of family law and probate issues that would attend any legalization of polygamous marriages feel free to volunteer and offer up some solutions. There are some screwball voters in California and Utah that might find that appealing.

 

[LowlyPion]

I agree, religions have no right to the term and no right to dictate what the legal definition of marriage is.

In these economic times it is a mystery to me how it is they would be devoting resources to even stirring up the pot on the issue. There seems so much more to be done that would be more fruitful than trying to source such spitefulness.

 

[mgb_phys]

For that matter, how can we deny those who want two wives the chance to live happily with their partners?

So gays can't marry cos the bible says no - and you can't have two wives although the bible says yes?

Just out of interest - does the bible say anything about leaving the toilet seat up?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Interestingly enough, Elton John "came out" in favor of the "nuclear option" today: http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2008-11-12-elton-john_N.htm

I agree. By calling it "marriage", it makes people think they are trying to hijack the institution.

He would only be advocating for what I've been calling the "nuclear option" if he thinks that marriage should not be a civil institution for anyone. Having marriage allowed for hetero people and homosexual people only permitted civil unions would be like segregation of the races. Even if hetero people were also allowed to get civil unions... I mean, white people could go into a black restaurant if they wanted to. But a black man going in and sitting down in the counter at a white diner had to expect that they're probably refuse to serve him, not to mention worse things.

The point of the nuclear option would be to completely remove marriage from the civil arena and leave it to the churches, guaranteeing equal treatment under the law by ensuring that the law is only endorsing things which any couple can get. And as I said above, I do agree that a triple or a quadruple, et cetera, probably ought to have the same right, unless someone can present a good argument why they shouldn't.

⚛​

 

[LowlyPion]

Just out of interest - does the bible say anything about leaving the toilet seat up?

It does if you are married to a woman.

Of course your question does point the way to a possible advantage of a gay marriage however.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There is no need to get a piece of paper from the government to confirm that you love someone. If you want to hold a ceremony pledging your love for another person before your friends and family and whatever God you worship, there is nothing in current law preventing it.

§ 18.2-344
Fornication

Any person, not being married, who voluntarily shall have sexual intercourse with any other person, shall be guilty of fornication, punishable as a Class 4 misdemeanor.

http://www.sodomy.org/laws/virginia/fornication.html

This law was struck down only three years ago. So what you say is mostly, but still not entirely true. The fact is that until recently, it was illegal to have sex out of wedlock in many States.

The Virginia Supreme Court Strikes Down the State's Fornication Law,
Indicating that Other States' Antiquated Laws Will Fall if Challenged

http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/grossman/20050125.html

Not only fornication, but also laws against oral and anal sex are still on the books.

 

[Cyrus]

Kenneth Oberman Commentary:



I think this sums up my overall view on the subject. It's not about what you believe, it's about live and let live- it's about doing unto others as you'd you have them do unto you. So much for love thy neighbor. That is one of greatest contradictions/hypocrisies of religion. 70 years ago it was Jews. 30 years ago it was blacks. The human condition never improves- it only seems to morph into different forms of intolerence. 30 years from now I'm guessing we'll still be going through this same song and dance about some segment of the people: the next target of organized religion and small-minded, fearful bigots. If nothing else, human beings are predictable.

Jesus that guys a bozo. I like him sometimes. But he's way too much of an emotional cry baby.

Three hundred fifty five days, four hours twelve point five five five five seconds before I mess my pants hearing myself talk on the news. This DASTARDLY DEED cannot go unpunished. Is there NO JUSTICE?

Oberman=(O'rlley)^-1

Vote....for LOVEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee... don't crush and defeat love. IT IS ...LOVE...that makes the world go round. I talk like William Shatner...but I am not cool like him...this is.....the end.

Please, enough Oberman.

 

[WarPhalange]

Arranged marriages are unnatural. My point was that humans, left to their own devices, would tend to make partnerships of a form that we now consider "marriage" just like other animals do. And arranged or not, the biological purpose is procreation.

