# B.C. court to weigh polygamy laws



## Scott T (Nov 22, 2010)

> Mon. Nov. 22 2010 11:31 AM ET
> 
> The British Columbia Supreme Court begins hearing the case against multiple marriages Monday, spurred by repeated, failed efforts to prosecute members of a small commune of polygamists.
> The case going before the B.C. court stems from a series of attempts since the early 1990s to prosecute the leaders of Bountiful, a fundamentalist Mormon community of 1,000 near the province's U.S. border.
> ...


 
Veddy eeenteresting...


----------



## zDom (Nov 23, 2010)

I've never understood why governments thinks they should be criminalizing polygamy.

The "to protect women and children" argument just doesn't wash, IMO. 

Yes, prosecute forcing children into "marriages" regardless of whether it happens in the context of monogamy or polygamy.

But polygamous marriages between consenting adults? Whose business is that?

Polygamists should be joining homosexuals in the fight for the right to marry who they want.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Nov 23, 2010)

zDom said:


> I've never understood why governments thinks they should be criminalizing polygamy.
> 
> The "to protect women and children" argument just doesn't wash, IMO.


 
Interesting. Have you read any autiobigraphies of women who were "brides" in polygamous groups? It's not a pretty picture.



> Yes, prosecute forcing children into "marriages" regardless of whether it happens in the context of monogamy or polygamy.
> 
> But polygamous marriages between consenting adults? Whose business is that?


 
It's society's business just as it is society's business when anyone gets married. The state has a right to regulate marriage in order to promote the common good, which includes fostering a culture that will encourage strong marriages that produce children in order that the society continues. Is it an absolute right to legislate every aspect of bhavior associated with marriage? Obviously not. But neither is it a matter of privacy since the family is the building block of society.



> Polygamists should be joining homosexuals in the fight for the right to marry who they want.


 
Regardless of how one views polygmy or homosexual "marriage" this attitude is quite wrong. Despite the issue of disagreeing on the number of people who can contractmarriage, polygamists view the differences between men and women as being real and integral to marriage. The supporter of gay "marriage" does not. The homosexual activist has more in common with the woman who married a dolphin or the woman who married the Eiffel Tower; they all think that marriage depends not on any inherent reality but on the desires of the parties involved. As a friend of mine said during a conversation we were having with another friend who is gay told him: "You should be able to marry anybody. You should be able to marry a door knob." I had to demure on that point as it would make marriage meaningless. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 23, 2010)

zDom said:


> I've never understood why governments thinks they should be criminalizing polygamy.
> 
> The "to protect women and children" argument just doesn't wash, IMO.
> 
> ...


Why should I have to spend a dime of tax money feeding some guy's one hundred children? When some guy's views on marriage costs me money, I get to decide what is and what isn't OK.
Sean


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 23, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> Interesting. Have you read any autiobigraphies of women who were "brides" in polygamous groups? It's not a pretty picture.


 
I'm familiar with what you're talking about, but the problem with those situations is of coercion and consent. Polygamy itself is just the marriage of more than 2 people; not all people advocating the legalization of polygamy are members of church cults.





> It's society's business just as it is society's business when anyone gets married. The state has a right to regulate marriage in order to promote the common good, which includes fostering a culture that will encourage strong marriages that produce children in order that the society continues. Is it an absolute right to legislate every aspect of bhavior associated with marriage? Obviously not. But neither is it a matter of privacy since the family is the building block of society.


 
Actually, the family being the building block of society was the original basis of privacy laws. The case of _Planned Parenthood v. Connecticut_ (I'll get the cite for it later), which was relied upon in _Roe v. Wade_, showed that police could not enforce the anti-contraception laws without breaching the sanctity of the marriage relationship, and thus the laws were unconstitutional. I'm bringing this up because "the family" was relied upon to keep the government out of private affairs, not to justify involving it in them.





> The supporter of gay "marriage" does not. The homosexual activist has more in common with the woman who married a dolphin or the woman who married the Eiffel Tower; they all think that marriage depends not on any inherent reality but on the desires of the parties involved.


