The March 22nd Macleans print issue contains a fascinating article entitled ‘Making Their Bed’, but it is not yet available online. I will add a link when I see it on their website.
Ken MacQueen writes about the upcoming challenge to Canada’s polygamy law which is seeing some strange bedfellows unite in the quest to test the legality of the law once and for all. Bountiful is the constant irritant that is forcing this issue to come to a head.
The various interested groups are detailed in this story from the Vancouver Courier and include the Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association headed up by John Ince, a Vancouver lawyer who is himself in a polyamorous relationship according to Macleans.
Apparently only the polygamists at Bountiful have experienced any sort of legal trouble but the polyamorists in Canada want the kind of equality and freedom that is now enjoyed by heterosexual and homosexual monogamists:
…The law against polyamory is not legally enforced, Ince said.
“But it is completely unacceptable that a law remains on the books that says that.”
Polyamory is very different from polygamy, he added.
“At its core is the concept of equality,” Ince said, pointing out that polyamorists accept same-sex partnerships.
The law is detrimental to polyamorist people, according to Danielle Duplassie, a registered clinical counsellor, clinical sexologist and sex therapist in Burnaby.
“They are small fish in a big sea of monogamy,” Duplassie said, adding that the lack of access to places where “triads or quads” can go together on dates can be difficult.
“Right now, people live in fear of their relationships being outed.”
Since section 293 if the Criminal Code prohibits 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,” then polyamorists are technically breaking the law when they live together in a conjugal manner.
In the Macleans article Ince states that “the case will determine only if plural relationships are legal. What flows from that – the rights of multiple partners to pensions, adoption or immigration sponsorship – are issues for future rulings many years, and many appeals, down the road…”
Personally I don’t see how we can stop this train. I’ve given up caring about the moral and societal ramifications, but I wonder how much it’s ultimately going to cost us.
Thanks Pierre.
* * * *
Then again maybe what goes around comes around.
Update
Macleans online article now available – Making their bed. Check out the comments too.
Yeah,when our society becomes an amorphous blob we can thank Pierre. His Charter and Multicultural policies are all the tools needed to ensure we are on our way to standing for nothing. One action this government should take is abolishing the HRC’s which are an insult to this democracy.
It’s a sad statement on the state of our country. I fear for the children of these relationships. Funny how they said that same sex marriage would not lead to making polygamy legal, but we all knew it would, even the Liberals who pushed it through Parliament, knew it, but it was politically expedient. Progressives, no morals and they want us to have none as well. Forget the traditional family, they no longer matter.
Hunter, what I find interesting is that the polyamorists see themselves as better than the polygamists – it’s apparently about ‘equality’ whereas polygamy is supposedly about abuse and exploitation.
I just wonder how many more of these challenges we’ll have to endure before it’s all out there and we get to the point, ‘Hey that’s it. Everyone is allowed to do anything they want. It’s all good. Just don’t kill anyone.’
Hunter you’re exactly right. I remember when the gay marriage debate was going on. There were warnings we going down a slippery slope but oh no,no,no the Liberals and those on the left said. Here we are today. Who knows what will be next, I shudder at the thought. It is indeed very sad.
The children are always the ones that suffer. That’s worst part of it all.
Not “better than” Joanne, just “different than”. There are many people living in poly relationships that aren’t in anyway the same as the ones that you see from Bountiful and other sensationalist news bites.
Frmgrl – Required reading for 2012 – Sarah has four Moms and three Dads.
Annie, it sounds as if you are speaking from personal experience. If you care to elaborate we would be most interested in hearing what you have to say.
Right, “the state has no business in the bedroom of the nation”, Pierre Trudeau. I might just accept the state there, if it would get out of my attic, crawlspace, workshop, garage, car, workstation, and every other facet of my existence.
The Supremes have already given the thumbs up to group sex and partner swaping
”Canada’s top court says clubs that feature group sex and partner-swapping are perfectly legal.
In its 7-2 decision released Wednesday, the Supreme Court of Canada said, because consensual sexual activity in a private club poses no threat to society, it shouldn’t be considered criminal.
The ruling sets a single standard, after lower courts went in opposite directions on two similar cases involving a pair of so-called ‘swinger clubs’ in Montreal.
the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Dec 21/05.”