Arranged marriages is how it's been for a long time, ever since tribes wanted to make peace with each other and traded daughters or whatever.

Or a merchant wanted to move higher up the ladder.

I really don't know where you are coming from with this "arranged marriages are unnatural" business. It's been going on since humans formed tribes.

Jesus that guys a bozo. I like him sometimes. But he's way too much of an emotional cry baby.

Three hundred fifty five days, four hours twelve point five five five five seconds before I mess my pants hearing myself talk on the news. This DASTARDLY DEED cannot go unpunished. Is there NO JUSTICE?

Oberman=(O'rlley)^-1

Vote....for LOVEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee... don't crush and defeat love. IT IS ...LOVE...that makes the world go round. I talk like William Shatner...but I am not cool like him...this is.....the end.

Please, enough Oberman.

Oh Irony, thy name is Cyrus.

 

[Cyrus]

Arranged marriages is how it's been for a long time, ever since tribes wanted to make peace with each other and traded daughters or whatever.

Or a merchant wanted to move higher up the ladder.

I really don't know where you are coming from with this "arranged marriages are unnatural" business. It's been going on since humans formed tribes.



Oh Irony, thy name is Cyrus.

Five days, fifteen minutes, twenty point three three three three three three three three three three three three three three FOUR seconds until I think of something witty to reply back. IT WILL BE EPIC.

 

[WarPhalange]

until I think of something witty to reply back.

I guess there's a first time for everything.

Seriously, the show is called "Countdown". That's the gimmick.

 

[Cyrus]

Arranged marriages is how it's been for a long time, ever since tribes wanted to make peace with each other and traded daughters or whatever.

Or a merchant wanted to move higher up the ladder.

I really don't know where you are coming from with this "arranged marriages are unnatural" business. It's been going on since humans formed tribes.



Oh Irony, thy name is Cyrus.

I guess there's a first time for everything.

Seriously, the show is called "Countdown". That's the gimmick.

He's good when he corrects people who are factually wrong. Other than that, he's a showboater just like Oreilly.

Oreilly likes to yell, Oberman likes to ramble on and on like its some sort of drama screening for a movie part. They should play the music to days of our lives when he wrambles on.

 

[Gokul43201]

I would say that the bond formed between any two higher level animals due to their biological predisposition to procreate is what we call "love" and marriage is just a human formalization of that bond.

So you believe homosexual beings can't "love" each other?

 

[WarPhalange]

He's good when he corrects people who are factually wrong. Other than that, he's a showboater just like Oreilly.

Oreilly likes to yell, Oberman likes to ramble on and on like its some sort of drama screening for a movie part. They should play the music to days of our lives when he wrambles on.

Skip to 1:40.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I would say that the bond formed between any two higher level animals due to their biological predisposition to procreate is what we call "love" and marriage is just a human formalization of that bond.

So you believe homosexual beings can't "love" each other?

Also, although we can't start discussing religion of course, it seems pertinent to note in passing that this principle would have interesting consequences for any monotheistic religion in which the god does not require the help of other beings to procreate and whether love would be possible from that god in that case. But this really must only be noted in passing, we can't debate the answer to that question and I'm expressing no opinion either way, all we can do is observe that such a question might be prompted by such a principle relative to such a religion.

⚛​

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The reasons for bigamy laws flows from the issues of property and responsibility for children and inheritance.

If you want to sort out the spaghetti of family law and probate issues that would attend any legalization of polygamous marriages feel free to volunteer and offer up some solutions. There are some screwball voters in California and Utah that might find that appealing.

What would the mess be? Divorce, probate, child custody, ect are all rather messy issues most often anyway. The standard decisions in cases without mitigating factors (wills / contest for custody / ect) would hardly have to change at all as far as I can tell.

 

[BobG]

The reasons for bigamy laws flows from the issues of property and responsibility for children and inheritance.

If you want to sort out the spaghetti of family law and probate issues that would attend any legalization of polygamous marriages feel free to volunteer and offer up some solutions. There are some screwball voters in California and Utah that might find that appealing.