 
Um......what?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 23, 2010)

Touch Of Death said:


> Why should I have to spend a dime of tax money feeding some guy's one hundred children? When some guy's views on marriage costs me money, I get to decide what is and what isn't OK.
> Sean


 
What about the monogamous couple who have 12 kids? Do you get the right to have them sterilized?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 23, 2010)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> What about the monogamous couple who have 12 kids? Do you get the right to have them sterilized?


No, but if you do a little simple math, we are talking about a difference of 88 people. In some states, and provinces that is a lot of flippin' people. And don't forget the twenty Moms with their wellfare career in full force.
Sean


----------



## chrispillertkd (Nov 23, 2010)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> I'm familiar with what you're talking about, but the problem with those situations is of coercion and consent. Polygamy itself is just the marriage of more than 2 people; not all people advocating the legalization of polygamy are members of church cults.


 
 zDom said he didn't understand the "protecting women and children" aspect of polygamy laws. I simply pointed out the reason for people talking about protecting women and children. 

FWIW, I am unfamiliar of any societies that practice polygamy that don't also include child-brides. There could be some out there, but I am unaware of them (I'd be interested in hearing about any that exist). 



> Actually, the family being the building block of society was the original basis of privacy laws. The case of _Planned Parenthood v. Connecticut_ (I'll get the cite for it later), which was relied upon in _Roe v. Wade_, showed that police could not enforce the anti-contraception laws without breaching the sanctity of the marriage relationship, and thus the laws were unconstitutional. I'm bringing this up because "the family" was relied upon to keep the government out of private affairs, not to justify involving it in them.


 
 I dare say that the family being the building block of society is quite the opposite of what those two SC decisions have in mind. I am unsure how society promoting marriages that result in children squares with abortion and contraception. YMMV. 



> Um......what?


 
As I stated above, polygamists at least recognize that marriage is an institution that involves men and women. What they disagree with monogamists about is the number of woman a man can marry. 

Advocates of gay "marriage" simply don't even see this basic aspect of marriage. The differences between marrying one woman or marrying four women is less than the difference between marrying a woman and marrying (another) man. Such a "marriage" has more in common with the two examples of "marriage" i cited because they are all based on fictions. My gay friend I mentioned could no more marry another man than the women in the examples I gave (both of which actually happened) could marry a dolphin or the Eiffel Tower.

Advocates of gay "marriage" have no ally in polygamists for this reason. The polygamists realize marriages are between men and women. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 23, 2010)

The polygamists may realise that "marriage is between men and women" but it is loaded in favour of men, these cults that promote these multiple marriages don't allow women to have more than one husband. It's a perversion, there's no good in this for women or children.


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 23, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> The polygamists may realise that "marriage is between men and women" but it is loaded in favour of men, these cults that promote these multiple marriages don't allow women to have more than one husband. It's a perversion, there's no good in this for women or children.


 
I've read articles that argue the opposite position, that polygamy benefits women to the detriment of men. The rationale given went something like this: it is advantageous for multiple women to share the resources of a successful man - to give an extreme example, Tiger Woods - than for one woman to monopolize him. Whereas monogamy is advantageous to men because it ensures that a small pool of successful men are not hoarding the womenfolk, reducing the mating options of the less fortunate. It was an interesting article, I don't know if I agree with it but I wish I could remember where I found it. IIRC, it focused more on Middle Eastern cultures rather than Mormons, and I think the author was trying to make a point about how polygamy contributed to some of the sexual frustration that, in his opinion, led to religious fundamentalism.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 23, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> I've read articles that argue the opposite position, that polygamy benefits women to the detriment of men. The rationale given went something like this: it is advantageous for multiple women to share the resources of a successful man - to give an extreme example, Tiger Woods - than for one woman to monopolize him. Whereas monogamy is advantageous to men because it ensures that a small pool of successful men are not hoarding the womenfolk, reducing the mating options of the less fortunate. It was an interesting article, I don't know if I agree with it but I wish I could remember where I found it. IIRC, it focused more on Middle Eastern cultures rather than Mormons, and I think the author was trying to make a point about how polygamy contributed to some of the sexual frustration that, in his opinion, led to religious fundamentalism.


