Plural marriage is a religious freedom, and banning it represents a violation of equality — or so goes the argument from the attorneys representing Winston Blackmore and Jim Oler, two Canadian members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, who are on trial for polygamy. And to defend their clients (in a case that some expect could reach Canada’s Supreme Court), they’re going to piggyback on the nation’s clearance of gay marriage, which eliminated the “traditional” view that marriage should be between one man and one woman. And, I argue, they’ve got a case.
Gay rights activists in the U.S. and Canada have lobbied endlessly for equal treatment under the law (our northern neighbors have been more successful). That means having a two-person union, no matter which genders make up that union, be recognized as full-blown marriage, subject to the same rights and privileges (and opportunities to divorce!) the law provides.
What Blackmore, Oler, and other plural marriage supporting Mormons want, however, is an exception: Not just equal marriage rights for people in two-person unions, but equal marriage rights for any person, no matter how many other persons he or she chooses to wed.
By most standards, that’s definitely not a “traditional marriage.” But who are we, or any government, to say what constitutes one family’s healthy relationship? If the case can be made that two gay guys or girls are entitled to equal marriage rights, effectively debunking the idea that “traditional marriage” is an “institution” worth upholding, then why not one man and two women? Or a marriage with three wives and no husband?
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Traditional marriage supporters argue only marriages between one man and one woman are healthy and provide the proper atmosphere to raise children.
Our community has called bullshit on that argument, insisting there’s no reason to think changing the gender in a union makes a bit of difference. So does that mean we draw the line there, at the definition of marriage that hinges on two people, and keep others from changing the number of people they want in their union? If we say marriage must remain between just two people, aren’t we engaging in the same type of equal rights discrimination we accuse of conservatives?
The problem with Blackmore and Oler’s case, however, is that they’re not just accused of plural marriage — Canada’s Criminal Code outlaws “any form of polygamy” or “any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time, whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage” — but that their multiple brides are underage girls forced into arranged marriages. And that’s where they lose all credibility. We’re no longer talking about religious freedom; now we’re talking about the rape of children, and there’s no law or moral argument to sway me there.
But if I’m going to sit here and demand full marriage equality for gays and lesbians, I would feel hypocritical if I then stopped there, defining marriage the way that was convenient to me, and not realizing that, hey, not everybody sees things from my worldview. Plural marriages can be home to loving relationships, healthy child rearing, and prosperity. So long as polygamy doesn’t involve trafficking in unwilling young girls, I’m pretty fine with how anyone chooses to love.
(The irony, of course, is that the argument is based on Canada’s legalization of gay marriage, something the Fundamentalist Church isn’t exactly supporting.)
spb
I agree that there’s nothing wrong with allowing people to have polygamous marriages, especially for religious reasons, so long as we ensure the women in these marriages are truly free to choose, which was not the case in the FLDS church.
However, the argument “well, we allow gay marriages so we should allow polygamous marriages” is not a good one. There is a reason why we scoff at this slippery slope argument when conservatives make it: The law is about drawing lines. We can always draw lines where we think they need to be. Polygamy is supportable for a number of reasons, none of which involve gay marriage.
Norman
I think freedom is the main inconsistency here: I’m not against grown-ups making grown-up decisions, but polygamous religions like the FLDS are also inherently patriarchal at best — meaning that young women, often teenagers, are forced into marriages for the sake of their religion in which they are manipulated and controlled by men.
It’s a bit of a fallacy to fight for freedom of religion on the backs of unfree women, so no, I do not believe there is an analogue to gay marriage.
Tara
Easy answer, Yes, Fuck the slippery slope. Morality != law. End if Story.
Tara
@Norman: Total supposition. Not our place to say and also a goddamned hypocritical fallacy. If someone is “forced into marriage” that is against the law, that has nothing to do with plural marriage.
@spb: Then you are no better than a biogot who tells us we cannot wed.
Flex
I hope the polygamists win. I hope they can marry whomever they choose to marry. It isn’t anybody’s god-damn business but their own. They are adults, and should be able to live their lives in any way that makes them happy.
It’s too bad that their American Mormon brothers and sisters are so obsessed with preventing gay people, who don’t have anything to do with them, from marrying the person of their choice.
Best wishes to the Canadian Mormons! I hope they can live their lives as they want too, be truly liberated, and reap the federal benefits that marriage provides.
Kevin
As a Canadian, I’m kind of angry about these charges. Canada doesn’t, in practice, charge people on counts of polygamy. It is unofficially legal, in essence, and more than half of our population supports the legalization of polygamous marriage. The prosecution wasn’t going to try and charge them on counts of polygamy, it was going to be for statutory rape concerning the 15 year old girls… but those are harder to gather evidence for, so they’re going for polygamy. I think they have a reasonable chance to defeat the polygamy charges. That itself is good, but not the fact that they might get away with having forced young girls to marry them as a result.
I’m mainly pissed off and afraid because this might make it harder for gay marriage to be legalized in your country. Now there is an actual case where gay marriage is being used to defend pedophilia in Canada, and is just going to arm the right-wingers with more propaganda material.
MW
plural marriage would be fine except for implications for children and welfare…
thinker
If there were a religion that promoted human sacrifice, I imagine people would balk at the idea and agree that the practitioners cannot actively practice if they want to be recognized as a mainstream religion. Granted, that’s an extreme example, but the tenets of religion necessarily must take a backseat when the public interest is in jeopardy.
Which brings us to the question of whether polygamous marriages are against the public interest. In general, no, although I suppose one could argue that monogamous relationships improve genetic diversification–polygamous marriages could be restricted not on moral grounds, but on the same grounds that restrict marriage between siblings or cousins. It’s not a simple issue though, and I don’t intend to oversimplify.
Rob
I think the argument for gay marriage has often been misstated. Gay marriage activists say things like, “All people should have the right to marry the people they love.” This kind of rhetoric invites slippery slope arguments. If we make this argument for gay marriage, can’t polyamorists make the same argument for plural marriage? Can’t people who love close relatives (“in that way”) make an argument for incestuous marriage?
The real argument for gay marriage is different, though. The real argument is that everybody should have the opportunity to have a marriage that is both fully loving and fully legally recognized. As a gay man, the only fully loving marriage I can have is a marriage to another man. If I married a woman, that marriage would be a sham.
Contrast my situation with the situation of a polyamorist. Some people prefer to be in polyamorous relationships, but nobody is so deeply wired for polyamory that a monogamous relationship would necessarily be a sham. People who choose to pursue polygamous relationships can choose instead to pursue monogamous relationships, or open relationships with one primary partner, and those relationships have the potential to be fully loving. Likewise, if you fall in love with your first cousin, and the state won’t let you get married, that stinks, but you can break off the relationship and find someone else. Nobody is by nature capable only of incestuous love.
Norman
@Tara:
Total supposition, of course. Tell that to this girl:
“A former follower of a polygamous sect leader claims she was acting to preserve her eternal salvation when she obeyed his command and married her cousin at age 14.
Now 21, the woman was married in a 2001 religious ceremony to her 19-year-old cousin, then followed the counsel of Warren Jeffs to submit to her husband “mind, body and soul.”
Prosecutors played a tape of a marriage lesson recorded by Jeffs in 1997 to emphasize the point that obedience by women of the faith was expected.
“Give yourself to him, that means full obedience to righteous principles. No half way, no holding back,” Jeffs said on the tape.”
http://www.redorbit.com/news/general/1066168/teen_bride_salvation_tied_to_marriage/index.html
Or this girl:
“One of the first things Caroline Cooke did after she escaped from her polygamist community was cut her knee-length hair to an above-the-shoulder bob. She also traded her full-length dresses for sleeveless shirts and shorts.