What would the mess be? Divorce, probate, child custody, ect are all rather messy issues most often anyway. The standard decisions in cases without mitigating factors (wills / contest for custody / ect) would hardly have to change at all as far as I can tell.

Divorced men paying child support remarry. If they have kids with their second (or third or fourth) wife and divorce, the court has to sort out who gets how much child support. Of course, the catch is that subsequent wives already know the guy has a commitment to pay child support for kids from previous marriages, so she knows the potential impact to her own kids.

A woman who is the second wife in a polygamous marriage doesn't necessarily know the husband is going to have three more kids with his first wife, which makes it a little harder to determine whose kids have priority for child support.

When a married man with kids knocks up the local waittress and she sues for child support, things get a little messier. The waittress's success in getting child support unfairly penalizes the current wife and her children.

What kind of spaghetti of family law can handle the situation where the father-in-law is the biological parent of his daughter-in-law's kids? Or when grandma is knocked up with her son-in-law's sperm and her daughter's eggs? (Impregnating your mother-in-law)

As messy as family law is, people are messier.

 

[russ_watters]

So you believe homosexual beings can't "love" each other?

I said almost exactly the opposite of that in other posts, Gokul. I can't understand how you could misread what I said so badly.

 

[russ_watters]

The reasons for bigamy laws flows from the issues of property and responsibility for children and inheritance.

That's not true. Did you read the Wiki article on Reynolds v United States, I cited? It never mentions property rights or responsibility for children. It says:

The most important ruling of the case was over whether Reynolds could use a defense due to religious belief or duty. Reynolds had argued that as a Mormon, it was his religious duty as a male member of the church to practice polygamy if possible.

The Supreme Court recognized that under the First Amendment, the Congress cannot pass a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion. However it argued that the law prohibiting bigamy did not fall under this. The fact that a person could only be married to one person had existed since the times of King James I of England in English law on which United States law was based.

Although the constitution did not define religion, the Court investigated the history of religious freedom in the United States. In the ruling, the court quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he stated that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief. The former "lies solely between man and his God," therefore "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions." The court argued that if polygamy was allowed, how long before someone argued that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." The Court believed the true spirit of the First Amendment was that Congress could not legislate against opinion but could legislate against action.

In these economic times it is a mystery to me how it is they would be devoting resources to even stirring up the pot on the issue. There seems so much more to be done that would be more fruitful than trying to source such spitefulness.

You have it backwards: the reason that the outcome was such a shock is because only the opponents of Prop 8 (proponents of gay marriage) who devoted significant resources to the issue.

 

[russ_watters]

He would only be advocating for what I've been calling the "nuclear option" if he thinks that marriage should not be a civil institution for anyone. Having marriage allowed for hetero people and homosexual people only permitted civil unions would be like segregation of the races. Even if hetero people were also allowed to get civil unions... I mean, white people could go into a black restaurant if they wanted to. But a black man going in and sitting down in the counter at a white diner had to expect that they're probably refuse to serve him, not to mention worse things.

The point of the nuclear option would be to completely remove marriage from the civil arena and leave it to the churches, guaranteeing equal treatment under the law by ensuring that the law is only endorsing things which any couple can get. And as I said above, I do agree that a triple or a quadruple, et cetera, probably ought to have the same right, unless someone can present a good argument why they shouldn't.

⚛​

I'm not sure if that is true or not (his position), but I'd be fine with it either way. For legal puposes, I don't see any reason why there needs to be an institution of marriage. I know people who have long term commitments to partners and have no plans to get married because they don't believe in the institution (they are athiest and believe "marriage" to be a religious thing). I see no reason why the government shouldn't recognize their non-religious union.

[edit] Why don't we also explore how far we should take this: you've all heard of "common law mariage", right? Does it only apply to people of opposite sexes? Does it require love? Romantic or Philios? Why can't two people of the same or opposite sex, who decide for whatever personal reasons to live together for an extended period of time adopt kids together and/or get tax breaks?