 

Bet those articles were written by men


----------



## Scott T (Nov 23, 2010)

For me it does come down to choice between consenting _adults (16 y.o. and up in Canada_).If those individuals want to sleep more than two to a bed, let 'em.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 23, 2010)

Scott T said:


> For me it does come down to choice between consenting _adults (16 y.o. and up in Canada_).If those individuals want to sleep more than two to a bed, let 'em.


 

As long as it is consenting, many of these 'wives' don't have a choice.


----------



## Scott T (Nov 23, 2010)

From what I understand, the ones who are forced are generally underage, which generally takes them out of 'consenting adult' status.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 23, 2010)

Scott T said:


> From what I understand, the ones who are forced are generally underage, which generally takes them out of 'consenting adult' status.


 

There's more than one way to force someone, as in arranged marriages, family, society etc can make someone marry against their will.


----------



## Scott T (Nov 23, 2010)

Sure, but most of the arranged marriages are for the underage girls, as their first marriages happen when they are between 12-14.

Another bad side-effect of striking the law down is BC's population explosion when half of Utah moves there.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Nov 23, 2010)

To me the Crown has no right to tell an individual how they can live their lives. (Yes in cases of harm to themselves and/or to other, the Crown has an obligation to step in).

If homosexuals wish to marry they should have that right.
If someone wishes to marry more then one person, (multiple husbands or wives) why should the state be concerned about the private lives of individuals? Provided all parties are of the age of consent and everyone is there of their own free will, there is no coercion at all, then they should be allowed to marry as many times they wish.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 23, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> To me the Crown has no right to tell an individual how they can live their lives. (Yes in cases of harm to themselves and/or to other, the Crown has an obligation to step in).
> 
> If homosexuals wish to marry they should have that right.
> If someone wishes to marry more then one person, (multiple husbands or wives) why should the state be concerned about the private lives of individuals? Provided all parties are of the age of consent and everyone is there of their own free will, there is no coercion at all, then they should be allowed to marry as many times they wish.



It's a contract.  That's the only business the government should have in the matter.  Let people make value judgements and choose to enter or not enter into a contract.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 23, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> To me the Crown has no right to tell an individual how they can live their lives. (Yes in cases of harm to themselves and/or to other, the Crown has an obligation to step in).
> 
> If homosexuals wish to marry they should have that right.
> If someone wishes to marry more then one person, (multiple husbands or wives) why should the state be concerned about the private lives of individuals? Provided all parties are of the age of consent and everyone is there of their own free will, there is no coercion at all, then they should be allowed to marry as many times they wish.


It's your dime.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 23, 2010)

If the people that engaged in this behavior didn't decide to live on government money, I could see it as a freedom of choice issue, but this behavior costs the government big bucks. It is simply a bad choice until it gets payed for independantly.
Sean


----------



## Ray (Nov 23, 2010)

Scott T said:


> Another bad side-effect of striking the law down is BC's population explosion when half of Utah moves there.


I doubt that half of Utah's population is polygamous...Even if they were, I doubt all of the polygamists would move.

Comment strikes me like one I heard in a Japanese restaurant the other night.  2 couples were sitting at the other end of the grill and they were talking about telephone solicitors.  One guy described how he handled those calls...then he says "And I greet mormon missionaries with my shotgun."  I could change "mormon missionaries" to any one of several other groups of people and it would sound so unacceptable...but what the heck, it's only mormon missionaries.


----------



## Scott T (Nov 23, 2010)

Ray said:


> I doubt that half of Utah's population is polygamous...Even if they were, I doubt all of the polygamists would move.
> 
> Comment strikes me like one I heard in a Japanese restaurant the other night. 2 couples were sitting at the other end of the grill and they were talking about telephone solicitors. One guy described how he handled those calls...then he says "And I greet mormon missionaries with my shotgun." I could change "mormon missionaries" to any one of several other groups of people and it would sound so unacceptable...but what the heck, it's only mormon missionaries.


