Time to Allow Polyamorous Marraiges

[Symbol]

The Western Christian-based model of marriage is not a biologically or socially "correct" model. It is merely a cultural construct that people who are used to Western norms have been most exposed to.

It's not a bad exercise to try and work out which of our beliefs we have chosen, and which we have merely absorbed from the dominant culture in which we operate.

Other models have worked very successfully in other times, other places. Polygamy was the obvious way to protect women in cultures such as those of bedouin tribes of the Arabian Peninsula, where an unmarried (never married or widowed) female needed to be taken into a family unit to ensure her survival. Marriage under a fair arrangement ensured that she could get equal teatment to the other wives in the unit.

Sure, in many societies survival is no longer the sole reason. Let's imagine Ahmed in Saudi Arabia who takes on a second wife today for other reasons - a new younger wife for sexual variety, perhaps. But then, let's compare him with his Western counterpart Allan who has the same desire for a younger sexual partner... the real difference is momogamy laws require Allan to dump his first older wife, divorce her, split their assets, share custody of the kids (or whatever), whereas Ahmed is encouraged to keep his first wife in exactly the same lifestyle, if she chooses to stay, as he provides for his new wife.

Who is living the more ethical life: Ahmed with two wives or divorced and remarried Allan?

There is no absolute right or wrong answer. It is so tied up with cultural mores and social realities.

Let's take another quick example. In about half of US states it is illegal to marry your first cousin. In most other countries it is legal. And in some countries it is positively encouraged. For an example of the latter, look only to the United Arab Emirates, a progressive Gulf Arab nation, where even today about 50% of first marriages are still between first cousins. This is encouraged by a combination of substantial financial payout from the Marriage Fund to Emiratis who marry other Emiratis, plus socially reduced opportunities to meet non-family members, plus a heritage of tribalism where cousin marriage was encouraged for wealth protection.

So is first cousin marriage right or wrong?

My point is that there is no marriage model that can be considered intrinsically more ethical. I may personally not like the idea of marrying two of my cousins in an "incestuous" polyamorous legal union, but I can't see why somebody who wants legal protection for that union shouldn't be granted it.

 

[Meadmaker]

only actual practitioners of plural marriage to my knowledge are the child abusers in Bountiful.

But I'm willing to bet that you have an awful lot more practictioners of plural cohabitation. If it were not illegal, some of those cohabiters would seek marriage licenses.

 

[D'rok]

But I'm willing to bet that you have an awful lot more practictioners of plural cohabitation. If it were not illegal, some of those cohabiters would seek marriage licenses.

Possibly. I would consider that to be a valid argument to change our laws if it were the case. I need to be convinced that it is the case.

 

[Alt+F4]

Although not related to marriage licenses, this sort of case is ongoing as we speak in Canada. Some Mormon polygamists have been charged under the Criminal Code and are making arguments that the constitutionally protected right to same-sex marriage plus the right to freedom of religion gives them the right to practice polygamy.

http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/563546
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/01/08/bc-polygamy-winston-blackmore.html
http://messengerandadvocate.wordpre...prosecuting-polygamy-protecting-gay-marraige/

They might even win. The CC prohibitions against polygamy may be struck down as unconstitutional. In which case, the slippery slope argument is at least partially correct.

Thanks for the links. For some reason I thought all the polygamist Mormons lived in the U.S.

Yes, these men aren't try to obtain a polygamist marriage, but rather don't want to be charged criminally for polygamy, arguing that it's an issue of religious freedom. They aren't basing their right to practice polygamy on the legalization of gay marriage in Canada.

If there is any slippery slope here it's not about gay marriage leading to polygamy but rather it's religion leading to polygamy. Call something a religious practice then demand the government respect it.

 

[Alt+F4]

For an example of the latter, look only to the United Arab Emirates, a progressive Gulf Arab nation,...

Huh? Do you know how many people in the UAE are allowed to vote? They have had one election in the past 35 years.

 

[Cleon]

Thanks for the links. For some reason I thought all the polygamist Mormons lived in the U.S.

