Blue Like You

Archive for the ‘Is there a lawyer in the house?’ Category

Blog Quebecois links to a post by Werner Patels referencing the Bountiful polygamy conundrum.

While Patels urges that the related issues of statutory rape and pedophilia be prosecuted, he questions the ability of Canadian law and modern society to prevent arrangements of multiple partners who quietly choose to cohabitate.

This is a question that I continue to ask (not that I necessarily support the idea) - how can we say that some people should be allowed to live their lives without state interference and not others?

It’s interesting to see a Progressive admitting that the slippery slope argument may in fact have some validity after all:

The case of the community of Bountiful, British Columbia, and its predilection for polygamy, is to be referred to the courts to determine the constitutionality of polygamy with respect to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

When same-sex marriage was first raised as a possibility, social conservatives quickly condemned it and said that if it were green-lighted, it would soon lead to polygamy as well — and turn Canada into Sodom and Gomorrah.

Now that this issue has raised its head, one cannot deny that they were right in a way. But would it really be so bad if polygamy were allowed?

Some of his arguments that appear to be in favour of decriminalizing polygamy and polyamory in general are reminiscent of the same-sex marriage rhetoric:

So many people in modern society today have multiple spouses — they’re divorced from all of them, but they often have children together, while support payments serve as sort of a bond. Frankly, it would not be such a giant leap to a system where they all lived happily under one roof.

- i.e. Perhaps it would be better for the children, because they wouldn’t feel ‘different’ and would be more likely to be accepted by the mainstream.

Just as was true of same-sex marriage, it is highly doubtful that allowing polygamy would have any effect on the rest of us.

-Yup. As long as it doesn’t affect me. I’ve heard that one before.

And from an Opinionated Lesbian’s blog:

If you support the right of gay people to live their lives as they wish, you must support the same right for others. Like polygamists.

We can’t turn back the clock. It is what it is.

But let’s just stop kidding ourselves.

Today’s Star has reprinted an edited version of a recent Vancouver Sun editorial (Polygamy is not a freedom issue) which seems to be urging B.C.’s Child, Family and Community Services to remove the children of Bountiful from a perceived situation of harm and exploitation; even without a court order.

This seems a tad harsh, but I suppose if there were concrete evidence of abuse, then by all means, the authorities should intercede.

The opening paragraph of the editorial also refers to the Canadian Criminal Code:

Polygamy has been a crime in Canada since 1892. Under s. 293 of the Criminal Code any conjugal union with more than one person at the same time, whether or not it is a binding marriage, is an indictable offence with a penalty of up to five years in prison.

There’s no ambiguity in s. 293. Polygamy is illegal, no ifs, ands or buts.

Under that definition, any ‘conjugal union’ of consisting of more than two people is illegal.

However, I wonder how many consensual living arrangements there are in Canada involving more than two persons? We are already told that Swingers’ sex is legal by the Supreme Court. So is it only legal in clubs? What if the couples want to live together in a conjugal manner? So they have to go the the clubs to have sex?

So what we’re talking about here is polyamory. I really don’t think that law from 1892 is valid any longer. Society and morals have changed, I am always being told.

Supposing two bi-sexual women and a straight guy all love each other and want to live together, and possibly even have that recognized as a civil union?

How can we stop it?

On what legal grounds?