 Sorry, If I were going to mock religion on this or any other thread, it would be all of them. I'm pretty equal-opportunity when it comes to religions.

So take the joke for what it is, or don't. Just don't start making assumptions about me.


----------



## Ray (Nov 23, 2010)

Scott T said:


> Sorry, If I were going to mock religion on this or any other thread, it would be all of them. I'm pretty equal-opportunity when it comes to religions.
> 
> So take the joke for what it is, or don't. Just don't start making assumptions about me.


I don't make any assumptions about you.  Just your "joke," it wasn't funny, sound stereotypically prejudice and based in ignorance.  I suppose that it makes it easier if you "mock all religions."


----------



## Scott T (Nov 23, 2010)

Ray said:


> I don't make any assumptions about you. Just your "joke," it wasn't funny, sound stereotypically prejudice and based in ignorance. I suppose that it makes it easier if you "mock all religions."


Much easier. It was always hard when I actually respected organized religion.

**and no, that wasn't a joke**


----------



## Ray (Nov 23, 2010)

Scott T said:


> Much easier. It was always hard when I actually respected organized religion.
> 
> **and no, that wasn't a joke**


How about disorganized religion or other beliefs that others may have?  Is it natural for us to minimize them as well?


----------



## Ken Morgan (Nov 23, 2010)

Touch Of Death said:


> It's your dime.
> Sean


 
Many of the people who are polygamist right now live on welfare because they live in commune communities or live &#8220;underground&#8221;, simply because they do not want to be found out. 

I know of many white males and females who don&#8217;t work and live off of our welfare system and are happy to do so. I have friends who have had arranged marriages, got a great dowry, brought the new wife to Canada, had four kids and the mom collects assistance. Remember that argument a few years ago in Toronto? The one about wanting to limit Jamaicans from coming to Canada because they participated in a disproportionate amount of criminal activities? 

To say all polygamists are deadbeats that rely on government handouts is an erroneous argument. You can&#8217;t say that about any particular group and have it hold water.

You can not paint all group with the same brush. 

Personally...way the hell would anyone want more then one wife????


----------



## Scott T (Nov 23, 2010)

Ray said:


> How about disorganized religion or other beliefs that others may have? Is it natural for us to minimize them as well?


 Since we're getting way off topic here, I will end my participation in this particular line of discourse with this: 

*I respect any religion that preaches the idea that you have the right to think for yourself. That requires neither a man behind a pulpit nor a man on a tv screen. No Golden Gate as a reward. No Fire and Brimstone as punishment. *

If a religion requires a modern liaison between you and a long-dead holy man to survive and save your soul, then it's nothing more than a mechanism of control that has the benefit of steady income for those at the top.


----------



## David43515 (Nov 23, 2010)

Scott T said:


> Sorry, If I were going to mock religion on this or any other thread, it would be all of them. I'm pretty equal-opportunity when it comes to religions.
> 
> So take the joke for what it is, or don't. Just don't start making assumptions about me.


 
No harm done I suppose, but the first time around it just wasn`t very clear that it was a joke.

I`m Mormon (one wife and that`s plenty thanks) and have been for nearly 25 years. The only polygamists I`ve ever met were in Ohio.....and they were not religious in any way shape or form. They just preffered to have a more open relationship. For the record, most Utah Moroms think that Polygamists are wierd.

Polygamy started, at least among Mormons, because the women outnumbered the men quite a bit and there were no social saftey-nets (unemployment, welfare, food stamps, etc).And at the time it wasn`t illegal. Female converts to the new relion generally outnumbered men, and many men were killed by mobs that opposed the Church`s beleifs. While many of the marriages were genuine family affairs, many were on paper only, similar to civil war veterans in thier 60`s "marrying" young girls in their teens who worked as maids and nurses. The vets couldn`t pay much, but the girls would be assured of recieving widows` penssions from the Defense Dept.

And at the height of polygamy in the 1890`s, less than 15% of LDS families were polygamous. It wasn`t something a man usually decided on his own. Generally community leaders would approach someone who`s business was doing well and suggest that he consider it because he could obviously support a larger family. 

