GAY MARRIAGE LEGALIZED BY HEDONISTIC COASTAL STATE... Iowa?

[_JAK]

JAK, rather than address your questions myself I think this link gives a good overview http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/polygamy/

Recent events: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/01/07/bc-blackmore-polygamy-charges.html

http://www.dose.ca/news/story.html?id=1423623

marg,

In response to your first example, if the law simply ignores those who violate that law, the law becomes irrelevant.

Stated in the article: “Canadian law bans polygamy, but there haven't been prosecutions for more than 60 years. (Jonathan Hayward/Canadian Press)”

In the same article is stated this: “Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada explicitly bans polygamy and threatens offenders with a five-year prison term. Bigamy is named as a similarly serious crime in Section 290.”

In your second example:
“The charges against Blackmore, 52, are linked to his alleged marriages to 19 women, dating back to May 2005. The charges against Oler, 44, are linked to his marriages to two women, dating back to November 2004.
Both men have been released on the following conditions:
• To remain within British Columbia.
• To surrender their passports to police.
• To report to the RCMP detachment in Creston, B.C., twice monthly.
• To abstain from entering into or performing any "celestial" marriages, a kind of Mormon marriage.
They are scheduled to appear in provincial court in Creston on Jan. 21.”

This appears a confirmation of the first article. Nothing may be done regarding the violation of the law. I fail to see how “the following conditions” (above) have any relevancy. These individuals appear to be able to do as they please regardless of the law.

If the law was not enforced in the first instance, what interest would British Columbia have in pursuing Blackmore or Oler if either violated the second “conditions”?

The third article you linked states(in part) the following:

"Since then, Blackmore's lawyer has vowed to cite his client's religious freedom as a defence, leading some legal and constitutional experts to speculate the case could go all the way to the Supreme Court."

And

"Blackmore, for example, has spoken openly about having multiple teenage brides."

In the picture of Blackmore in your third example, he does not appear worried.

The “overview” appears somewhat confusing from the three links you gave.

Do you consider that this case will go to the Supreme Court? The article states: “…could go all the way to the Supreme Court.”

Is it your view that it will?

Clearly, one solution is to ignore the law. Yet, it appears that some are prepared to take this specific case forward.

JAK

[_JAK]

Second, this is from deep in the heartland of the US where a conservative, Republican governor appointed the judge who made the ruling.

Being appointed by a conservative executive does not a conservative justice make.

While your observation is correct, generally when conservative governors appoint judges, they expect that those judges will be in line with conservative views. Without question, judges do surprise.

In this case, it appears it was the law which influenced the judge.

JAK

[_Calculus Crusader]

My reason is that I find the terms properly descriptive.

That's nice. Why do you find the terms properly descriptive?

Judges must be bound by the exact text of the constitution (state or federal) and must interpret it in the socio-historical context in which it was written and amended. When they do not, they are acting illegitimately.

I was hard pressed to counter your argumentum ad Hitlerum.

Well, you'll be happy to know that you still have the opportunity to do so.

There is nothing substantive for me to address.

What else has your seer stone revealed to you Joe?

Seer stone? No -- unless that's another name for "statistics and sensible extrapolation". I thought you liked math?

I love math and statistics but I hate pseudo-math and pseudo-statistics, which is what you are peddling. You cannot extrapolate out that far. The following, recent example is instructive. A liberal Mormon (Hellmut Lotz) was sure that Prop 8 would be defeated based on the polls and his background in polisci/sociology/something equally worthless. He, of course, was wrong, just as I said at the time.

All you have is a statistic based on a snapshot in time, nothing more.

[_asbestosman]

Polygamy which could involve multiple wives (or husbands – polyandry) would generate a complexity for law that it would have great difficulty codifying. Right of survivorship, right to make health-care decisions, right to have custody of children (whether adopted or biological for one of two people in a marriage) would take on great complexity and generate a host of legal issues.

No it wouldn't. The courts are able to deal with the current complexities intruduced due to divorce, remarriage, fornication, and all the other things adluts do to screw up family life. Polygamy wouldn't significantly change that.

Anyhow, it would be ironic for those on the "pro-equality" side who demand equal protection"" for one group to deny it to some other group because of its "complexity". Fortunately, many on the ""pro-equality side are wise enough to avoid this blatent irony.

[_JAK]

Citing JAK: "Polygamy which could involve multiple wives (or husbands – polyandry) would generate a complexity for law that it would have great difficulty codifying. Right of survivorship, right to make health-care decisions, right to have custody of children (whether adopted or biological for one of two people in a marriage) would take on great complexity and generate a host of legal issues."

asbestosman stated:
No it wouldn't. The courts are able to deal with the current complexities intruduced due to divorce, remarriage, fornication, and all the other things adluts do to screw up family life. Polygamy wouldn't significantly change that.

Anyhow, it would be ironic for those on the "pro-equality" side who demand equal protection"" for one group to deny it to some other group because of its "complexity". Fortunately, many on the ""pro-equality side are wise enough to avoid this blatent irony.