They were radical and symbolic moves for the 15-year-old girl who walked away from her family and religion, which encourages pioneer-style long hair and long dresses for women.
Cooke left the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, one of the country’s largest polygamist groups, four months ago because she feared she soon would be married to a man three times her age who already had more than a dozen wives.”
http://www.beliefnet.com/News/2001/08/Teen-Age-Girls-Flee-Mormon-Sect.aspx
These are the people making the legal argument for polygamous marriage. We’re not talking about Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin here.
nikko
This is ridiculous. And offensive. Polygamy has nothing to do with the gay marriage argument, and gays who support this pigamy ought to be ashamed of themselves. No wonder the majority of people worry about the slippery slope argument when gays are advocating any and all forms of marriage. Pathetic.
Chris
What about marriage benefits and tax breaks?
Do those multiply exponentially per spouse?
Don’t even get started on divorce proceedings between partners of three or more!
Economically, financially, federally-recognized polygamous marriages are too easily exploited and therefore impractical.
Argue for love and religious freedom all you want, but the fact is gay marriage really wouldn’t change anything concerning issues of state, whereas polygamous marriage compounds those issues quite literally!
Dave
There isn’t really any good reason polygamy should be illegal, but the gay marriage analogy is strained at best. There’s a categorical difference between making a two-party bilateral contract gender-blind, and making a two-party contract into a multi-party contract.
Equal protection under the law compels the first–the government doesn’t get to make gender-based legal restrictions, particularly on fundamental rights like the right to contract, without a compelling state interest. And telling people they can or cannot enter into a marriage contract based on their genders is exactly such a gender-based restriction.
It’s trickier for plural marriage. There’s no notion of gender bias in its prohibition as there is in same-sex marriage. It’s a bigger uphill battle, legally speaking.
Should we, as a decent, compassionate society dedicated to preserving liberty, support plural marriage? Of course. There’s simply no good reason for the state to prevent those who wish to engage in it to do so. But the legal arguments underlying the two issues are quite distinct.
Jaroslaw
I don’t think Polygamy is a good idea due to any number of legal issues such as when the man is in the hospital which spouse can say “pull the plug”, “don’t pull the plug” or what if all 5 wives disagree? (things like that).
But as others have said, supporting or not supporting Polygamy has nothing to do with SSM. Each person should marry the person they love. That is the definition of equality, I don’t see how the argument of slippery slope can apply to “one spouse per person.”
petted
Well there’s always the problem with the tax system as the legal structure in this area was optimized for couples and in a polygamous scenario you could have 4 people working and 1 staying at home or 1 working 4 staying at home. In addition how would child custody be determined in the advent of a divorce (would all spouses have equal visitation rights)? Could Mary divorce John but still be married to Karen, Bobby, Dan, and Susan? Polygamous marriage would beyond a shadow of a doubt require a reworking of a broad swath of laws and the tax code would definitely have to be extended in short its likely that if a state were to move in this direction that it would take months even years to streamline the government’s interactions with these relationships.
Note to all those who made arguments similar to mine kudos though alas I was in a hurry to comment so… anyway
Tara
I am disgusted. You should be ashamed.
Dick Mills
I think that marriage between two guys and one woman would be HOT! Or the MMMFFMMFM! But the MFFfffFfff is just sad!
strumpetwindsock
I don’t think what we want is relevant; that’s the same kind of thinking used by those who want to deny us our rights. The only thing that matters is what is legal and ethical.
Would you try to tell anyone in our community they had no right to an open relationship or multiple partners? No. It would be none of our business. So why is it our business to impose our views on this group? It’s hypocrisy – letting our judgement of this specific issue be influenced by other things which go on in their communities.
I may not like their patriarchial, controlling system, but if there is no crime it is none of my business. People aren’t crying for Hutterite colonies to be busted up, even though plural marriage (and the accusations of child abuse) are the only difference.
I think the B.C. government made a mistake in laying polygamy charges because I think the law will be found unconstitutional for the same reason same-sex marriage was allowed. There may be a freedom of religion argument, but I think the more important one is equal access to marriage.
If there is child abuse or other crime going on in these communities then get the evidence to lay charges under those laws. If they can’t get that evidence it says something about the strength of their case. What they should NOT do is go clutching at straws like this. It will backfire, and do a lot of damage to innocent as well as guilty people in the process.
Also, Canada already has a precedent of three-parent guardianship:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/01/03/twomom-court.html
GayIsTheWay
NO! I am against polygamy. There is no chance that relationships of one man and several women or one woman and several men could allow for equality. The one man or one woman in those relationships hold the power. When you have personal relationships that are unequal it leads to people advocating for inequality outside those relationships. The history of inequality is the history of heterosexuality. In heterosexual relationships the man leads and the woman follows, the man dominates and the woman submits. This is why heterosexuals have a difficult time with gay relationships. They impose their heterosexual gender beliefs on gay couples believing one partner is fulfilling the “male role” and the other the “female role” thus breaking their gender beliefs in what a man or woman should do.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_2000_June/ai_66011966/pg_2
If polygamy was legalized I think the only form of polygamy heterosexuals would practice is the one man and several women type. That would mean a lot of heterosexual males would be single. These single heterosexual males with no hope in finding mates would turn to violence and mayhem. That is what happened with the 911 hijackers who were all single heterosexual males from countries that allowed polygamy. Eventually gay rights would regress, misogyny would skyrocket, overt racism would return, and disabled people would be more marginalized. Heterosexual polygamy is a breeding ground for inequality and mayhem.
I actually think gay polygamy would be a great thing. Gay polygamy would bring gay people together and pooling resources creating a united force and improving everyone’s lives. However I think someone’s leverage in the relationship would diminish like in heterosexual polygamy.
strumpetwindsock
@strumpetwindsock:
correction:
I said if there is no crime it is none of my business.
I still think we have the right to comment on it, to counsel and assist someone to leave that livestyle. But we don’t have the right to end it by force if there is no crime.
strumpetwindsock
@GayIsTheWay:
Actually polyandry does exist, though it is less common:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry
And again, I get your patriarchy argument, and I agree. But it’s none of our business if they are all adults and free to choose that lifestyle (and even if they were raised as children with the belief).
I can think of several cults I would like to see busted up too, but we have no legal way to stand in the way of people’s right to choose, even if they choose brainwashing.
AJ
This is kind of ridiculous. I don’t like the idea of gay marriage and plural marriages being equated or even mentioned in teh same sentence. When did a desire to marry one consenting adult become equal to one’s desire to marry 3,4,5 or even 20 adults. I fail to see how the two compare. Government’s often exhibit paternalistic behaviors. They enact policy that is designed to stop their citizens from harming themselves. Criminalizing polygamy is an example of just that.
Polygamy is inherently unfair and demoralizing to women and children. Women are often mentally and emotionally abused. They are essentially told that they are unequal to their male counterparts. If our government supported this practice, they’d be supporting the idea that it is ok for men to oppress women. When two adults marry each other, no matter the sex, they are both regarded as equals. There is nothing equal/fair about the idea of three women sharing one husband.
You also have the need to completely rewrite marriage laws and determine how each party is regarded in the eyes of the law. Whereas with same sex marriage, the simple changing a few words is all that is needed. Not necessarily the best reason, just another reason that law makers would be less likely to recognize these unions.
Smokey Martini
Yes, we should allow plural marriage. But mainly because marriage is an absurd institution to begin with. Do we really need a certificate / church / government letting us know that our relationships are now legit? I mean, really.