Personally I`m glad the Church gave up the practice. But just because I choose not to do something, I don`t think that I have the right to tell consenting adults how to live thier lives if it doesn`t harm me.


----------



## David43515 (Nov 23, 2010)

Touch Of Death said:


> If the people that engaged in this behavior didn't decide to live on government money, I could see it as a freedom of choice issue, but this behavior costs the government big bucks. It is simply a bad choice until it gets payed for independantly.
> Sean


 
Couldn`t have said it better. Many of these familes live on welfare because they can`t work out in the open for fear of being arrested for polygamy. The Govt`s main complaint has always been one of costs and property rights. Having 12 women and 86 children collecting survivors` benefits when John dies is much more costly than one wife and 3 kids.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 23, 2010)

David43515 said:


> Couldn`t have said it better. Many of these familes live on welfare because they can`t work out in the open for fear of being arrested for polygamy. The Govt`s main complaint has always been one of costs and property rights. Having 12 women and 86 children collecting survivors` benefits when John dies is much more costly than one wife and 3 kids.



Why do we assume that welfare has to exist?

Under those conditions, forming cooperative groups that can work in the open with freedom, makes a lot more sense.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 24, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> FWIW, I am unfamiliar of any societies that practice polygamy that don't also include child-brides. There could be some out there, but I am unaware of them (I'd be interested in hearing about any that exist).


 

Depends upon _which form_ of polygamy you're talking about, then, doesn't it? Some societies-like Tibetan nomads and Sri Lanka-practice _polyandry_, that is to say, a wife with more than one husband. Some societies also practice(d) group marriages, with more than one husband and wife,such as occured in Polynesian, Melanesian and Hawaiian societies, where brothers might form a family unit with their respective wives. There was also group marriage among the Lakota, as well as a few Australian aboriginal tribes.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 24, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> The homosexual activist has more in common with the woman who married a dolphin or the woman who married the Eiffel Tower; they all think that marriage depends not on any inherent reality but on the desires of the parties involved. As a friend of mine said during a conversation we were having with another friend who is gay told him: "You should be able to marry anybody. You should be able to marry a door knob." I had to demure on that point as it would make marriage meaningless.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


 

Neither the door knob, the Eiffel Tower or the dolphin can consent, which _should_ be a key element of a legal, civil union/marriage (NEWSFLASH:*all* legal marriages are "civil unions") in a free society, sot the comparison is somewhat specious.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 24, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> .Advocates of gay "marriage" have no ally in polygamists for this reason. The polygamists realize marriages are between men and women.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


 
ANd yet, in Canada, these polygamists used Candada's legal gay marriage as a defense against charges of polygamy (bigamy?):



> VANCOUVER, British Columbia  Canada's decision to legalize gay marriage has paved the way for polygamy to be legal as well, a defense lawyer said Wednesday as the two leaders of rival polygamous communities made their first court appearance.
> The case is the first to test Canada's polygamy laws.
> Winston Blackmore, 52, and James Oler, 44, are each accused of being married to more than one woman at a time. The charges carry a maximum penalty of five years in prison, British Columbia Attorney General Wally Oppal said.
> But Blackmore's lawyer, Blair Suffredine, said during a telephone interview that marriage standards in Canada have changed.
> "If (homosexuals) can marry, what is the reason that public policy says one person can't marry more than one person?" said Suffredine, a former provincial lawmaker. Canada's Parliament extended full marriage rights to same-sex couples in 2005.


:lfao:


----------



## Ray (Nov 24, 2010)

Scott T said:


> Since we're getting way off topic here, I will end my participation in this particular line of discourse with this:
> 
> *I respect any religion that preaches the idea that you have the right to think for yourself. That requires neither a man behind a pulpit nor a man on a tv screen. No Golden Gate as a reward. No Fire and Brimstone as punishment. *
> 
> If a religion requires a modern liaison between you and a long-dead holy man to survive and save your soul, then it's nothing more than a mechanism of control that has the benefit of steady income for those at the top.