They established communities in Canada and Mexico, to give them places to run to if the law started chasing them.

Didn't work too well for Warren Jeffs, though.

 

[D'rok]

Thanks for the links. For some reason I thought all the polygamist Mormons lived in the U.S.

Yes, these men aren't try to obtain a polygamist marriage, but rather don't want to be charged criminally for polygamy, arguing that it's an issue of religious freedom. They aren't basing their right to practice polygamy on the legalization of gay marriage in Canada.

If there is any slippery slope here it's not about gay marriage leading to polygamy but rather it's religion leading to polygamy. Call something a religious practice then demand the government respect it.

You're basically right, I think. They're basing their legal argument on freedom of religion, but their public rhetoric on that and same-sex marriage. The wrinkle is that we have a reference case from the Supreme Court about the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. The govt asked the Court if same-sex marriage was constitutional before legalising it. It's not exactly a slippery slope, but that whole exercise has been a trigger of sorts for debate on other constitutional reforms.

Also, I should clarify that I am firmly in favour of same-sex marriage and that I don't subscribe to the slippery-slope FUD. The issue of plural marriage is complicated by the presence of actual social harm from polygamists that really wasn't the case with gays and lesbians. Extending constitutional protection to plural marriage has to take this into account.

 

[Alt+F4]

Naturally, the pro-gay marriage folks first told me I'm crazy for saying gay marriage could possibly lead to this...

Those that seriously want a polygamist marriage base their argument on religious freedom, not gay marriage.

 

[Symbol]

Huh? Do you know how many people in the UAE are allowed to vote? They have had one election in the past 35 years.

Err, it's not a democracy. It's IMO a union of benevolent autocracies. Also, progress and democracy are not necessarly correlated, but that's another topic.

But point taken. I meant "progressive" relative to other Arab states like Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

 

[Dorian Gray]

The harm comes form the dishonesty.

First you are told to support gay marriage and that it is totally paranoid to think it would lead to polygamy.

Then you agree that polygamy will be supported if gay marriage is allowed -- just like the "paranoids" claimed -- but that, hey, what's the harm?

The third stage is to declare that anybody who doesn't think polygamy should be allowed is an evil racist homophobe insensitive right-wing extremist, the stage we have now reached with gay "marriage".

This is plain dishonesty -- with the goal to make "self-evident" and a (constitutional) "right", from the beginning, the very social change you claim everybody who suggests will be the result is "paranoid" for thinking so.

It happened with gay marriage, no doubt polygamy is next.

But wait, don't tell me -- it is lying for a good cause, and besides, you're just lying to those awful conservatives, so it's OK...

But you're already in a 'triad' - you, conservative talking points and fallacious logic.

It's just as accurate to claim that you want to limit gay marriage because it's unnatural, and then use your same 'slippery hill' argument to ban interracial marriage, and then suffrage, and then emancipation...

 

[Dorian Gray]

Oh, and polygamous marriages are acceptable, perfectly fine with Jebus and Gawd, and never get punished according to the Bible. They are not considered adulterous, immoral or wrong anywhere in the Bible, or even the Koran (I think). So the religious folks have absolutely no leg to stand on with arguing polygamous marriages are immoral on religious grounds.

It will be hilarious to see them forced into using secular arguments against polygamous marriage.

 

[Alt+F4]

It will be hilarious to see them forced into using secular arguments against polygamous marriage.

They are going to grasp on to gay marriage since, in the United States at least, the courts have struck down the right to polygamy for over a hundred years.

I wonder how they are going to frame their argument that the right of two consenting same sex adults to marry is comparable to marrying a bunch of 12-year old girls and keeping them as uneducated sexual slaves?

Mormon polygamy won't stand up to the secular test of the 14th Amendment either since what they practice is polygny.

 

[Typicallucas]

I'm not confident about how to express it, but I think there is something wrong with the way you are approaching this problem.

You missed my point entirely. Show me that the "norm" of plural marriage in Canada isn't Bountiful...In other words, where is the evidence that the undesirable behaviour isn't the norm? Who, besides the Blackmore clan, are we actually discriminating against by retaining the Criminal Crode prohibitions on polygamy?