Jon B
Yes, we should. I mean, I don’t necessarily think that one leads to the other like our opponents argue, but I don’t see what is wrong with polygamy so long as it is legal in both directions, it is consentual, and abuse laws are enforced to ensure that abuse doesn’t occur.
That being said, polygamy has been associated with (mainly because most people only associate polygamy with extreme fringe religious groups) abuse and subjugation of women. Therefore, there is a legitimate reason to ban it, whereas there is no legit reason to ban gay marriage.
rogue dandelion
All I know is that if someone comes to me with a petition for polyamourous marriage, i’ll sign it, but first thing is first-getting equal protections under the law. I think the ability to marry multiple people is a more problematic change, because the rights are all based on two people. If the poly proponents can work out a new sensible legal framework, i am all for it.
In the mean time, while obama is against our full dignity, we need to call his bluff on civil unions and doma.
I think civil unions/domestic partnerships whatever can and should be used to protect a whole range of groups- such as elderly sister who live together or co-inhabiting platonic relationships etc etc. I think we shouldn’t abandon pluralism because it is difficult(but this is a progressive argument, not a gay rights one per say)
Jaroslaw
#23 Smokey – (and others) a number of people, myself included, have said it is not simply a stroke of the pen to allow plural marriage. It is much more than simply to change the words on a license from man/woman to man/many wives and many many many more children! I’m not trying to moralize or take choices away – it is nothing less than reworking our entire legal system and our society. Who gets custody of which child when marriages break up? What about my hospital example? these are very real issues, and there are dozens if not hundreds more besides.
Apart from that, can we allow anything and everything? Can we afford what that will mean for taxes, schools, etc. We don’t (in the USA) seem to have the will to give everyone health insurance now. This is a monumental change compared to Universal health coverage! And if plural marriage is allowed, what next?
strumpetwindsock
Regarding the last comment in David H’s post about the funadamentalists not supporting us, that may be true, but it is not relevant to whether it is the right choice or not.
A relevant example, Open Source lawyers coming to the defense of their worst enemies, Microsoft when they were sued by IBM. If we want people to respect our rights, we have to respect the rights, even of our worst enemies:
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS3644018018.html
Belinda
Saskatchewwan allows Polygamy under section 51 of their FAMILY PROPERTY ACT. Saskatchewan judges have already ruled twice that it is legal for a woman to have multiple conjugal unions at the same time. The Feds declined to attend the court cases to protect Canmada Polygamy laws. If its legal in Saskatchwewan it will be legal across Canada.
bb
i’m for it
drresol
Quick question…in a hypothetical legal polygamist marriage, what exactly is the legal framework? By which I mean, how does/would each person in the union legally relate to each other?
Is it a star-scheme, with one person (the man or woman) being central and each spouse having a marriage to that central spouse, but no legal relationship to each other?
…or would it sort of be a inter-connected mesh? Each person in the multi-union is somehow legally wed to each other, forming a sort of marital collective? (When you divorce, you don’t just divorce one, you divorce the horde)
….OR…would it be more of a pyramid scheme? One spouse on top, and each of the spouses married to him but to varying degrees of rank? (sort of like in biblical times when you had spouses and then concubines). And again with this scheme, none of the underlying women/men having a legal relationship to each other, but only (each) to the central spouse on top of the pyramid.
strumpetwindsock
@Belinda:
I did not know that, thanks. I live in Saskatchewan.
Kelly
I support polygamy. The argument that it leads to the “rape of underage girls” is asinine. If one has a problem with teenage women getting married, then they should focus their energy towards changing the legal age of marriage to 18, not outlawing polygamy. There are MONOGAMOUS marriages right now involving teenage girls as well. The legal age of marriage is a completely seperate issue from polygamy.
Also, homosexuals had better defend polygamy, because Harper’s ploy to eliminate it is to declare that it “violates Canadian values”. If this argument is accepted, then this argument can also be used to OVERTURN GAY MARRIAGE. Perhaps, this is the conservatives true agenda.
Jeff
Personally I think this is one of the bizarrest posts I have ever seen here and truthfully more than a bit “sensational” and is being used just to stir the pot and get hits because there is no correalation whatsoever between gay marriage and polygamy and there is no reason why if you support one you should support another.
BIG LOVE is not far from the truth. Most polygamists sects are quite radical and push marriage on underage girls without choice and also abandon and throw away male teenagers when they are faced with a large number of men in the sect because it makes for competition and not enough wives.
Polygamy could work as long as there were STRICT guidelines and laws that would make sure that abuse was not happening. But in all current sects using pologamy they do so under the ruse of religion and set their own laws and guidelines.
Dick Mills
@drresol: I think it is more of an extended network frame, where:
Party A is married to B, C, F
Party B is married to A, C, D, K-X
Party C is married to A, B, F, L-K
and so on…
GayIsTheWay
GoodAsYou has a disturbing report on the Quiverfull movement.
http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2009/03/why-this-movement-makes-us-fully-quiver.html
VegasTeaRoom
We HAVE serial polygamy in America because of divorce. The whole point of Gay Marriage is creating ONE legal bond between people that have NEVER had a legal bond. Straights get married, they are spouses, the get divorced, they are x’s. They marry other people and they are step-parents. We Gays and Lesbians have no such structure to our legal relationships. Two guys can each adopt a child and because there is no legal relationship they are just two fathers , each with a child, living together. No brothers, no family.
It’s all about creating the LEGAL relationship.
It’s about family.
Richard
If one views marriage as a legal contract conferring certain rights and benefits in return for certain responsibilities, then I can’t see a rational reason why polygamy wouldn’t be allowable provided the details of the contract could be standardized and worked out ahead of time.
In essence, if you can provide a legal, sustainable, practical framework for taxation, parental rights, power of attorney, etc., within the context of a plural marriage – a framework that is endorsed by the government, including Child Protective Services – then I see no problem with it.
That’s a big “if”, though, and no one has supplied such a thorough and hashed-out framework. Also, bear in mind that it’s still a legal contract, and only those who are legally able to enter into such contracts would be able to enter into this – just like any other marriage, or any other contract.
If the point is to remove the “moral” aspect from marriage and make it simply a civil issue, let’s do so – but do so correctly.
rick
NO!
Ted
Really, doesn’t this point to the ridiculous underlying assumptions of state-sponsored marriage? How can the state be involved in creating the boundaries that define love and commitment? The state should serve our needs, not have us serve it through obeying some externally defined concepts of moral behavior that do no harm to anyone else. This applies to heterosexual marriage as well, which must change if truly the gay marriage issue is to be resolved.
What I mean is, the state should get out of marriage alltogether and just recognize civil unions. Marriage should be the province of and defined by individuals and their communities/religions/families, etc. There shouldn’t be any definition of marriage by the state. Instead, men and women, men and men, women and women, and any combination of 3+ consenting adults should simply be granted a modified set of co-rights recognized by the state for various civil and financial purposes such as medical decision-making and sharing of private information, financial transactions, etc. There also shouldn’t be special tax deductions that discriminate against single people or those who don’t wish to form any state-defined bond with their partner(s).
Some comments suggested it would be a way to “get something” from the state, cheat taxes or something. Well, making the rights all-or-none would prevent overlap with existing legal business structures that involve 2 or more people, such as partnerships, llc’s, corporations, etc., since people who just want to be business partners wouldn’t sign up for it. They’d have business partnerships to define their civil and financial rights with regard to each other. Of course details would have to be worked out about decision making structures for medical emergencies, etc., but those details aren’t relevant to the overall point.
