Making their bed
By Ken MacQueen - Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - 8 Comments
Some 16 groups take sides on polygamy in a landmark case
The British Columbia government’s decision to test the legality of Canada’s 120-year-old polygamy law led to a shocking revelation for Karen and her two male partners. The 37-year-old Winnipeg-area mother, her husband of 15 years and a second male partner concede their arrangement is unconventional. She calls it a plural union based on equality, not religious ideas of male dominance. What she didn’t realize, until the B.C. court reference drew attention to the issue, was that they’re breaking the law by sharing a home. “This has been a real learning experience,” she says.
Karen, who doesn’t want her surname used in order to protect her children, is part of a constituency of polyamorists, one of many groups seeking standing in the B.C. Supreme Court. The case will determine if the polygamy law—Section 293 of the Criminal Code—is constitutional. It was triggered by the province’s failure to prosecute two polygamous bishops in the fundamentalist Mormon community of Bountiful, B.C., but its outcome could affect the rights of thousands.
Some 16 groups have submitted affidavits seeking permission to argue for or against 293 when a trial date is set—proving, if nothing else, that polygamy creates strange bedfellows. Some groups see the polygamy law as the foundation of the traditional family and a defence against the exploitation of girls forced into multiple marriage, as the province alleged happened in Bountiful. Others argue the law is unenforceable, does nothing to help the women of Bountiful, and that it imposes a moral code out of step with Canada’s modern, multicultural society.
-
How much did he know?
By macleans.ca - Wednesday, March 10, 2010 - 0 Comments
-
Pope canonization setback
By macleans.ca - Friday, March 5, 2010 - 13 Comments
-
What can Buddhism teach Tiger Woods?
By Philippe Gohier - Friday, February 19, 2010 - 24 Comments
-
In which I defend Pat Robertson
By Andrew Potter - Thursday, January 21, 2010 at 8:41 AM - 128 Comments
Writing in the National Post, Rex Murphy called Robertson an “obnoxious ignoramus” and described his mind as “an attic of obsolete and ugly demi-thoughts.” That’s one way of looking at it. Another possibility is that Pat Robertson said what he did because he’s one of the few people left who actually takes his religious beliefs seriously.
-
Seminary: not just for ministers
By macleans.ca - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - 1 Comment
-
Oral Roberts, dead at 91
By macleans.ca - Tuesday, December 15, 2009 - 10 Comments
-
Et tu, my lord?
By macleans.ca - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - 12 Comments
-
Moral vacuum in theatre 3
By macleans.ca - Monday, November 23, 2009 - 3 Comments
-
Who decides what it means to be Catholic?
By macleans.ca - Monday, November 9, 2009 - 7 Comments
-
Church and States
By Brian Bethune - Thursday, November 5, 2009 - 4 Comments
-
Eckhart Tolle vs. God
By Ken MacQueen - Thursday, October 22, 2009 - 51 Comments