As it stands, there is no separation of the two in Canada. The only actual practitioners of plural marriage to my knowledge are the child abusers in Bountiful. And they are ostensibly protected by the freedom of religion right in the Charter. This is the essence of the problem that we face here. All of the existing criminal laws against child abuse and against polygamy itself have not stopped the abuse, so far.

Just because the only polygamy you hear or read about in the news is associated with child abuse doesn't mean that they are the only polygamists out there. Regular old polygamy is boring and doesn't get the headlines like scandalous religious practices do, and regular people who are in polyamorous relationships don't get all married up because they don't want to go to jail.

If these people in Canada are really abusing children they need to be stopped and prosecuted, but I feel like the government should stay out of the relationships between consenting adults. All the way out, not "most of the way out but we still want to keep you from having a three-way marriage."

Having a relationship with two other people shouldn't mean you are a criminal... it is the abusing children that should land you in jail. The correlation between the two practices shouldn't make them both illegal.

Risking getting off track here, but let me make a comparison here... if we perceive all polygamists are child abusers and we feel entitled to make polygamy a crime should we make praying towards Mecca illegal if we perceive Islamists as intolerant terrorists?

But I'm willing to bet that you have an awful lot more practictioners of plural cohabitation. If it were not illegal, some of those cohabiters would seek marriage licenses.

Possibly. I would consider that to be a valid argument to change our laws if it were the case. I need to be convinced that it is the case.

I don't think modern society should rely upon popularity of a practice to determine it's legality. How do you determine when the demand is great enough to change the law?

Should we take this approach when we look at the other laws on our books. Some places have laws against having sex with the lights on, against oral sex, anal sex, any position that isn't missionary, having sex with a virgin, the list of wacky laws goes on. How do you determine if you should repeal the law criminalizing anal sex? Do you put pollsters outside of supermarkets and take an opinion? Do you study the illegal sexual habits of consenting adults? If you find that tons and tons of people are breaking the anal sex law does that behoove you to repeal it? Or enforce is more strictly?

If you find that a small segment of the population practices anal sex and a large portion of those people engage in illegal activities like abusing controlled substances or breeding show dogs without a permit does that influence the decision to decriminalize?

Why do you need to see that there is a demand to repeal laws that inhibit people from choosing a lifestyle that suits them?

If the answer is "so that we can discriminate against a particular group that is most likely to choose that lifestye" I don't know how to reason with that. Except to say that we shouldn't use our laws to manipulate people we don't like. We should use our laws to protect people, children, and property.

...The issue of plural marriage is complicated by the presence of actual social harm from polygamists...

Well until polygamy isn't a crime, most of the practitioners will be criminals and I imagine that the numbers of potential polygamists are too low to make political change on their own like gays and pot smokers.

Bottom line: I think you're being unfair. You seem to feel entitled to declare personal lifestyle choices illegal. Enforcing social norms with the threat of imprisonment is wrong. Much of this has been rhetorical, I just hope I have inspired you to think about the issue differently.

 

[D'rok]

I'm not confident about how to express it, but I think there is something wrong with the way you are approaching this problem.

Thanks for the calm and well thought response. It is appreciated.

Just because the only polygamy you hear or read about in the news is associated with child abuse doesn't mean that they are the only polygamists out there. Regular old polygamy is boring and doesn't get the headlines like scandalous religious practices do, and regular people who are in polyamorous relationships don't get all married up because they don't want to go to jail.

I would genuinely be interested to find out about "regular old polygamy". And I also acknowledge that polyamorous people unquestionably do get caught up in the "harmful polygamy" criminal law net. Or, more accurately, they would if they tried to get married here.

If these people in Canada are really abusing children they need to be stopped and prosecuted, but I feel like the government should stay out of the relationships between consenting adults. All the way out, not "most of the way out but we still want to keep you from having a three-way marriage."