Thanks, I appreciate that.  Normally, I'm not sensitive to mormon jokes, or the joking stereotypes that we all probably use at one time or another.  I was just still not over my conversation with the guy at the japanese restaurant who said he greeted the mormons with his shotgun...he smiled as he mentioned how he cocked it and pointed it at them; then laughed as he described how they ran.

I'm opposed to polygamy.  I know there are supposed legal advantages to "legal" marriages, but am beginning to wonder and think it's time for me to do some research into it.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Nov 24, 2010)

elder999 said:


> Depends upon _which form_ of polygamy you're talking about, then, doesn't it? Some societies-like Tibetan nomads and Sri Lanka-practice _polyandry_, that is to say, a wife with more than one husband.


 
The article, and the conversation thus far, and my own comments about child _brides_ made it pretty clear that polygyny was what was being discussed. I am unaware of any culture that practices polygyny that doesn't include the marrying of female children. I would be interested in knowing of any that exist. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd (Nov 24, 2010)

elder999 said:


> Neither the door knob, the Eiffel Tower or the dolphin can consent, which _should_ be a key element of a legal, civil union/marriage (NEWSFLASH:*all* legal marriages are "civil unions") in a free society, sot the comparison is somewhat specious.


 
Why? If, as some people claim, the state has no business regulating marriage at all what difference does it make if one of the parties doesn't consent? That's certainly not my position but you do hear people talking about how the state just get out of the marriage business all together. If that's the case then your point about consent is irrelevant. Conversely, the appeal to the consent of the parties involved is an appeal to an inherent nature of marriage in the first place, which is exactly the position of the anti-gay "marriage" people. Interesting.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd (Nov 24, 2010)

elder999 said:


> ANd yet, in Canada, these polygamists used Candada's legal gay marriage as a defense against charges of polygamy (bigamy?):
> 
> 
> :lfao:


 
It seems from the article that the argument is that since gays can "marry" polygamists shoud be able to since that's less of a variation from monogamy than homosexual "marriage" is in the first place. It's not really a matter of pushing things further but pointing out that they've already redefined marriage in the first place. 

That's not the same thing as being in support of gay "marriage," it's using an already existing law to support your position. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Blade96 (Nov 24, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> Interesting. Have you read any autiobigraphies of women who were "brides" in polygamous groups? It's not a pretty picture.





Tez3 said:


> The polygamists may realise that "marriage is between men and women" but it is loaded in favour of men, these cults that promote these multiple marriages don't allow women to have more than one husband. It's a perversion, there's no good in this for women or children.



This story about Teressa Wall and her family's fight might be of interest. 

http://www.marieclaire.com/world-reports/news/latest/polygamist-cult-kids-wife


----------



## elder999 (Nov 24, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> The article, and the conversation thus far, and my own comments about child _brides_ made it pretty clear that polygyny was what was being discussed. I am unaware of any culture that practices polygyny that doesn't include the marrying of female children. I would be interested in knowing of any that exist.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


 

Well, it depends upon how you define "marriage," and how you define _"child."_

In Senegal, for example, polygyny is legal-a man can have up to four wives. The minimum legal age for marriage for a woman is 16. While you or I might define that as a child, in some cultures it clearly is not.

In some cultures, both monogamous and polygamous, arranged marriages take place between people who are, quite literally, children-often as young as 9 years old, but more typically around 12. The children continue to live with their parents, and don't live together as man and wife until they reach something resembling a majority, though that may be as young as 15. Again, within their cultural framework, they aren't "children" any more when they do so, and, while they are "married" prior to that, there is no consummation.

Can't say for sure that "child brides" don't take place in this instance, but this article on polygyny in Siberia and Mongolia is interesting.


----------



## Talon (Nov 24, 2010)

zdom said:


> i've never understood why governments thinks they should be criminalizing polygamy.
> 
> The "to protect women and children" argument just doesn't wash, imo.
> 
> ...


 
amen!


----------



## elder999 (Nov 24, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> It's society's business just as it is society's business when anyone gets married. The state has a right to regulate marriage in order to promote the common good, which includes fostering a culture that will encourage strong marriages that produce children in order that the society continues. Is it an absolute right to legislate every aspect of bhavior associated with marriage? Obviously not. But neither is it a matter of privacy since the family is the building block of society.