Rejecting the rights of polyamorist people of any gender and sexual orientation makes strategic sense if what you’re battling for is the right to be included in the unworkable and faulty framework of heterosexual state-defined marriage. Look at the disasters of heterosexual marriages to see how well that really works! But if you let go of that and commit to a more radical answer that fundamentally reworks the problem and the solution, you’ll find there is no competition or reason to fear polyamorous relationships with state recognition. Men and women should no more be able to have a “marriage certificate” than gay and lesbian and other couples, triads, and other polyamorous groupings. I’m not saying it will be easy, but if we don’t commit to true justice, at least we must admit when we are just being hypocrites.
strumpetwindsock
@Ted:
Two words: property. children.
There is always gone to have to be a legal framework governing how families function.
Do you want it to be in the hands of the judiciary, or would you prefer the church to have the final say?
Renee
This site really has a nasty habit of writing about things that it knows nothing about. Are you even aware that in these celestial marriages the “wife” Is usually a minor and she is forced to marry a man that is often twice to three times her age? Marriage should be about choice where is the autonomy in this?Are you aware that the young boys are regularly driven off so as not to provide an competition for these old men? Are you aware that the children are often under educated in most cases not even receiving the equivalent of an eighth grade relationship? Are you aware that there are high levels of physical abuse and marital rape? Tell me again how this relates to gay marriage again? Queerty when you get it wrong you really get it wrong.
Jeffrey
@Rob:
You put that into such clear words. I was having trouble figuring out the disconnect in my tired brain. Thanks, and you are so right.
Distingué Traces
Morally speaking, the issues of privacy, religious liberty, and dignity of relationships are just the same.
But legally speaking, there is no way of granting rights identical to the existing institution of marriage to multiple partners. Legal marriage as it now exists is not just “by definition” exclusive, but in function exclusive.
To create legal multiple marriage, we would have to not simply allow more people to participate in an existing legal institution, but change the way that institution works.
getreal
There is tremendous exploitation of women and children in polygamous communities. The difference between marriage equality for LGBT people and recognizing plural marriage legally is that gay marriage is between two ADULTS while most first time brides in polygamous communities are teenagers and often underage. I am all for freedom of consenting adult to live and love how they wish. But there is much evidence and many court cases that make clear that most of these marriages are coerced and at times actually forced upon women and children. To say nothing of the culture of “lost boys” where young boys who are approaching sexual maturity (often as young as 13) are thrown out of these communities so as not be competition for older men. These young boys face deprivation and violence living on the streets and because of their socialization to fear outsiders they rarely seek help from authorities. I think the analogy of gay marriage to plural marriage falls apart when you look at the two institutions side by side. One involves the free will of two consenting adults the other has a history and a present of coercion and sexual exploitation of children
Karlito
Perhaps, as long as people are of consenting age, we all just stay the fuck out of one another’s business? Thats a novel idea huh? I just think white, middle Americans get off and feel good about themselves by slandering us. Frankly, I don’t a shit about polygamy amongst consenting adults. I would like to live my urban life with my one man, everybody else do you whatever you want. Thats how we feel at http://www.gayvolt.com.
Karlito
Above its supposed to say “I dont give a shit about……” not “I dont a shit”. Teeh hehh heh.. TOO MUCH VODKA!
The Gay Numbers
Being gay is biological, but being polygamous is not.
EveryoneKnewHimasNancy
What ever happened to live and let live? If anyone is insane enough to want more than one spouse, let them make their own bed and lie in it! Or something. Anyway, this only proves how ridiculous the institution of marriage is, gay or straight. It’s just more bourgeois yearning for respectability.
Ryan
No. I will not support them. Most of them think I’m going to hell for being gay and wouldn’t support gay marriage. Why should I support them? Moreover, there is absolutely problems with abuse that goes on in their communities for the women in relationships, including very, very young women that most certainly shouldn’t be in such relationships to begin with.
At the end of the day, same-sex marriage and polygamy are two completely different issues. You can’t look at one and say the other should exist. Polygamist relationships are inherently unequal — they just don’t fit in with the “marriage equality” movement.
strumpetwindsock
@getreal:
If a crime is being committed, by all means prosecute it. I am all for prosecuting statutory rape.
Even though that and plural marriage go hand-in-hand, they are two different things. And polygamy may be against the law, but so are a lot of things which the law normally turns a blind eye to. I am not sure if the laws against polygamy will stand, at least not here in Canada.
Another important thing to consider – in other countries there are polygamous marriages, many of which are based on the subjugation of women, but not all of which involve such an insular society as the FLDS. If one of those polygamous families were to immigrate to your country how would you deal with that?
And if the subjugation of women is the issue, look at the number of squeaky clean nuclear families in which women are abused, oppressed, raped and beaten.
Again, I an no fan of societies in which people are oppressed, but I think it is a very dangerous thing to start trying to judge what is acceptable and unacceptable, especially when we are fight in the spotlight for a lot of people.
strumpetwindsock
..”right” in the spotlight, I mean.
(damn that no editing!)
fanboi
slippery slope and all that. Gotta say as much as I hate the religious right saying things like if we let gays marry than we have to let some freak marry his donkey. I do believe that Marriage should be a covenant celebrating the love between two PEOPLE. Not 3, 4 5 6 or 7.
getreal
@strumpetwindsock: I always appreciate your fair and balanced points of view(really fox news could learn a thing or two). I don’t have all the answers but the fact is that in societies where plural marriage is the norm or is condoned and legal woman and children are in a much more vulnerable position. Look at iran or saudi arabia or selected islamic african countries clearly these are countries and cultures where women have little or no choice of who they marry and little if any autonomy before or after their weddings cannot be compared with the freedom western and eastern women enjoy. Obviously women in the western world are not immune to domestic abuse but we do have a voice, rights and legal means to defend ourselves. There are certain cultural practices I don’t believe should be imported another one is female genital mutilation of children a practice that is normal in many countries but in this country will get you prosecuted.I think marriage should be between two consenting adults period and I’m glad that our laws support that hopefully soon the law will include all consenting adults whatever their sexual orientation or sexual identity.
dgz
religion is a choice, and so are polyamorous relationships. if 40 women want to shack up with some creepy old guy, that’s fine… but it really isn’t fair that he gets to claim them all as dependents. that’s the legal difference.
as for public policy, i think it’s really naive to divorce the idea of plural marriage from its context — it really only occurs within a culture of female subjugation. sure, if legalized, there’ll be the odd bohemian triple who take it on for the sake of shock value, but we’re really talking about nuts who like to exile “surplus” boys from their towns because they don’t want a 50/50 ratio.
as for morality, i think the attitude of “let people do whatever they want” can be dangerous, because then we empower the crazies’ argument that LGBTs are just the tip of the moral-relativist, slippery-sloped iceberg.
btw, Rob, you explained your point beautifully.
Jaroslaw
#32 Kelly as a Gay man I do not have to support polygamy because some clown in Canada says it is against “Canadian values.” Any halfway intelligent person knows there is more than one reason to be for or against anything. That is how Jews & Blacks teamed up for civil rights in the 60’s – they had more in common than what divided them, etc. The Catholic church despite huge differences in dogma & doctrine from Mormons & “snake handling” religions still will team up with them to try to defeat Gay marriage.
Strump – I think we’ve discussed polygamy before – and I thought of something in response to your posts here. I personally don’t like polygamy nor do I think it is legally workable but aside from that – you always say “prosecute if there is a crime.” It is impossible to do that it seems – how will one ever know that a 14 year old girl is forces to marry a 60 year old man? Or if the children are being educated? When these folks live in a compound, authorities can’t just go in regularly and check – they have legal rights, which they should have. But again, it is an unworkable situation. I know you’re going to say the “right” to choose polygamy shouldn’t be determined on those who abuse it – and in theory that sounds good. But as others have said, that system only works in societies that subjugate women. AND we have all kinds of laws for the public good – you can’t drink until you’re 18 or 21, nor smoke, nor marry until you’re of a certain age or vote. Military service can be compulsory etc, you MUST send your children to school….Individual rights do not always come first, is my point.
jason
The best way to distinguish between polygamy and gay marriage is to consider what happens when you ban either. If you ban polygamy, the straight male can still marry one woman to who he is attracted. If you ban gay marriage, the gay male cannot marry anybody to whom he is attracted. Therefore, it’s fair to say that polygamy and gay marriage are like chalk and cheese.
In a nutshell, gay marriage is an issue of fairness, polygamy is an issue of permissiveness. It’s very important that we in the GLBT community recognize the moral core at the heart of gay marriage. It’s a very moral issue, and we shouldn’t be afraid to say it.
There is nothing wrong with tying our mast to morality. The gay rights movement was based on morality. It was our moral right to be who we are and to be free from legal persecution. Morality is at the heart of the gay rights movement – let’s not forget this.
hold up
ok now, there are non-mormon example of polygamy as well. all i’m seeing here is polygamy = mormon example = child abuse, but i think polygamy is certainly not limited to that example. there was a great piece on muslim polygamists in america on npr somewhat recently (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90857818) worth giving a listen to.
i’m also not convinced that polygamy is as much a choice as religion is, as someone above suggested. it seems from thousands of years of example that humans are biologically capable of loving more than one person at the same time, and do so often. would definitely be worth looking into more varied examples of polygamous life, than just judging all polygamy on some mormon examples.
all that said i also don’t think polygamous marriages are comparable to gay marriages. and to answer the original question, i don’t think either should be illegal =)
Alec
We need to address separate issues here:
1. Criminal prohibitions. I think most people would agree that no one should be criminally prosecuted for living in a polyamorous relationship. While our Supreme Court didn’t go that far in Lawrence, I don’t think laws that prohibit such living arrangements are on firm constitutional ground. Bigamy statutes present different problems, as those usually involve marriage licenses and multiple actual marriages. That being said, I think the criminal laws should go. All of them.
2. Child sexual abuse and polygamy. Two different issues, that can be addressed independently. In practice the Mormon fundamentalists and other polygamous cultures have encouraged “child brides.” But really, the relationship between child sex abuse and polygamy is functionally equivalent to the relationship between male homosexuality and pederasty. You can criminalize one without the other.
3. The actual civil institution of marriage. Folks, marriage brings with it a separate legal status for the COUPLE; it is predicated on having TWO partners. You really do fundamentally change the legal institution when you open it up to more than two people. Marriage creates all sorts of default rules; who takes what share upon death in a polygamous relationship, barring a will? What about medical decision making if a spouse is incapacitated? Who has the say?
I think we should consider some kind of alternative legal arrangements to provide the tools polyamorous families need to get by, but the issues are different.
strumpetwindsock
I find it interesting what sort of arguments come from people when the tables are turned and someone else’s lifestyle is being judged.
If we find a group different, wierd or objectionable just how much right do we have to do whatever we want to them? My country has used that pseudologic to take away the rights of Indians and Doukhobours, and to put Ukrainians and Japanese in camps. And you hear it every day with people who say criminals deserve no recognition of their rights whatsoever.
I’ll say again – I am no fan of oppressive groups or cults, and no fan of polygamy but if you measure this as an issue of human rights we may not have a choice. Plural marriage is completely a question of who has the right to marry whom. The basic question is no different than that or our marriage equality.
There is also a very long tradition of plural marriage in the world (and of slavery too, yes I know. But it is far from an issue of permissiveness). I accept the argument about subjugation of women, but someone from within a society where polygamy is the norm may have a very different view of it, and they might see a good deal of misogyny in our culture that we simply accept.
We have no right to go interfering in others’ cultures just because we don’t like or don’t understand them and in cases where we do impose our law (forbidding slavery, murder) we have to make sure there is a legal necessity, and it is not just a matter of our opinion or prejudices (forbidding peoples’ languages or religion).
If the issue really is the subjugation of women and cult-like social structure generally why do we not go after the Hutterites, the moonies or the scientologists? Why do we let so much pass in our own society while arguing for zero tolerance in a smaller group?
And as for the legal problem, it is not as impossible as you might imagine. If contracts and laws can be draughted for huge corporations they can certainly be crafted to fit a family. The recent “three parent” ruling in Ontario I posted above is a perfect example of that.
So I agree with a good deal of the sentiment here. I only say that to make law based on opinion without a proper logical or legal foundation is an extremely dangerous road to go down. It is EXACTLY that argument that is being used to deny us our rights.
You can’t have it one way for someone else, and expect a different standard when it is applied to us.
Alec
@strumpetwindsock:
I don’t think the legal problems are insurmountable. I DO think that the quantitative feature of marriage, the restriction of marriage to two partners, presents a completely different question from qualitative restrictions on the basis of the gender of the parties. You point to contract law and the law of corporations, but remember that these serve different ends than marriage laws. Obviously, you cannot obtain the benefits of marriage though private contracts. That’s because the act of marriage creates a separate legal entity. And that separate entity enjoys an elevated status. Now, to some extent that is also true of corporate law but, remember, the issues are different; business partners aren’t making medical decisions, they don’t pass on their assets to each other, they’re not taxed like married couples, etc. There are more than a few differences. But even if we adopt that model, we are talking about a fundamental change in what marriage is. Polygamy advocates need to be honest about that, because it is a very real difference.
Jaroslaw
OK Strumpet – I understand what you’re saying too – but the world is a big place and while you acknowledge many things have long histories (and I know you already know this) you must also acknowledge NO society allowed everything. I don’t think it is possible.
But please answer (theoretically) if there are FIVE wives and the man is in the hospital, who decides what treatment, if any, and/or to pull the plug? How are the children divided?
Attmay
I will not support them. I barely support monogamous heterosexual marriage as it is and would like it if only gays could marry. In fact, crap like this makes me want to ban heterosexual marriage more.
We’re fighting for the right to marry ONE unrelated person of the same sex. And we didn’t choose to be gay. These people can leave the cults and reject their brainwashing at any time. And they are already free to marry one unrelated person of the opposite sex, just like all heterosexuals of the age of consent are. Our relationships are moral, theirs are immoral and oppressive.
But consider the fact that the same Bible used to oppress us had very little bad to say about polygamy. Just ask King Solomon and his nearly 700 wives. How did he have time to satisfy them all?
GayIsTheWay is right. We should be discouraging any form of heterosexual union.
strumpetwindsock
@Jaroslaw:
That situation is no different than if you had a widowed parent and five children making the decision …or for that matter if you had two parents who disagreed on how to treat their child.
Obviously they need to resolve it amongst them selves (or in some cases sue each others’ asses off) but banning polygamy does not end that problem.
And I mentioned the long history of polygamy because it was initially and still is the main family structure in much of the world, so you can hardly call it an aberration from the natural order. It is no change at all, except in our very recent European-based social structure.
Again, if you are looking to end a traditional practice (slavery, sacrifice, torture) there has to be a DIRECT link to cruelty or human rights abuse. Are all polygamous relationships by definition discriminatory and does the banning of polygamy put an absolute stop to misogyny and coercion?