 

[russ_watters]

This law was struck down only three years ago. So what you say is mostly, but still not entirely true. The fact is that until recently, it was illegal to have sex out of wedlock in many States...

Not only fornication, but also laws against oral and anal sex are still on the books.

I guess I don't see what your point is. I fully recognize that laws regarding sexuality are still archaic in many places and I fully recognize (as Olbert said) that our racial laws were archaic until relatively recently, but I don't see what that has to do with this issue. I think the attempt to connect them is a strawman.

 

[Evo]

Divorced men paying child support remarry.

Don't forget that women pay child support if a child lives with the husband, and women also have to pay maintenance to keep up their ex-husband's lifestyle if the woman makes more money.

 

[russ_watters]

Arranged marriages is how it's been for a long time, ever since tribes wanted to make peace with each other and traded daughters or whatever.

Or a merchant wanted to move higher up the ladder.

I really don't know where you are coming from with this "arranged marriages are unnatural" business. It's been going on since humans formed tribes.

You seem to know where I'm coming from with it, since you said it in your last sentence! Prior to tribalization (beginning of formal organizational structures), we were ruled more by our animalistic instincts. Arranged marriage is a bad thing because it goes against those instincts. It should be obvious why.

This is all off track, though: my point is that the reason "marriage" came to exist is it is a formalization of a biological bond that exists for procreation.

You guys know me as the forum pedant - I don't like changing definitions of words just because people feel like it. If gays want to fall in love and have a ceremony to annouce that love, go for it! But it isn't marriage. Heck, I may even be ok with calling it "gay marriage" because like "tofu burger" it puts a qualifier on the term for differentiation from the traditional meaning of it.

 

[Gokul43201]

You said:

I would say that the bond formed between any two higher level animals due to their biological predisposition to procreate is what we call "love" and marriage is just a human formalization of that bond.

I take that to mean: "love" is the bond formed between heterosexual organisms predisposed to procreate.

And that prompted my question...

So you believe homosexual beings can't "love" each other?

...to which you replied:

I said almost exactly the opposite of that in other posts, Gokul. I can't understand how you could misread what I said so badly.

I haven't read all the posts in this thread.

Are you saying I have misread the post of yours that I quoted above, or are you saying you have contradicted that post in other posts you made?

 

[kathrynag]

I am very dissapointed that there is a ban. I actually have 2 moms and firmly believe that if you love someone you should be granted the same rights as someone else and be able to marry that person regardelss of whether you're a woman marrying another woman or a woman marrying a man.

 

[Evo]

This is all off track, though: my point is that the reason "marriage" came to exist is it is a formalization of a biological bond that exists for procreation.

I believe marriage was formalized more for solidifying claims for wealth and possessions. That is historically the reason.

 

[WarPhalange]

You seem to know where I'm coming from with it, since you said it in your last sentence! Prior to tribalization (beginning of formal organizational structures), we were ruled more by our animalistic instincts. Arranged marriage is a bad thing because it goes against those instincts. It should be obvious why.

Uhhh... before tribalization? Even our ancestors and cousins were tribal. I don't now how far back you want to go, but there's no real telling how our ancestors and such lived, and before them you couldn't even have love as they didn't have the brain power.

I mean The Bible already starts with tribes, and I'm referring to the smaller camps, not some 5000 person city or whatever.

This is all off track, though: my point is that the reason "marriage" came to exist is it is a formalization of a biological bond that exists for procreation.

Why would you formalize it? What reason is there for that? Tribal cultures didn't care about court documents proclaiming your love for one another.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

my point is that the reason "marriage" came to exist is it is a formalization of a biological bond that exists for procreation.

Why do you make statements as if they are a fact when you can't possibly know?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I guess I don't see what your point is. I fully recognize that laws regarding sexuality are still archaic in many places and I fully recognize (as Olbert said) that our racial laws were archaic until relatively recently, but I don't see what that has to do with this issue. I think the attempt to connect them is a strawman.

A strawman for what? Why are you always so suspicious of motive? It was just an observation.