The problem is that it is very difficult to stop the abuse because of how connected it is to some really fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of religion. All of the laws against it bump up against the Canadian Charter of Rights, whether or not the laws prohibit polygamy generally or the specific practices of Mormon fundamentalists particularly.

Having a relationship with two other people shouldn't mean you are a criminal... it is the abusing children that should land you in jail. The correlation between the two practices shouldn't make them both illegal.

I agree in principle. But, as I said, the pragmatic legal reality is that it is hard to separate the two.

I don't think modern society should rely upon popularity of a practice to determine it's legality. How do you determine when the demand is great enough to change the law?

By popularity, do you mean popular acceptance of a practice or the proportion of the populace that practices it? Same-sex marriage is not proportionately popular - it is still very much a small minority life-style choice - but it does enjoy significant popular acceptance. The issue is harm. Is same-sex marriage a harmful practice? Clearly not. Is plural marriage a harmful practice? In some non-trivial instances, clearly yes. If there was a way to carve out constitutional protection for non-harmful plural marriage while denying such protection for the harmful variety, then I would be all for it. The pragmatic reality is that this will be difficult given the already difficult task of addressing the harms of polygamy in its current fully criminalised state. (The laws against polygamy have been on the books for a long time, but this has had essentially no effect on the practice in Bountiful).

Should we take this approach when we look at the other laws on our books. Some places have laws against having sex with the lights on, against oral sex, anal sex, any position that isn't missionary, having sex with a virgin, the list of wacky laws goes on. How do you determine if you should repeal the law criminalizing anal sex? Do you put pollsters outside of supermarkets and take an opinion? Do you study the illegal sexual habits of consenting adults? If you find that tons and tons of people are breaking the anal sex law does that behoove you to repeal it? Or enforce is more strictly?

I don't think those are the same issues as the abuse that happens in forced polygamous marriages between girls and older men. The former are clearly matters of consensual sex; the latter is almost certainly sexual abuse.

If you find that a small segment of the population practices anal sex and a large portion of those people engage in illegal activities like abusing controlled substances or breeding show dogs without a permit does that influence the decision to decriminalize?

Those illegal activities don't have explicit constitutional protection in the same way that religious practices like polygamy arguably do. There isn't the same issue with separating them.

Why do you need to see that there is a demand to repeal laws that inhibit people from choosing a lifestyle that suits them?

I hope that what I've said above makes it clear that this is not what I am arguing.

If the answer is "so that we can discriminate against a particular group that is most likely to choose that lifestye" I don't know how to reason with that. Except to say that we shouldn't use our laws to manipulate people we don't like. We should use our laws to protect people, children, and property.

Protecting people and children is very much part of the intent of laws prohibiting polygamy. The problem is that those laws may also abrogate the freedom of others. That's why there is a balancing issue. Can the abrogation be justified?

As an aside, there is a mechanism in the Canadian Charter of Rights to do just that. If the government can show that there is a pressing and substantial objective (e.g. protecting vulnerable children and women) and that the means chosen is proportional to the objective, then a protected right can be abrogated. Proportionately of the means to the objective is the core issue in Canada. Are our criminal law prohibitions against polygamy a means that is proportional to the objective of protecting the women and children in fundamentalist Mormon communities? This is about to be challenged, and I suspect there is a good chance that the answer is "no". Which means that constitutional protection will extend to religious practices of polygamy, and it will be that much harder to craft laws to protect those vulnerable women and children.

Bottom line: I think you're being unfair. You seem to feel entitled to declare personal lifestyle choices illegal. Enforcing social norms with the threat of imprisonment is wrong. Much of this has been rhetorical, I just hope I have inspired you to think about the issue differently.

I think you've misunderstood me. But I appreciate the civilised manner in which you have expressed your disagreement.

 

[Typicallucas]

Thanks for the reply.

I guess I don't agree with your conclusion that polygamy is by it's nature connected to child abuse and we have some duty to prevent those marriages. My perspective on the connection is simply polygamy is currently a serious crime and anyone who isn't a criminal and/or religious nut wouldn't knowingly take part.