If so, why do governments not make it illegal to have open or three-way partnerships? What difference does the marriage license make?
Most of the misogyny arguments apply equally as well to two-partner marriages – it is simply a matter of opinion and degrees. And I don’t think that makes any case at all for the legal distinction that polygamy is by definition coercive and oppressive.
Jaroslaw
Strump – I confess I haven’t researched if polygamy is common in much of the world or not but assuming it is, that by itself may not mean much. Much of the world doesn’t use flush toliets either but I think we’d all agree sewer systems are much more hygenic.
Now, do you really think it is a realistic solution for the five widows (or wives if the man is in the hospital) to sue? The courts would soon be doing nothing else but handling lawsuits. Even now with clearcut wills, people sue. So I can’t begin to imagine the mess when things are unclear (one wife might assert: he told me he loved me best, and I had the primary right to decide).
I agree banning polygamy (or anything else) never guarantees the end of anything, but I think it is pretty clear from the examples we have abuse is almost inevitable, the way we in the West define it. It is a fine thing to say polygamy works in country X and that is THEIR culture; if you are okay with women having no say so in the matter. And the issue of young men being chased away etc. An aside, with so many issues raised here on this blog, sometimes we find out the hidden downsides and sometimes we don’t. But very often we do and it changes the whole tenor of the discussion.
As to one of your last points why doesn’t the government ban three ways etc? Because a. it is very hard to prove those types of things and b. they aren’t asking for legal recognition or tax benefits.
I suppose Misogny in two partner marriages can occur, but I would assert very few two party marriages come close to the extreme cult-like situations we’ve heard about here in the USA or the ironclad “man is king” style of other countries. Every woman I know personally who travels the world says women have it much better in Western Christian countries than in other societies. So that about says it, to me.
strumpetwindsock
@Jaroslaw:
My point was that the hospital (and property) arguments are irrelevant.
Families with two partners or numerous siblings are regularly faced with that problem when there is no written will. No law will change that unless you propose that the eldest child (or first wife) gets automatic power of attourney.
And I’ve repeated my position enough already on the other issues you raise.
Alec
@strumpetwindsock: Precisely. Two partner families DO routinely face those issues, and there are default rules for married couples. Marriage creates all kinds of presumptions, default rules and rights and obligations that are centered on TWO people. There’s no presumption of gender, economic class, even age, but there IS a numerical presumption.
Jaroslaw
Sorry, have to disagree. The law spells out what happens when one spouse dies without a will – the surviving spouse gets the house & half the assets, the rest is divided among the children equally. Even if the house is pre-willed to the children, in the case of a second marriage, the widow still gets the contents. In Michigan anyway.
I’m pretty sure the vast majority of people do not sue in the absence of a will. Some do, sure, but you are GUARANTEEING the courts will be clogged when multiple wives or husbands are involved. The simple fact is when more people are involved the chances of everyone agreeing increase exponential as the group size grows.
Jaroslaw
obviously meant to say everyone disagreeing above…
strumpetwindsock
@Alec:
The numerical presumption is not always there (when it is siblings making the decision), even so, it’s irrelevant.
Even when you presume two parties it does not solve the problem, in fact it could create an even starker deadlock.
Example: two parents bitterly divided on a decision regarding their child.
AJ
The issues of polygamy is about human rights and that’s why it’s illegal in the US. Allowing men to have numerous wives is allowing the oppression and subjugation of women. When 5 women share one man, that is an inherently unequal relationship. The woman’s thoughts, feelings, and rights are being put below those of the man.
You may be thinking, well they have a choice. If they choose to allow themselves to be oppressed mentally and physically then that is their right. WRONG! The US government has always acted to ensure that their citizens behave in their own best interests. Speaking specifically about the oppression of women, that is why prostitution is not allowed. Some women may choose to lower themselves and sell their bodies to men, but the government wont allow it. That’s why drugs are illegal and it’s the reason that usury laws are in place. The government believes that people don’t always act in their best interest. You can disagree with this policy, but based on the historical role of the government there is more than enough reason to criminalize polygamy.
This isn’t some close minded argument based on morals. i agree that people should have the right to love who they want, but I truly believe that women are demeaned and mistreated in these sort of relationships. In contrast, same sex marriage doesn’t result in the oppression of anyone. Both parties are equal.
strumpetwindsock
@Jaroslaw:
Even if I were to concede all your arguments (and I don’t agree on all your points), is the fact that it might make things more difficult valid grounds for refusing someone’s rights?
The abolition of slavery was certainly a great disruption to the law, business, and social order of the slave owning states. I an sure many people felt their agrarian economy would be impossible to sustain without the institution. Would that have been a good reason to not pass the amendment?
(not to claim the two situations are equivalent, but I hope you see my point).
Another example – should equal pay legislation for women not be passed because business can’t afford to recognize their rights?
Alec
@strumpetwindsock: Sorry, I don’t understand. Sometime the numerical presumption is irrelevant, true. But most of the time the relevant law is in fact premised on that presumption. It becomes a mess when you remove it.
Jaroslaw provides an example from a marital property state, but the same premise holds true in community property states like CA, AZ, NV, etc.
So when it comes to things like intestate succession, you are talking about a thorough rewriting of the law. As you would be with marital dissolution. And lurking in the background is the concept of subordination of one partner’s interests. That is to say, there won’t be equality in division or management. There can’t be.
First of all there’s no clear picture of whom is married to whom. But even if you resolve that in some sort of menu arrangment (i.e., Spouse A is married to Spouse B, but Spouse C is only married to Spouse A and not Spouse B) you will still run into problems at dissolution and death. I mean, who gets the elective share at death? This, by the way, is a forced share in most states that overcomes attempts to disinherit via will.
Polygamy advocates haven’t, as a general rule, given much thought to these questions. And frankly it shows. For those of us who understand and appreciate marriage as a legal institution, it reads like some sort of anarcho-capitalist fantasy land of freedom to contract. Silly and dim witted.
AJ
The contract aspect of polygamous marriage isn’t even really the issue. While it’s true that many laws would need to be rewritten, that’s not basis for denying people writes. What is the issue is that these relationships result in the subjugation of women and our government shouldn’t be supporting that practice.
strumpetwindsock
@AJ:
The government has not always acted to ensure that citizens behave in their own best interest.
If they did you would be living in a fascist state. Most of the times your government has tried to do so (prohibition, sodomy, drug laws, and yes, prostitution) have backfired miserably and usually only made things worse.
If someone is an adult of sound mind s/he is free to choose for his or herself, even if that is a bad choice. That doesn’t just apply to personal decisions but to business as well – hence your recognition of Caveat Emptor.
AJ
@strumpetwindsock:
The government has enacted paternalistic policies to a certain degree in order to protect this country. Some have worked, and continue to do so, while others have failed. But the success or failure of these policies does nothing to argue against the fact that they exist.
The government of this country obviously doesn’t believe that people of sound mind should be free to make certain decisions. If that were the case then prostitution, drug use, and other detrimental behaviors would be allowed. Whereas with the sodomy laws, these laws aren’t solely based on morality. The government believes that people are better off if they’re not allowed to engage in these practices. The same holds true for polygamy.
strumpetwindsock
@Alec:
Please, can we dispense with the “silly and dim-witted” and stick to the issue? Feel free to whack away at my arguments.
Of course if polygamy laws were struck down family law would have to be rewritten, and of course the legal relationship between multiple partners would have to be established, but I think it is hardly the mountain you are presenting.
We already have to deal with situations in which there are more than two siblings. How is working things out between partners that much more unfathomable?
Jaroslaw
Strump – I really do know what you mean, ultimately I don’t care what people do, and I think we probably agree more than not but looking at the totality of my arguments and not looking at each individual argument, I think the case is made polygamy in a Western culture would be very difficult.
And yes, according to all the lawbooks I read, it would be a mountain of changes to accomodate. It’s not simply family law, it is all the intertwining things as well.
And I’m sure we can agree that what is theoretically possible can be and usually is much different than the actual implementation.
strumpetwindsock
@Jaroslaw:
Yes there is a big difference between the theory and implementation. That also goes for the existing polygamy laws, which is why they are rarely applied.
I support the attempt to prosecute child abuse, and show people there are alternatives to an unhealthy environment, but it is a shame that in most cases (the recent seizures down south)the only result has been traumatized and terrified children and no convictions (Warren Jeffs is a notable exception).
But you are right; I do agree with you on pretty much everything in this argument, including that I do not think those communities are a very healthy place to grow up. I certainly understand your position.
My only difference is that I think what we want or don’t want is largely irrelevant when it comes to recognizing human rights.
Jennifer
This argument completely ignores the implications of polygamy (multiple wives) for women. In my experience of polygamy in the Muslim world, it is vividly clear that there is nothing in these arrangements for women, whatsoever. They can pay as much lip service to it as they want. That’s a lot like a slave saying their master is good to them when the master’s in the room, isn’t it.
Polygamy, like traditional marriage, is a construct which oppresses and objectifies women and sets up a false domestic hierarchy in which the male is the King of the house, with the wives and children as his subjects. This is utterly despicable and unacceptable.
Cases like this make is completely clear the traditional marriage is, indeed, something which needs to be eliminated and replaced with contractual arrangements that honour all parties and which are recognized by the STATE. Let religions marry their own, within the laws of the nations they are running their little cons in. They are subject to the law and the law is subject to the RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE. Let’s keep that last bit in mind.
Jerome
Plural spouses in Saskatchewan Canada are already legal. In fact in 2 cases the family court judges have forced men to become the spouses of already married women because they cohabitated in the mens homes. The men claimed they would not agree to be spouses of the already married women and in one case the man claimed he let the woman and her children live in his home because they were almost bankrupt and needed a place to stay. The Saskatchewan judge proclaimed them spouses and gave the woman half of the mans assets even though she was married to another man in Ontario Canada.
It is against the federal law in Canada to be party to a consent to have plural spouses, yet no-one has or will prosecute the judges. Therefore, Polygamy is legal in at least one Canadian province. How long until Polygamy becomes legal in the rest of that country?
strumpetwindsock
@Jerome:
There’s a test case right now in B.C. The province laid two polygamy charges last year against two FLDS men. Hasn’t gone to trial yet, but if they get convicted you can expect it will go to the supreme court.
And there was a case in Ontario in which two mothers and the birth father were awarded three-way custody for their child (All three were arguing for it to be granted, as they shared childrearing duties).
Not the same as marriage, but it is a case of three parents being legally recognized.
strumpetwindsock
@strumpetwindsock:
Ooops. Forgot to read the piece first. My bad.
TANK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_the_Banner_of_Heaven:_A_Story_of_Violent_Faith
TANK
Polygamy isn’t same sex marriage. They mean different things, and thus, need to be argued for separately. Just saying that same marriage is legal, and therefore polygamy ought be legal is like saying it is legal for one to vote when they turn eighteen, therefore one should be able to drink at eighteen. It’s invalid unless a false premise is introduced (e.g., if is is legal to vote at eighteen, then drinking alcohol should be legal at eighteen; if ants live in colonies, then the sun should be the largest star in the galaxy–ask them why and they’ll just repeat that). Clearly drinking and voting have nothing to do with each other, and the inference is unsound.
Now, to address polygamy on its own, which is a mistake if you’re gay…don’t take the bait, and don’t argue for/against bestiality or incest, either (themselves separate)–if one overlooks the awful power imbalance behind mormon polygamy that results in abuse of women and children, then why not…after all, without harm or the actual potential for it, there’s no reason to ban something.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
I think I’ll leave the legal arguments up to the lawyers (after all your arguing skills seem to be limited to the “broken record” strategy).
Anyway, there is a legal opinion that Canada’s polygamy law will fall based on the very same clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that struck down the ban on same-sex marriage.
Same clause, Same grounds.
After all, equal access and protection means just that, and the court has already found that that protection is open-ended, not just restricted to gender, orientation, race, or whatever is actually mentioned in the charter.
Of course, the government can always resort to the notwithstanding clause to maintain the ban, even if the old law is struck down.
A lot of people think the province should have waited until they had a solid child abuse case, because laying polygamy charges may just backfire.
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
Oh shut up, you idiot. Leave the legal arguments to the lawyers. I wasn’t making a legal argument, fool. Law and ethics are distinct.
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5LkDNu8bVU&feature=player_embedded
TANK
and also, more often than not, legal arguments are not logically sound ones…nor, in many cases, are they even logically valid. Law and logic are, too, separate things.
TANK
It’s embarrassing that I need to explain this to a grownup. Embarrassing…learn what an argument is…take a logic class, you stupid cunt.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
Right, I forgot you do personal attacks, too. I bet that went over great in the high school debating club.
And sorry for making the mistake that you were arguing the ethical and not the legal issue.
It may have been because in the first paragraph of your post #84 you used the word “legal” five times, yet the words “moral” or “ethical” do not appear at all.
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
No, it’s just foolish. You weren’t saying anything that even remotely addressed what I wrote. You don’t know what ethics, and you don’t know what logic is. I doubt you’ve ever even read a book on the philosophy of law in your life, either.
RichardB
In Saskatchewan Canada, in 2009 and 1999, family court judgges have ruled that Tami Thurlow and Winick were spouses of men they cohabitated with even while they remained married to other men.
This is polygamy. No divorce means they were still married.
The men did not consent and argued it was unconstitutional to make them spouses of already married women as well as the women did a criminal act.
The judges disagreed and basically said the polygamy laws are not used in Saskatchewan.
strumpetwindsock
@RichardB:
Here’s a page with some material on Canada’s polygamy law and this particular case:
http://www.thecourt.ca/2007/08/24/a-polygamy-primer/
I’ve been trying to find some background on the Winik and Thurlow cases, without success. The only thing I can think of is that these couples were suing to not be declared “equivalent to married” (common law) because they wanted to avoid being taxed as couples.
It doesn’t sound like any group in these cases were living in a three-way relationship under one roof. On the other hand, if the judgement in on the books does it open the door to such a three way relationship being declared common law?
Here’s a page that states muslim polygamist families are getting benefits for multiple wives in Ontario. I can’t tell from the site if it is just heresay or not.
http://canadianimmigrationreform.blogspot.com/2008/02/muslim-immigration-is-bringing-polygamy.html
Jaroslaw
Strump – we’ve been over this before; perhaps the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms says something different than American law, but still I have a read a lot of articles from lawyers here, even a couple whole books and distilled this is my opinion:
1. Polygamy is not the same as same sex marriage – based on the premise that EQUAL rights give an adult the right to marry the person of their choice.
2. Polygamy is fraught with problems – who takes care of all the resulting children, in the event of dissolution, death, medical problems which wife (or multiple husband as the case may be, yes, I know it is called Polyandry) gets to decide what happens to the spouse? How are assets divided? Which wife gets which kid?
My next comments is a personal more than a legal problem – but it just seems multiple marriage in our western legal framework is just unworkable.
strumpetwindsock
@Jaroslaw:
The meat of this article, and a lot of this discussion seems to be about the Canadian case, so I think what I posted is relevant.