 
And yet a society that is somewhat slow to permit gay marriage permits gay couples to adopt children _in order that the society continues,_ and the vast majority of states do so.

Societies change, Chris.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 25, 2010)

With regard to homosexual marriage: There are hundreds of legal areas where 'the' married partner has rights or duties. All these laws have been written with the understanding that there is only 1 of those.

Allowing gay couple to marry is not going to change anything to any of the laws, case law and precedent. But a polygamist marriage will be a legal nightmare to sort out.


----------



## Ray (Nov 25, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> But a polygamist marriage will be a legal nightmare to sort out.


What did the US do before the mid-nineteenth century, before polygamy was outlawed?  It was practiced by several groups.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 26, 2010)

Ray said:


> What did the US do before the mid-nineteenth century, before polygamy was outlawed? It was practiced by several groups.


Different economies.
sean


----------



## granfire (Nov 26, 2010)

elder999 said:


> Well, it depends upon how you define "marriage," and how you define _"child."_
> 
> In Senegal, for example, polygyny is legal-a man can have up to four wives. The minimum legal age for marriage for a woman is 16. While you or I might define that as a child, in some cultures it clearly is not.
> 
> ...




Well, in not to distant past legal age to get married off was as young as 14...

However, these laws always only cover one guy and many women...(probably part of the socio-economic dynamics)


----------



## chrispillertkd (Nov 27, 2010)

elder999 said:


> Societies change, Chris.


 
Really? Thanks for the news flash. But not every change is good.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Scott T (Nov 27, 2010)

> _*B.C. outlines 'unprecedented' case against polygamy*_
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> Date: Mon. Nov. 22 2010 10:16 PM ET
> ...


Should be an interesting case. If the polygamists win, Canada will be only country in the western world where it will be supported.

Time to pop some popcorn and grab a beer. The squealing of the religious right will be the show to watch.


----------



## zDom (Nov 29, 2010)

Scott T said:


> The squealing of the religious right will be the show to watch.



It will be interesting watch them twisting scriptures to back their squealing.

The Apostle Paul suggested that deacons should be men with only one wife  the implication being that it was permissible and common for Christian men to have more than one.

Jewish law also permitted more than one wife. Pretty sure the Koran still allows FOUR wives for Moslem men.

Just because the polygamists getting the most media attention today are ALSO forcing child marriages and milking the government doesn't mean that polygamy automatically includes coerced marriages, pedophilia and indigency.

By the logic presented in previous posts, I could say: the only drunken driving I've ever heard about happens in cars, so we should outlaw cars.


----------



## zDom (Nov 29, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> Interesting. Have you read any autiobigraphies of women who were "brides" in polygamous groups? It's not a pretty picture.


 

Nope. But I have heard about it.

So hammer the groups that do these despicable things. Their culture is the problem, not polygamy. Polygamy is only one part of their twisted culture.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 29, 2010)

zDom said:


> Nope. But I have heard about it.
> 
> So hammer the groups that do these despicable things. Their culture is the problem, not polygamy. Polygamy is only one part of their twisted culture.



That's really the issue here.  We're shifting the blame away from the groups (usually religious extremist) that practice polygamy in a despicable way.  We also have other laws that should protect our children and if they aren't being enforced, then its not necessarily the fault of polygamy.

Polygamy itself isn't a bad thing.  In fact, I see no reason to ban it if the people involved are following all of the other laws spelling out good behavior.  From an economic point of view, group marriages make a lot of sense.  Sharing the resources in the household and sharing family duties frees up time to work and play and generally be more productive.  

The hardest thing about it would have to be managing the relationships.  Many people can hardly manage one spouse.  Therefore, even if it was legal, I think it wouldn't be very common.  It takes a special group of people to form that kind of bond and not everyone has the social skills to pull it off.  

In the end, it's an issue of liberty, IMO.  The government doesn't need to define marriage.  The government only needs to provide a court system to enforce the contract.


----------

