Maybe I’m mis-reading that charter section, but … if I’m right (and I hope I’m not), this is seriously messed. Does the phrase “any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time” include non-marriage relationships? Would it be illegal for me to date multiple people simultaneously? How about fullfilling all the conditions of a common-law marriage?

It would terrify me if living with several women for an extended period of time was criminal.

Also, if anyone is interested, I just reposted an article I wrote back in 2006 on the situation in Bountiful, and the legal/constitutional issues at stake.

That authorities use this to batter religions they don’t like is unsurprising. If girls can marry at 16 with their parents consent, why can’t two of them marry the same guy at 16? One is true christian love, the other is abuse? Huh?

An example. A guy marries a 16 year old. Then he marries an 80 year old. Bang, arrested.
If he didn’t marry the 80-yr-old, he’d be fine.

Further, it’s barmy, this idea that I could go to jail for 5 years for, say, going to a housewarming party for a three-way love-thingy (I’d be celebrating a consent, without a written agreement or even proof of any kind).

If someone is under 16 in Canada, they can still marry with a court’s consent. I mean wowsers! So you marry a 12 year old with court consent (however that happens), and then you get arrested for marrying an 80 year old the next year! Because you’re abusing the 80-year-old?

Her example for lack of informed concent is the old dude – 14 year old girl ruse. According to social liberals, 14 year olds are plenty mature enough to consent to sex with their peers and consent to the often subsiquent abortion without parental or guardian consent.

The one man one woman system( as poorly as we have applied it) has brought us this far in western society, why mess with it?

I am willing to overlook Kady’s naive comments because she’s young and beautiful. I’m considering drafting her into my harem.

Twenty-one wives and one-hundred-sixteen children; I don’t think he needs anymore practice; he has this polygamy thing down pat.

(Got these numbers from the news last night – from the horses mouth, so to speak)

How would you like it if you had hired someone to work for you and then found out that this person had 12 wives and 54 children? The cost to provide benefits to your employees would skyrocket (especially for a small employer) and as a result, you might be forced to cut the benefits for all your other employees.

That would suck.

And you think divorces suck right now? Imagine a nine way split up. Most likely, after the lawyers were done, there would be nothing left for any of the parties to the divorce, or their dependants.

I think there are good reasons (legally) for NOT permitting more than one legal spouse and set of children/dependants. I may not agree with it morally, but I can get past other people doing things I think are immoral.

celebrates? Does that mean I can’t even go to a polygamous wedding?

Freedom of religion is taken to mean that parents have the right to control the education, intellectual development, social environment, etc. of their children so as to condition them to making choices that reflect the religious views of the parents.

One wonders, therefore, how what these Mormons do differs from what all religious parents generally do when raising their child to act in accordance with the beliefs held by the parents.

The only difference here is that this group of Mormons believe that plural marriage is a dictate from (their notion of) God, while (some) other religions do not agree see this as a dictate from (their notion of) God.

Provided the Mormons in question do not violate the laws of consent regarding conjugal union (i.e. respect the age limits set down in law) then why shouldn’t they get to live according to their religious beliefs?

My view is that the reason for banning polygamy has nothing to do with religious beliefs, morality or age-related issues. The problem with polygamy is that, if allowed and if it proliferates, it would lead to societal disorder because many men (perhaps a majority) would be unable to find life partners of the opposite sex.

- JV

Not a bad read. She’s been following the sect for about 8 years now. Warning, I found parts of the book disturbing.

I think the problem with the law is that the law states proof of the crime is not required. What? Hello, I see a problem. Yet I understand why the law is worded in such a fashion, because I don’t know how you could possibly PROVE that man had sexual intercourse (or worse, he INTENDED to) with that young woman. Unless you caught them in the act, or in time to recover DNA evidence.

And I think the problem with informed consent is much like arranged marriages and that sort of thing. I believe most people who enter into that kind of arrangement, in Canada, know perfectly well that this isn’t mainstream behaviour. But informed consent would surely also include knowledge of how you would be ostrasized by your community, family, everyone you know and love if you didn’t agree to go through with it. Well, maybe not every arranged marriage would be that bad, but certainly with a polygamist sect, you would be cast adrift from the reality you’ve always known. What would be scarier for a young woman?

I personally don’t care if an adult chooses to have more than one spouse and the adult spouses are in agreement. I would think the government should, and would, stay out of those adults’ business. But I obviously have concerns about the Bountiful type situations, where one spouse has more power than the other(s). I think maybe, if this is going to be seen as a freedom of religion thing (which I don’t buy–its a freedom of dirty old men thing), “freedom of religion” should be changed to “freedom of religion within the following listed, specific parameters”.

It should be noted that down here in the USA, nobody has been explicitly prosecuted for polygamy in the most recent spate of court cases (i.e., against the FLDS in Texas and elsewhere). The state authorities have gone for the much easier to prove cases of statutory sexual assualt (rape). It’s just easier to convince a local jury, particularly in Utah to convict on statutory sexual assault, particularly when you might have jurors who may otherwise be sympathetic to practitioners of “plural marriage.” Warren Jeffs, for example, is not in jail for practicing polygamy. No, he’s in jail for facilitating statutory rape.

When it happens, right wing extremists will claim that it opens the door to legalizing polygamous marriage, but that won’t be the case.

I’m just saying that I can see that case being argued without having to make moral or religious arguments.

- JV

This being the case, I don’t see why laws against polygamy could not be justified under the Charter, since polygamy can be characterized as corrosive to the common good for reasons of demography, not due to any political, religious or moral consideration.

- JV

Does the section only apply to situations involving co-habitation? What about instances of polygamy where the spouses are living on different properties? Surely millions of Canadians have had more than one sexual partner at one time or another, would this make them guilty of polygamy?

The problem for the state is that there is complications (from a civil, property ownership point of view) in the event of dissolution of the marriage. Common law has no provisions for th

The logical outcome of this is to either create civil legal provisions which account for polygamous relationships, or have the state remove itself altogether from the issuance of marriage certificates, leaving marriage to religious institutions.

Obviously, we couldn’t (and in most cases, shouldn’t) eliminate the influence of an individual’s upbringing altogether, however damaging we may believe that influence to be, but so long as those individuals are exposed to other options, they at least have a fighting chance at meeting some standard of informed consent.

There was a great deal of discussion amongst the audience — Canadian Federation of University Women, I think it was — about WHY no governments seemed interested in prosecuting, and also an assertion by the speaker that many of the women (the wives) were somehow able to receive social welfare, so that there was a huge financial component to the abuse as well.

Her book was called Keep Sweet: Children of Polygamy. I have not read it — the two hour talk was enough for me — but it did indeed get strong reviews, perhaps more for the content than the writing, but I think it was ghost-written.

The women in polygamous religious sects are often more like concubines than equal partners but the law is unlikely to fix that either.

Thanks for all your hard work and best wishes for the new year.

Which brings us to arranged marriages…non-polygamous, but same scenario? Culturally enforced, etc.

Best of all it would cost the government tons of money! Aka: Stimulus! Everyone wins!

In my opinion, one spouse of either sex is plenty.

1) The AG’s office can win any challenge in the courts
2) The risk of losing is outweighed by the politcal benefits

Don’t ask me though. I’m Anglican…

I don’t see why people are so against polygamy. I think it should be up to those partaking in the union to decide the number therein, just as it is up to individuals to decide the gender of their partner. Sure, polygamy can lead to abuse and oppression, but so can any marriage. I think the abuse and oppression should be punished where it exists, not the supposed arrangement that may or may not bring it about.