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051221/SCC_swingersruling_20051221/20051221/
Just replace ‘private club’ with ‘private home’ and presto!
So do I have this right,
polyamorists want to live with and have sex with numerous consenting adults,
but if they want to marry ‘them’ they are polygamists…?
So what are polyamorists exactly looking for, our blessing, our respect?
They need our blessing to have a modern day commune?
So don’t get married and be a proud polygamorist!
And when you get tired of that bunch, go fishing for more!
Next, we should remove the age restriction on marriage. After all, we might be infringing on the rights of children. Than we will truly have a meaningless institution which we can pass on to the next generation.
Well, Texas knows a bit about how to deal with polygamists who break the law by marrying tweenies to old men. These guys are getting serious hard time, as they should. Canadians, like Arizona and Colorado are comparative wusses. Oppal’s strategy was slow and not astute, as he chose the wrong approach. This is a huge issue with respect to social benefits, as some polygamist men abandon their support of women immigrants.
Canadians will uphold the law on polygamy, if given the chance to vote. I wish someone would go there on a national plebiscite, rather than have stupid court cases.
They need our blessing to have a modern day commune?
So don’t get married and be a proud polygamorist!
And when you get tired of that bunch, go fishing for more!
Polygamorist? I think you may have invented a new word! That could be useful.
Seriously though, I think they want their particular sexual proclivity removed from the Criminal Code. Something like where we were back in the Trudeau era with sodomy.
In the Macleans article they talk about “Karen and her two male partners”. She is a 37-year-old Winnipeg are mother who has been married for 15 years to the first guy but they’ve taken on a second male partner. She says that if she simply had an affair with stud #2 that would not be a criminal act.
I think CBC should make a reality TV show about this! “Little Commune on the Prairie.” Or “Little Plural Union on the Prairie” to update things a bit.
The heresy of Unitarianism.
…-
Polyamory in the News: Poly and the Unitarian Universalist Church
Tracking the coverage of polyamory in mainstream and not-so-mainstream media. Frequently updated. Rich archive.
polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/ 2009/ 12/ poly-and-unitarian-universalist-church.html
No CBC…………..aaaaaahhh, my eyes, it burns!!!!!!!!!!
Testing time stamp again.
Yes, we would rather like polyamory removed from the Criminal Code. Most of us have a bit of a prejudice against spending 5 years each in jail. However, it’s not a matter of “sexual proclivity”. As Karen pointed out, we polyamorists are already legally allowed to do anything we want sexually. What we can’t do is to form families. It’s not just a matter of recognition for those families. It’s that we can be arrested for making a commitment or living together.
Yes, we who call ourselves “polyamorists” are different from those who call themselves “polygamists”. The dictionary definitions overlap. They’re not identical, but they’re closely related. However, words are more than dictionary definitions. The cultures, lifestyles, and values of the people who adopt the words “polyamory” and “polygamy” are worlds apart.
I don’t even entirely agree with Annie that polyamorists, as a group, don’t see our way as better than the polygamists’ way. A lot of polyamorists would probably recoil from saying that one person was better than another person, but nonetheless “polyamorists” I talk to are often pretty suspicious of the lifestyles of “polygamists”.
Our approach is to create our own relationships, ones that work for us, according to our own values. Their approach is usually to copy some pattern out of the Bible or something, according to the values of somebody 2000 years ago. Some of them have some pretty scary views, mostly to do with the status of women (views, by the way, that aren’t that different from the ones most monogamists held say 150 years ago). In the polyamorist community, the polygamists’ idea that men can have multiple wives, and women can’t have multiple husbands, is seen as retrograde and creepy.
As for the FLDS and Bountiful specifically, even a lot people who call themselves polygamists don’t like the FLDS. Polyamorists almost universally can’t stand them. However, our beef with the FLDS obviously isn’t the multiple marriage. The issue is that, according to what we’re told about them, they that treat women as property, manipulate and abuse young girls, toss boys out of their community on cheesy pretexts, and submit themselves completely to the dictates of their “prophet”.
Trafficking young girls across borders to be “assigned” and “reassigned” to favored members of the cult would be equally creepy if they did it one girl at a time. Polygamy isn’t the issue. If you want a law, make a law that actually addresses the problem, and leave the number of people involved out of the question.
By the way, I always like to counter the whole “old guys with harems of young girls, and the boys left by the wayside” thing. That’s a pattern that happens because people are working from the ideas of a barbaric time when women were property, and it has zero relevance to modern polyamory. I myself am one of two men fundamentally married to one woman (and, no, that woman is not Karen). And the youngest of us was over 30 when we came to this. And we all have other options. And nobody led us to this but ourselves.
O.K. On a technical note, I have aligned myself with Toronto (ugh!) so I shouldn’t have to worry about being out of sync with daylight savings again.
J.R. – Thanks for joining in. I trust you’re not my fellow Blogging Tory JR.
I hear you on the difference of free choice and the brainwashing factor as differences between polygamy and polyamory – especially regarding the FLDS. I do believe that the authorities have tried nailing these religious sects on grounds of sexual exploitation and underage marriage but I don’t think they’ve been very successful, mainly because of the difficulty of getting the women to testify against their leaders.
However another difference I was wondering about is the interaction between the group members. For example with your arrangement, does the conjugal activity just occur between the woman and each of you guys or do you also consider each other sexual partners or is it a threesome? I hope I don’t sound too prying or here but I am curious from a discussion POV because in polygamy the women don’t usually regard each other as sexual partners.
If that is true then I think a case can be made for your arrangement since gay relationships are legal here.
I should add, by the way, that the distaste runs both way. I think the “polygamists”, as a group, tend to see polyamorists as aimless and morally dissolute. Actually, from my postmodern degenerate perspective, they kind of sound like a lot of the commenters on this blog.
And of course the distaste is not universal on either side.
J.R. is a pseudonym that I use for blog comments on this subject all over the Net. I’ve never been on this site before. Sorry if it’s caused any confusion.
Tell me what you mean by “conjugal activity”.
We all live in the same house, we vacation as a family, we consider our daughter to be equally the child of all three of us, we eat together, share household duties, pool our income and take equal allowances from the pool, etc, etc. In Canadian family law, those are all things that matter just as much as sex in determining whether you’re conjugal. It’s possible to be legally conjugal (and get arrested for it) without having sex at all.
As for sex, which is really what you asked about, it turns out that my husband, if you’ll allow me the word, is pretty much exclusively heterosexual, and I’m mostly heterosexual. So we don’t really have sex with each other. Sex is generally between each of us and our wife on a one-on-one basis. Threesomes are fun, but basically a thing of the past when you have a kid in the house…
If our wife died, the two men would stay together and raise our daughter. Maybe that tells you something.
If it’s a CONSENTING affair, why does it need the rest of us to approve it? Why does it need recognition? Who cares if it’s a 3,4 or 5 way? If they in all good conscience support their own lifestyle, why does it require laws and society to give it the thumbs up.
If there are children involved, why would that be illegal?
Is it the tax breaks, social services etc they are looking for? That would appear to possibly be the case. Nothing else makes sense.
What I see isn’t a concern over getting tossed in jail for living with more than one person YOU deem a partner JR,
I see your group wanting to take it to the next generation, and the generation after that.
JR, you fear that THINKING the 2 people you live with are partners can land you in jail?
That’s an easy win in the courts.
Dec 2005, group sex was found legal by the Supreme Court,
so you are off the hook there.
And there is no law against permanent sleep overs.
So unless you want to legalize, have recognized, your 3some, what’s your beef?
Carry on, you’d win your case in a heart beat.
You can adopt any child with consent from the birth parents,
so are you looking for 3 Daddy’s on the birth certificate?
Polygamy allows for women to have mulitple husbands,
so this female equality thing is just a gimmick.
Or is this a bi-sexual rights thing, where you want having both a male and female partner to be legal?
Or is this a bi-sexual rights thing, where you want having both a male and female partner to be legal?
JR answered that but the comments were in moderation. I’ll take it off but I’m going to ask everyone to try to be civil. Thanks.
I find this topic fascinating.
As for sex, which is really what you asked about, it turns out that my husband, if you’ll allow me the word, is pretty much exclusively heterosexual, and I’m mostly heterosexual. So we don’t really have sex with each other. Sex is generally between each of us and our wife on a one-on-one basis.
So how do you avoid jealousy, JR? And how do you explain to your child that she has two daddies and a mommy? Again, I’m just seeking to learn.
In our particular group, it happens that nobody’s the jealous type. That’s actually not uncommon among polyamorists, because, after all, people who are naturally very jealous don’t tend to gravitate toward polyamory. That’s not to say that any of us wouldn’t find it unacceptable if we were actually neglected. However, the jealousy most people feel seems to be more associated with what their partners are doing than with whether their own needs are being met. That kind of jealousy just hasn’t ever been an issue for me or my partners, because that’s not how we’re wired.
We do have a pretty detailed calendar. That both helps us avoid anybody being neglected, and avoids us having to figure out what we’re doing every day and night. The calendar includes “date nights” which are opportunities for sex, although we don’t always include sex in our “dates”.
Although not rare, our relative lack of jealousy is not universal among polyamorous people. If you look at polyamorous community forums, this is a pretty significant topic of discussion. The answers differ from grouping to grouping. If you don’t find an answer, well, you’re not going to be doing polyamory.
Almost all polyamorist “authorities” will tell you that the key is making sure each person understands his or her own feelings and hot buttons, then communicating that information to everybody else, then working out an arrangement that can make everybody happy. The arrangements people use vary a lot. Most of the time the biggest issue is making everybody feel secure.
Well, basically, we say “Sweetheart, you have two daddies and a mommy.”. Seriously. It’s not like it’s anything she can’t grasp. At the moment, she’s not really old enough to see it as unusual. When she does, we’ll answer whatever questions she has with direct answers.
You have to remember that she’s going to be starting out by seeing this as the norm. It’s not like it’s going to be some shocking revelation to her that she has two daddies. This is her daily life. She also sees she sees all kinds of family patterns every day. Our friends include single mothers, lesbian couples raising children from sperm donors, a lesbian couple raising children with a man who is not conjugal with them, but does act as a father to his children, at least one childless grouping of a man and two women, and probably some couples with children who’ve divorced and remarried (I’m blanking on that at the moment, but I’m sure there are some down at the day care center). None of those are the supposedly standard “one mommy, one daddy” pattern.
I strongly suspect her questions are going to be mostly along the lines of “why do some people think you can’t have two daddies”…
Thanks JR. I appreciate the insight. Do you think you and your partners will take on any more into your family?
Replying to wilson now:
Before I get to the legalities, I want to address this head on:
Yes. That’s absolutely correct. I want every generation from now on to have the option of living with multiple loving partners in what is effectively a marriage. Furthermore, I want every generation from now on to learn that that is a moral and honorable option, because I BELIEVE IT IS A MORAL AND HONORABLE OPTION.
I wouldn’t be doing it if I didn’t believe that.
You are free to disagree. But at least don’t kid yourself about what you’re arguing for… and in the rest of your post you really do seem to be kidding yourself about what the law says.
Yes, I do, since Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada says exactly that. If some Crown attorney decides to push the matter, I can land in jail simply because I am a person who “practises or enters into or in any manner agrees to practise or enter into 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”.
In fact, I don’t even have to be in the family myself. All it takes is to be a person who “celebrates, assists or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or consent that purports to sanction a relationship [as above]“.
I believe that the courts will in fact strike down Section 293. It’s full of blatant Charter violations, and it’s just generally badly drafted. However, I don’t consider getting arrested and having to fight something like that in the court to be “easy”, thanks. Especially not when the whole government would be trying to argue the other side.
To understand the situation here, you have to drop some of the focus on sex. The forbidden behavior is not sex. The forbidden behavior is forming a family.
Section 293 actually says that it is not “necessary on the trial to prove that the persons who are alleged to have entered into the relationship had or intended to have sexual intercourse”.
The reasoning the Supreme Court used for the “swinger” cases that “legalized” group sex has very little to do with the reasoning that I think the courts will use to knock down section 293.
Um, actually, yeah, there is. It’s the law behind this entire polygamy brouhaha, and I just quoted it for you.
I think it’s pretty unlikely. We’d have to find somebody who was compatible with all three of us adults, who all three of us actively wanted to be partnered with, who wanted us in return, who was compatible with our daughter and wanted to be a parent to her, whom we believed she could accept as a parent, and who we thought would be a good parent.
When you form a monogamous couple, you have to form one relationship, between two people. When you form a polyamorous triad, you have to form three bilateral relationships, of which each person participates in two (and those relationships all have to work together and not conflict with each other). When you form a quad (four people), you have six bilateral relationships, with each person in three (work it out…). Quads happen, but they’re not that common.
Relationships larger than quads rarely work unless it’s not really everybody married to everybody else. The whole feel and emphasis of the structure almost always have to change, and, to me, anyway, it seems less family-like.
Bring in the lifetime stability concerns that you should have when you’re raising children, and it gets pretty hard to put together a large grouping.
And none of us is actively looking.
Is somebody having us on here?
JR – Without getting too personal can you tell us how you got into this relationship in the first place? Thanks.
Is somebody having us on here?
I don’t think so. JR’s story is very similar to the one in Macleans. I’m just surprised at the thought of one woman having two male partners rather than the reverse.
Like you, Joanne, “I’ve given up caring about the moral and societal ramifications …”
Just don’t ask Taxpayer me to pay for the polyandrous, polymorphous, polyzoic or other polyvalent relationships.
It has been said the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. By the same token, the state should stop having a permanent place deep in my pocket.
Right on Gabby
The way Section 293 is written, a person having an affair could be charged, so of course the law will be struck down, rewritten or turfed completely (like the Abortion law).
JR, what part of the Charter can polyamorists use to force the courts to see things their way?
Polygamists have freedom of religion, what have you got?
It has been said the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. By the same token, the state should stop having a permanent place deep in my pocket.
Very well said Gabby. Exactly my thoughts on the matter.
And really, when everything is a ‘family’ then nothing is a family so we may as well drop all benefits at that point.
Joanne at 2:53 pm, you said it!
This movement gives new meaning to the term “social-ist.”
Wilson I hope that Macleans article comes online soon. In it “Karen” says she could have an affair without committing an act against the Criminal Code, so I guess the difference is mutual consent between three or more persons and cohabitation.
Regarding the question of Charter issues, polyamorists would probably have to make their case as a matter of civil liberties.
I was dating a couple, and they got pregnant.
All of us had been polyamorists for many years (over 20, in my case). I had had a long-term “dating” relationship with our wife, and been a very good friend of our husband, for about 8 years.
I found myself divorced (for unrelated reasons, since I’m sure everybody will be making assumptions). I moved to the city where they lived, and I started spending more time with them. I was around their house a lot, although I had my own apartment nearby.
Maybe, probably in fact, we’d have ended up moving in together anyway. The immediate reason was that they were trying to have a child, and we were trying to figure out what my relationship to that child should be.
We knew that if I spent that much time around the house, the child, now our daughter, would start to see me as an important part of her life. Letting a child love me and depend on me would mean that I had a permanent commitment to that child. I didn’t believe that it was fair to change that commitment later on. If I was going to be a parent, I had to be a parent from the beginning, and stay one until the end.
So I had the choice of being “Uncle J.R.” (forever or at least for many years) or “Papa” (forever). And I didn’t want to back off to the “Uncle J.R.” level. I loved my partners too much. So I proposed “marriage” and my partners agreed.
You’re on a roll today Gabby.
Thanks for being so frank, JR.
So the difference between your relationship and swinging is a commitment, I take it? Personally I have a hard time seeing how this could be a criminal act – especially in view of what we already seem to condone as a society.
We do have some Section 2 freedom of religion arguments. Although, unlike the polygamists, few if any polyamorists have religions that actually require polyamory, many have religions, notably various modern pagan traditions, that permit it. And 293 tries to make you a criminal for even attending a ceremony, which is a purely religious act. Lots of polyamorists and even non-polyamorists have been at religious ceremonies aimed at solemnizing polyamorous unions.
We have a section 2 argument under freedom of conscience. For example, my joining my family was partly a matter of conscience (being unwilling to abandon my relationship with my partners, and unwilling to become a parent figure to a child without making a commitment to her). Others will have similar or other conscience issues.
We also have Section 2 freedom of association.
We have Section 7 vagueness: as you point out, adultery could be charged the way the thing is written, yet there’s ancient case law that says it doesn’t apply to adultery… even though the guy in that case lived with his “mistress” for years and had I think 4 children with her. The definition of “conjugality” in family law has changed enormously, and become pretty nebulous, since Section 293 was drafted, and when you read that against Section 293, who’s violating it becomes basically a matter of opinion or even guesswork. And then 293 itself makes it even more vague by removing some key elements (sex and ceremonial solemnization) from consideration at trial.
We have Section 7 overbreadth: if you do try to read 293 in the most natural way, it seems to sweep in huge fractions of the population who are never charged and obviously never intended to be charged. Thus enforcement is always discriminatory. In fact, enforcement is demonstrably extremely discriminatory in practice; the thing has only ever been invoked against First Nations and/or against members of religious minorities. In fact, people keep telling members of the polyamorous community not to worry because “they’ll never charge you”… precisely because the law is enforced so discriminatorily. Of course, we’re worried that the fashions about who gets discriminated against might change…
There’s also a largely non-enforcement-based Section 15 discrimination argument that polyamorists form an identifiable group, which is being discriminated against on the “analogous ground” of (polyamorous) conjugal status (and desired conjugal status), which is something at the heart of their identity and personhood. If you think that’s a stretch, read the Supreme Court’s language in Miron v. Trudel, starting at about paragraph 150.
That’s off the top of my head; there are probably other arguments I’ve forgotten about.
It sounds as if you’ve researched this very well JR. I would say that your arguments have won me over from the POV that this should not be in the Criminal Code.
I would like to add that there is a notion of ‘stigma’ involved, and removing polyamorous relationships from the Criminal Code would go a long way towards alleviating that problem, IMHO.
That’s pretty much correct.
There’s a lot of discussion about where the boundary between polyamory and swinging lies. Generally the consensus seems to be that polyamorists are looking for emotional involvement at least, and commitment often, whereas swingers are mostly looking to get laid.
In fact, some swingers go to a lot of trouble to avoid emotional entanglements, which they may see as dangerous to their marriages. Many swingers are fundamentally monogamous about everything but sex, and even about sex if it’s not in a specific setting. Polyamorists, for the most part, tend to be plural about pretty much everything, all the time.
There are also some cultural differences; among polyamorists, you find quite a few hippies, geeks, science fiction fans, pagans, radical queers, etc, who are pretty willing to rewrite the rules in every area of their lives. Swingers tend to be more like “normal” people, with their differences confined to sex.
Obviously, those are stereotypes, not Universal Truths. There’s a grey area between polyamory and swinging, and there are people who do both.
Nonetheless, I think you’ve captured the basic distinction. What our family does, with not only emotional connections, but a pervasive effect on our lives and extremely deep and lasting commitments, is way over on the other side of polyamory from the swinging end.
Thanks, Joanne. Thank you for listening and thank you for providing the forum and keeping the conversation on track. Including the questions.
And you’re right about stigma.
To quite a few people, including Joanne, just one more note: There’s a consensus in the polyamorous community that we don’t want to be criminalized, don’t want to lose our children, and so forth. There is no consensus that we want any particular benefits or actual positive recognition for our arrangements.
Some polyamorists think that poly groupings should have legal recognition, much like the recognition marriage gets right now. Others think that that would be too complicated, too expensive, or otherwise a bad idea. Some think that, as a matter of fairness, the right thing to do is to reduce the amount that marriage is used as a legal category, or to decide who gets what sorts of benefits… sort of a “separation of marriage and state”. Others are reasonably satisfied with something like the status quo. Others have completely idiosyncratic ideas; polyamorists aren’t known for being conformists.
So, no, polyamorists as a group are not asking you to finance anybody’s relationships. It’s not something we agree on among ourselves.
I probably won’t be able to post in this thread much more today. Thank you all for your time and comments.
Gabby @ 2:32pm
Here ye, here ye! Thank you for that…you said everything I started and deleted (10 or so times) and far, far more gracefully!
Thanks JR. This has been really interesting. Have a good rest of your day.
Bec yeah. I think many Canadians feel that they are o.k. with folks doing their own thing as long as they’re not asked to pay for it. But somehow that always ends up being an issue (abortion for example).
‘So I proposed “marriage” and my partners agreed.’
There we go, JR you ARE looking for court approval, right?
Your ‘reasons’ for legal acceptance are all centered around ‘the children’,
so why are you waiting for the Polygamists to do battle over multiple partners,
why not go after child custody and adoption laws,
that’s where the real battle is, right?
Joanne @ 4:23pm
Unquestionably, that is the issue I would debate entirely.