I guess keeping it illegal does help point out who doesn't give two shoots about their country's laws...

I think if polygamous marriage wasn't illegal we would have peace-loving, non-child-abusing triples who love each other enough to get married...

I sincerely doubt that if polygamous marriage were made legal today, we would see an increase in child abuse tomorrow. I would assume that any religious nut hell-bent on abusing children under the guise of religious freedom is going to do so anyway.

But I'm willing to bet that you have an awful lot more practictioners of plural cohabitation. If it were not illegal, some of those cohabiters would seek marriage licenses.

Possibly. I would consider that to be a valid argument to change our laws if it were the case. I need to be convinced that it is the case.

I don't think modern society should rely upon popularity of a practice to determine it's legality.

By popularity, do you mean popular acceptance of a practice or the proportion of the populace that practices it?

I used the word popularity because you seemed to tell Meadmaker that if there was a lot of people who would take advantage of the freedom to have polygamous marriages that you thought that would be a good argument supporting polygamy. My question was directed at your line of thinking. Did I misunderstand you? If not, I hope you'll still answer the question.

The issue is harm. Is same-sex marriage a harmful practice? Clearly not. Is plural marriage a harmful practice? In some non-trivial instances, clearly yes.

I know that there are plenty of people who can give a passionate argument to the exact opposite of this statement. I don't think either are ultimately supportable.

Looking at polygamous marriage through this perspective (that it is linked with crime) is a limited view. And to restrict the rights of (and potentially imprison) otherwise law-abiding citizens is not a very fair policy.

 

[Typicallucas]

I made this for fun

 

[D'rok]

I used the word popularity because you seemed to tell Meadmaker that if there was a lot of people who would take advantage of the freedom to have polygamous marriages that you thought that would be a good argument supporting polygamy. My question was directed at your line of thinking. Did I misunderstand you? If not, I hope you'll still answer the question.

It goes to the proportionality of the objective to the means that I discussed above. If there are a lot of people who are not able to enter into consensual plural marriages because of the current state of the law, then that law is not proportional to the objective of protecting the vulnerable. In other words, if criminalizing polygamy in order to protect the vulnerable women and children in fundy Mormon communities really does lead to the wholesale trampling of the rights of a lot of other Canadians, then the law is bad and should be changed.

 

[Typicallucas]

Can you address my argument that there is not a causal link between crime and polygamy. If I am correct then this law doesn't really protect children.

If polygamy is against the law, but it is not enforced against Canadian Mormons, how can you argue that the intent of the law is to prevent Mormons from abusing their underage wives. Shouldn't Canada just enforce laws regarding sex with minors and marriage to minors?

How is it possible in the real world to protect children from sexual predators with anti-bigamy laws? Our governments need to be tracking down child molesters, arresting them at gunpoint, running them through the judicial system, and punishing the crap out of them. Not being concerned with marital status.

 

[Alex Libman]

Marriage should just be a contract between sovereign self-owning individuals, and the government has no right to get involved in any possible way. The quantities and genders of the individuals involved is outright irrelevant.

While natalism is functionally important for a healthy economy, government-enforced monogamy is nothing short of reproductive communism!

 

[D'rok]

Can you address my argument that there is not a causal link between crime and polygamy. If I am correct then this law doesn't really protect children.

There is not necessarily a casual connection between crime and polygamy per se, but as it is practiced in Bountiful, there is. Thus the laws against it.

If polygamy is against the law, but it is not enforced against Canadian Mormons, how can you argue that the intent of the law is to prevent Mormons from abusing their underage wives. Shouldn't Canada just enforce laws regarding sex with minors and marriage to minors?

How is it possible in the real world to protect children from sexual predators with anti-bigamy laws? Our governments need to be tracking down child molesters, arresting them at gunpoint, running them through the judicial system, and punishing the crap out of them. Not being concerned with marital status.

The Mormon polygamists in Bountiful use the Canadian Constitution as a shield. That is where the enforcement problem comes in. Also, there is a basic sensitivity to the problems of law enforcement vs. isolated religious communities. No one wants a Waco situation.