Regarding your first point, if you check the Osgoode Law School site I posted you will see that one of the arguments for striking down the polygamy law is exactly the same charter section (#15) and grounds that was used to grant marriage equality here in Canada. Not just my opinion, but a legal one.
And as you say we have been through the issues in your second point (further up this thread, actually) and I disagree that these are issues more confusing than what already exists in family law.
As I said, I am not sure if the second piece I posted is just heresay, but I have no doubt there are already muslim polygamist families living in both our countries. It is just a matter of time before the issue lands in court and some decision WILL wind up on paper (like the NY decision giving tacit recognition to same sex marriage by granting a divorce).
Alec
@strumpetwindsock: But you haven’t addressed the fact (not theory, but fact) that multiple partner marriages absolutely change the legal nature of the institution. You can’t simply say, “well, we can work it out.” How do you propose to work it out? The reason polygamy “works” in Africa and Asia is because women are subordinate to men (culturally and legally). A gendered marital arrangement like that is clearly unconstitutional in the US and Canada, so there must be some sort of alternative arrangement. And why exactly is it the place of the court to redesign inheritance and family laws? Note that same-sex marriage does not involve the same questions; there is no alteration of intestacy or custody or divorce with same-sex marriage. There is with polygamy.
To my mind, that places the burden on the proponents. Not stating that we shouldn’t or couldn’t come up with an arrangement, but the line from interracial and interreligious marriage to same-sex marriage is pretty straightforward; not so with polygamy.
Jaroslaw
Strump – forgot how old this thread is, yes, we discussed this prior agreed. And I still say reading books and articles by many people who are lawyers and who actually practice law – they say polygamy unduly complicates family law. So that is how I base my opinion. Seems logical. The more people there are the more complicated things become.
Re: paragraph II above – not sure what your point it – I did look at the link, read #15 – if equality is the issue, then how does polygamy figure in here? If current law says each person can have ONE spouse then polygamy is a completely different issue, no?
Jaroslaw
Strump – for the record, Alec’ post, which I completely agree with, got in ahead of me, while I was typing. so if my answer seems repetitive, I didn’t read his.
strumpetwindsock
@Alec:
I don’t think they have THAT burden at all.
If it can be established that they have a right and the law falls, it is up to the state to work out the details.
The fact is there is a long tradition of polygamy… a more established tradition than same-sex marriage, actually. So how can you say which changes the nature of the institution more radically.
If the purpose of marriage is to be fruitful and multiply you might have a hard time making your case (I am playing Devil’s Advocate here).
Also, if we have no problem with people in open relationships or even multiple lovers how can we close the door at the notion that these unions should be legally recognized?
To go back to my original point (and your subjugation argument). If they had wanted to go after this community they should have waited until they had the grounds to lay proper charges of abuse or statutory rape. Using this law in what they have already said is a test case does not help out the people being victimized in Bountiful. Very likely it will backfire.
With respect to polygamous relationships that are not illegal, I would be careful about passing judgement on others’ livestyles just because you don’t like it. To do so undercuts all our defenses against that same discrimination.
strumpetwindsock
@Jaroslaw:
Yeah I know….
You might notice I forgot too and posted (#81) before realizing where I was.
Jaroslaw
Strump – I’m sure Alec will answer you, but(re: your comment about polygamy has a longer history) we are speaking of changing the institution of marriage & laws here in the US & Canada, no?
And I guess I missed the part where someone is judging alternate lifestyles too – Alec said “not that we shouldn’t or couldn’t adapt” and I simply said they seem unworkable in our current legal framework. It’s not a like or dislike on my part at least.
Also, I’ll ask again:
Re: paragraph II above – not sure what your point it – I did look at the link, read #15 – if equality is the issue, then how does polygamy figure in here? If current law says each person can have ONE spouse then polygamy is a completely different issue, no?
strumpetwindsock
@Jaroslaw:
The definition up here is a union between “two persons”.
Someone could make an argument that that definition discriminates against a union of “three persons”.
I think an important thing to remember is that the law is made for people and the real world, not the other way around. If we have family units of more than two, sooner or later the law will be forced to deal with that reality (it has already, actually).
Really the only area the law should be inviolate is in the area of recognizing human rights.
And like it or not, we can’t just close the door on human rights once we have ours and when it pleases us.
Like I posted once already, I don’t think anyone on our supreme court was happy to make the decision that Quebec can legally separate from Canada by referendum, but the law is the law and they had no choice but to recognize that people have the right to self-determination.
On the specific issue of the legality of marriage, this case is no different.
strumpetwindsock
On that note….
wondering how close we are to 10 am Pacific time.
Jaroslaw
Strump – come on! We’ve corresponded a lot and you’ve certainly read most of my posts and vice versa. It is very unfair of you to suggest that I’m advocating “closing the door” once we have our rights when you know I’m not.
Equality in the most general definition means that you try as much as possible to treat everyone fairly and the same. It cannot possibly mean that every possible choice in life that is denied is “discrimination.”
How would society ever decide anything?
strumpetwindsock
@Jaroslaw:
Sorry. I didn’t say it as a personal accusation.
As a general statement though, I meant it exactly as I said it. The fact is sometimes upholding what is right means standing up for something which we personally find objectionable, and sometimes it’s not obvious at first glance that is what is going on.
Again, this is my opinion, since it hasn’t actually been through our supreme court yet, but there is a strong argument there. We’ll see how it comes down.
Speaking of which, I just read the news. Fuck. My condolences.
Jaroslaw
Thanks for the condolences, but little chance I’ll ever need the law anyhow! sorry to say!
Stargazer
I know about the Canadian case of Tami Thurlow.
She was apparently legally married to one man on Ontario Canada, did not divorce, moved into another mans house in Saskatchewan Canada and was declared to now have a new spouse by Saskatchewan judges.( even though she was still married and he believed she had to be divorced first to be his spouse)
She allegedly won his dough in court because the law there allows Polygamy (having more than one legal spouse at a time)..she apparrently got (half his home) rich and lit out to do it again probably.
Polygamy pays man!
Kandice
@Dick Mills: The way Polygamy works in Saskatchewan Canada is:
“section 51 Family Property Act..when a person becomes the spouse of a person who has a spouse, the rights of the subsequent spouse are subject to the rights of the first spouse….”
So, A marries B, B marries C ( or common law marriage …cohabitation as spouses they call it..same marital rights)C lives with D for two years..kids from each “relationship”..OK.. if D has a previous spouse (but still currently not divorced) before C then C’s legal rights are subject to the rights of the first spouse in that particular relationship. But B would have initial rights if B and D also cohabitated unless A had previous spouse first which would give the rights to that person. Well.. it goes like that.. you can read the law for yourself. It also applies to wills and estates and other statutes in Saskatchewan. It’s a bit complicated, but basically, it is meant to protect the marital property rights of all plural spouses based on the order of them becoming spouses.
galefan2004
As people, we don’t get to make decisions for others that are not directly related to us in a way that could be damaging. If a man wants to marry a man and a woman or a man wants to marry three women (on up) then they should have every legal right to do so as long as all of the parties involved are capable of informed consent (age and mental awareness required). If a man wants to marry a box turtle, then the case could be made that the box turtle has no way to consent, so that really shouldn’t be legal.
Lovely
As long as all people are consenting and of legal age the sex of the married people and the amount of people are not anyone else’s business. Gay marriage is just as valid as any othe marriage, and polygamy is just as valid as well. Who am I and who is anyone to tell others who they are not allowed to marr and love? As long as they are all consenting adults.