For me it’s the same with the INSITE or addictions of any nature. Somehow, once well could they please pay back the medical systems and society? Community work, volunteering, anything…but don’t ask tax payers to foot the bill on fringe life choices.
See, that’s why I deleted 10+ times…. I have no problem with lifestyle choices whatsoever but where is the line between personal choice and societies responsibility to solve EVERYTHING??
Your ‘reasons’ for legal acceptance are all centered around ‘the children’,
so why are you waiting for the Polygamists to do battle over multiple partners,
why not go after child custody and adoption laws,
that’s where the real battle is, right?
In Ontario it’s already been decided that a child can have three parents.
I bet that if JR and his male partner were in a conjugal relationship there would be no problem with them all living together.
As one who often tries to pick up the pieces of failed relationships I can say that I have never seen a poly-amorous relationship last. Whether it is hidden affairs in an otherwise monogamous relationship between heterosexuals, open marriages, open same sex relationships, multiple wives, multiple husbands, multiple husbands and wives, or open swinging. I have seen a lot of people very hurt when the ‘relationship’ takes a sudden turn one way or another. Somehow when ever we think we are above our human nature our human nature comes back to bite us in the butt.
Joe – They’ll just counter by giving the divorce rate among monogamous marriages.
Don’t know about you Joanne but I’ve been married to one person (my dear wife) for over 30 years, my parents were faithful to each other as were my grandparents and my great grandparents. The same can not be said of my uncle, my cousin, my wife’s parents, and the dozen or so other ‘couples’ I know who have tried the ‘lifestyle’.
Joe, yes monogamy is the ideal. Sometimes things just don’t work out for whatever reason though. Divorce is a better option than running around. (IMHO)
On the other other hand, I’m starting to realize that we have no business judging others because we haven’t walked in their shoes. It’s tough trying to figure out moral standards these days.
Just grabbing a few minutes before going out…
Wilson writes:
Depends on what you mean by “court approval”. Tell me what the court is asked to approve, and I’ll tell you (probably tomorrow) whether I’m looking for it. I’m certainly looking for more than I have now, in that I’m hoping the court will approve of me enough not to brand me a criminal.
I’m not waiting for the polygamists. I’ve joined with other members of the polyamorous community to get directly involved. One of the reasons I use a pseudonym here is that certain people and organizations are going to be in the news because of this issue. I’m closely enough associated with them that I might be taken to be speaking for them, but I don’t have any commission to do so, so I don’t use my name in these blog posts.
Yes, that is where one of the major battles is. Probably the biggest battle for me, personally. Is that supposed to be a revelation?
I would very much like to be seen, legally, as a parent to my daughter. I would have thought that would be transparently obvious. I see no just reason that I shouldn’t be seen that way, and I have a reasonable amount of hope that someday I will be.
Not only that, but I see no reason that a family like my own shouldn’t be able to walk into the local adoptatorium and get in line with everybody else. It’s not something I especially want to do, but I think it would be a good thing and a step forward if it were allowed.
You’re absolutely right. I have a stake in the next generation. Just like the stake you have. I don’t care to “recruit” them. I do care about them as people. I want them to have the choices to do what’s right for them. Perhaps more importantly, I do not want them to be deprived of good parents, or stuck in bureaucratic nightmare runarounds, because of what I consider to be silly prejudices.
I don’t consider that to be much of a form of positive recognition for polyamorous relationships. Custody and adoption have little to do with marriage or “benefits”. Unmarried couples can already adopt, as I understand it, although I’ll admit I haven’t looked into it. They can certainly be recognized as parents.
Now, if my daughter is the most important issue for me, why am I worrying about the polygamy law?
It fell into my lap. BC decided to charge the FLDS guys. The resulting cases are going to set precedents that will stand for a long time. I, and other members of the poly community, obviously need to see those precedents go the right way, and we do not get to choose the time. It was chosen for us. We also don’t get to choose our allies, by the way…
It’s a prerequisite. Poly people can’t very well go asking for parental status or adoption when the law says we’re felons. In fact, a lot of poly people who are already legally parents worry about losing their children because what they’re doing is illegal. If we want to be seen as parents, then we need to clean up this Section 293 mess as part of that.
It’s kind of hard to be a good parent from prison.
