Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Canada's polygamy laws upheld by B.C. Supreme Court

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
alp227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-23-11 12:13 PM
Original message
Canada's polygamy laws upheld by B.C. Supreme Court
Source: CBC

The B.C. Supreme Court has upheld Canada's polygamy laws in a decision handed down Wednesday in Vancouver.

The case is expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Chief Justice Robert Bauman spent several months hearing testimony and legal arguments about whether the 121-year-old ban on multiple marriages is constitutional.

The landmark hearings, which wrapped up in April, focused on the polygamous community of Bountiful, B.C., but the ruling is expected to have implications for polygamists in the Muslim community and for those who practise polyamoury, or having multiple marriage partners outside a religious context.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/20...
Refresh | +2 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-23-11 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
1. I suppose it's closer to say "Canada's lack of polygamy laws/prohibition of polygamy laws"
Those Canadian Mormons won't be happy about this...!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MedicalAdmin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-23-11 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. NO shit.
They'll have to move back to south Utah.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
malthaussen Donating Member (413 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-23-11 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
3. Funny how polygamy laws
... are just as much an infringement as anti-gay marriage laws are, but raise little or no outrage at all.

-- Mal
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Xithras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-23-11 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I think it's because of our history with polygamy.
I know quite a few people from the middle east, and few have any problem with polygamy. Why not? Because most have been exposed to it, and they understand that they are marriages like any other. Some are abusive. Some are not. Some are patriarchal. Some are not. There are marriages founded on fear. And there are marriages founded on love. To them, laws should be focused on stopping the abuses, and not interfering with marriages. To them, banning polygamy because it can be abusive makes about as much sense as banning marriage because it's abusive.

In North America, our only real exposure to polygamy tends to come from the Mormon cults and occasional sex cults. While there are polyamorous couples out there, they tend to be rare and keep a low profile. Because religious polygamy is nearly always abusive, and that's the only polygamy we're regularly exposed to, it colors our view of the whole institution. When every polygamous relationship that you know of is abusive, it's fairly normal to start associating polygamy with abuse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
left on green only Donating Member (270 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. I like your logic!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-24-11 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. No they're not. There's nothing about marriage that would require it to be among
more than two people.

And polygamy, unlike gay marriage, is often linked to cultures that subordinate women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
The Second Stone Donating Member (603 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 01:24 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Conjoined twins
would require it be among more than two people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. you could always read the facts of the case
and maybe learn something about constitutional law before speaking.

Laws infringe rights all the time. The question is whether the infringement is justified.

Oh look; I had clicked and was waiting for the page to open ...

In his ruling, Bauman said while the law does infringe on religious freedom, it is justified given the harm polygamy causes to children, women and society.

More specifically, Parliaments reasoned apprehension of harm arising out of the practice of polygamy. This includes harm to women, to children, to society and to the institution of monogamous marriage.

... Likewise, Canada's polyamorists people with multiple partners outside a religious context said they were relieved because Bauman said the law shouldn't apply to them unless they decide to formalize their unions.

"The formality of marriage is really not a big issue in the polyamorous community," said John Ince, the spokesman for the Canadian Polyamoury Advocacy Association.


Protection of vulnerable persons really is one function of laws in a liberal democracy.

The case involved a group from the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Testimony detailed the abuse suffered by women and children.

Another case involving polygamy is in the courts at the moment - a husband, his son and his #2 wife charged with murdering the husband's #1 wife and two of his daughters. Polygamy (which always involves multiple women, not multiple men) puts vulnerable people at risk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Jul 25th 2014, 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC