B.C. court to weigh polygamy laws

[Scott T]

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.

Last January, police charged the leaders of rival factions within the community -- Winston Blackmore and James Oler -- with one count each of polygamy.

When the charges were thrown out of court because of how the province chose its prosecutors, B.C. referred the issue to the court.

Canada AM legal analyst Steven Skurka says this is a landmark case because, for the first time, "polygamy is in the prisoner's box."

"After 120 years, this law that has only been used sparingly is going to be put to the test: Does it pass constitutional muster?" Skurka said in an interview Monday, noting that while polygamy is undeniably illegal in Canada, it is virtually never prosecuted.

Lawyers representing the attorneys-general of Canada and British Columbia will argue that the current law should nevertheless be upheld in the interest of protecting women, children and society, while a court-appointed lawyer will argue the law violates Charter rights and should be struck down.

The case is also expected to see more than 30 witnesses including legal experts, sociologists, members of polygamist communities and people who practice polygamy outside of a religious context.

Oler, who prosecutors accused of having three wives, will be there alongside the breakaway Mormon sect of Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Blackmore, who police alleged has 19 wives and more than 100 children, is boycotting after his request for special legal status was refused.

In the end, the court will be asked to decide whether the current polygamy law in Section 293 of the Criminal Code is consistent with the charter, and whether such relationships must involve a minor or some form of abuse before charges can be laid. But no matter what Chief Justice Robert Bauman rules, his decision is not legally binding on courts in the province or the rest of Canada.

Instead, Skurka explained the case has "persuasive effect" that could wind up in a series of appeals all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

"It's really going to take appellate courts and ultimately the most dominant appellate court to really make the binding decision," he said.

The case comes amid unprecedented mainstream interest in polygamy, seen in the popularity of the long-running HBO drama “Big Love,” or the recent TLC reality series “Sister Wives.”
Gauging how common polygamy is in reality, however, is much trickier. When asked how pervasive the practice is in Canadian society, Queen's University professor Bev Baines said, "We absolutely don't know."
"It's criminal so we can't do any research to find out," she explained in an interview Monday. "We're not going to ask somebody to 'fess up in the context of a research project and face the possibility of incarceration for up to five years."

Responding to such concerns in his courtroom, Chief Justice Bauman has ruled that witnesses from the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints can testify anonymously.
The hearing is expected to continue through January, 2011.

Veddy eeenteresting...

 

[zDom]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Tez3]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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