There’s more support. At the moment, it’s probably easier to get the polyamorous community behind it. The child custody issue is something I think people support in principle, but a fair number polyamorous people don’t have and don’t particularly expect to have children. The conjugality issue affects more people directly, and that means it’s easier to get them behind the issue. Just like it’s easier to get anybody else behind any other issue if it affects them directly. Since it’s necessary anyway, and it’s a very good thing in itself, it’s tactically wise to take advantage of that support.
But, yeah, after I get the “being a felon” thing cleared up, I have every intention of coming after… well, not your children, but at least my own.
What kind of person would I be otherwise?
JR, I actually think that’s a really great thing that you want to take such an active and responsible role in your daughter’s life. If there are new moral standards in society, they should focus on what is best for the child. If a child has three caring adults who love her and want to look after her, why is that a criminal offense?
“If a child has three caring adults who love her and want to look after her, why is that a criminal offense.”
3 caring adults can be adults and simply care for the child(ren). Needing more than that imo becomes about the ADULTS and not the child (ren).The simple caring for the child (ren) is not a criminal offense, the parameters may be an entirely different story but that isn’t the child (ren)’s problem, it’s the adults. These are THEIR decisions.
There are no guarantees for the child(ren’s)lifetime regardless but the potential for tons of unnecessary bureaucracy and expense does exist for what? Validation? Self esteem? Eliminating potential legal consequences?
Again, if the relationship were to break up, who is the victim? The child (ren).
It’s all very Utopian to state or feel that none of that would happen but it does and I am frankly sick that kids don’t get to simply be kids without all of the ADULT DRAMA that is created for them or because of them. Enough!
Bec, I hear you but I don’t see how the concerns of JR and his partners can be rejected in light of what is condoned in today’s Canadian society.
It was this;
” I’m certainly looking for more than I have now, in that I’m hoping the court will approve of me enough not to brand me a criminal.”
That was the tipping point.
Sorry but I am all about the kids and not what the ADULTS need.
Sorry but I am all about the kids and not what the ADULTS need.
Bec, I’m with you but Trudeaupia doesn’t see the needs of the children as relevant.
The issue of polyamory and polygamy is not what alot of people think.
Polygamy law makes it illegal to CLAIM to have more than one conjugal union at a time. A conjugal union is “as in a married state”. A “married state” is to be in a conjugal union with one person, to the exclusion of all others. A person who is married and subsequently does not divorce, but lives with another cannot legally claim to be their spouse under Canada’s Family property Act’s, which are governed by provinces. No provincial judiciary can FORCE a single person to becomke a married pe3rsons spouse, because the married person is not eligable to be in another “married state” legally until divorcced from previous spouse.This was done to protect property laws in Canada and also supports the divorce system. A married person can live with another person (without being divorced) but just can’t claim to be there spouse in property laws. If they did divorce courts would be unmanagable. People would WAIT before divorcing to see if they could get more from previous (current) spouse. People have a right to a speedy divorce. For those who do not wish to divorce their spouse, tough…get divorced or you cannot become eligable for a subsequent spouse.
Brenda, I’m not exactly sure what you’re getting at but I agree with you that trying to sort out property laws and access to children in the event of divorce would be a nightmare if polygamy and polyamory were legal.
Have the accounts of Carolyn Jessop, Elizabeth Wall and Ann Eliza Young fallen on deaf ears? Polygamy has too many victims. Of course, this is more on the FLDS side of things. Not only have the men stolen their wives bodies, but also their souls — they can’t enter the kingdom of God unless their hubby says “sure babe, you’ve been a submissive wife, I’ll allow you to enter heaven.”
On the ‘consensual’ side of things I do have wonder why someone would choose that. No one can infinitely divide their heart, and let’s face it, we all pick favourites, so this is just a recipe for jealousy, betrayal and some pretty entertaining divorces.
There is no way this should be allowed. I don’t even care for the argument that the polyamorists might make, this is about protecting the rights of women and children. If Bountiful continues to rape 14 year olds, hold women’s souls in check and throw out their teenage sons like yesterday’s trash, then there is no way I’ll allow my country to legalize this. This is one issue I’d fight to the death.
And props to Daphne Bramham!
Hi Michele. Good to hear from you!
Yes Daphne Bramham has written numerous columns and books on this issue. I really respect her work.
And I agree with you that this should not be allowed to happen but I wonder about our legal ability to stop it, given all the challenges to the Charter in the past.