Those in favor of “equality” may favor it so long as they can be just a little more equal. People tend to want equality under the law, yet those same people want preferential treatment, the best lawyers, etc. if it is they who run into trouble with the law.

Some people seek a place above the law or beyond the law as they function at the margins of law or beyond the limit of law.

The interest or demand for polygamy appears to be low as a percentage of the population, certainly lower than the interest in same-sex unions. At least in the USA, it would seem to be no cause that would rise to the level of significant challenge to present one marriage at a time law.

It’s incorrect to consider that marital laws could address polygamy/polyandry with the ease that they now address marriage and divorce. Individuals are single, married, or divorced. Were multiple wives/husbands to be addressed by law, issues of how many wives (5, 10, 20, etc.) would be at issue. In addition, divorce would be much more complicated than it is presently. If a man had 20 wives, could he divorce just one or 19 or any number in between? Add to that the problems of multiple children with multiple wives. 20 wives with 3 children each would raise enormous problems of child support not to mention the testing to determine with certainty paternity.

Added to all this would be the desire of a wife among 5 or 20 other wives to seek a divorce yet claim child support from her husband for the children he fathered.

Were polygamy/polyandry to be legal, a myriad of particulars would be involved and states would likely adopt different standards. In addition, one state might reject the legitimacy of multiple marriages which another state accepted. Hence, moving from one state to another might nullify a marriage if there were not universality of law on marriage or (as some have proposed for homosexuals civil union).

The complexities of polygamy/polyandry would seem a moot issue in that the demand/petition for this kind of legal arrangement is extremely low in terms of percentage of individuals who so demand or petition in its favor.

JAK

[_marg]

This appears a confirmation of the first article. Nothing may be done regarding the violation of the law. I fail to see how “the following conditions” (above) have any relevancy. These individuals appear to be able to do as they please regardless of the law.

If the law was not enforced in the first instance, what interest would British Columbia have in pursuing Blackmore or Oler if either violated the second “conditions”?

I have no idea what the consequences would be if they broke the conditions. It is understandable why they would have little concern openly practicing polygamy. For one, for 60 years there have been no criminal charges laid, even though it's been illegal. And secondly with the Charter of Rights and Freedom which was passed 1982..it specifies individuals have a right to religious protection and Winston Blackmore and James Oler the 2 leaders charged feel confident their polygamous practice is a religious right which would be protected by that constitutional Charter. So both don't really consider they've violated a legitimate criminal law.

Do you consider that this case will go to the Supreme Court? The article states: “…could go all the way to the Supreme Court.”

Is it your view that it will?

Clearly, one solution is to ignore the law. Yet, it appears that some are prepared to take this specific case forward.

It's too late to ignore the law, as charges have been filed. It's complicated and I don't understand well. There is the criminal law and then the Charter of Rights can be used to overturn laws.

A new since 2005 B.C.(provincial) Attorney General has decided to use the criminal code and have polygamy charges laid. No AG's have done so before.

So now that criminal charges have been laid, if the polygamous leaders are found guilty, it will then (highly) likely go to Supreme court in order to challenge the constitutionality of the criminal code prohibiting polygamy and section 15 of the Charter which guarantees religious rights will be used. I believe same sex marriages won their right to marriage based on a challenge invoking the Charter.

When the polygamy laws were created back in 1890, it was specifically to restrict the religious practice of polygamy by Mormons. So apparently this makes it more difficult to argue as a defense abuse and the right for women's equality in co-habitating relationships which also could be argued using the Charter...but that was never used as the reason against polygamy.

As I said I don't understand the various legal options. Winston Blackmore apparently has been marrying underage females for quite some time, so why he can't be charged on that I don't know, except perhaps there is no paper trail for the marriages

[_asbestosman]

The complexities of polygamy/polyandry would seem a moot issue in that the demand/petition for this kind of legal arrangement is extremely low in terms of percentage of individuals who so demand or petition in its favor.

JAK

Irony never was your strong ponit JAK. Way to cast a vote for tryrrany of the majority from one face while talking about equal rights from the other.

Anyhow, I think you underestimate the legal complexities which already exist for children. Some complexities already exist due to the use of surrogate mothers, sperm and egg donors, adoption / foster care / non-parental-relatives-as-guardians. Furthermore, the courts already recognize many rights even without marriage and that includes polygamists, swingers, adulterers, fornicators, and other extra-marital relationships.

[_JAK]

Thanks for your insights, marg.

It would appear that the new Attorney General has an intent to apply law in the cases which you have cited.

You stated:
“As I said I don't understand the various legal options. Winston Blackmore apparently has been marrying underage females for quite some time, so why he can't be charged on that I don't know, except perhaps there is no paper trail for the marriages.”

Would it be correct to conclude that Blackmore has treated the “underage females” as wives with no legal marriage as the Attorney General would recognize legal?

This situation and likely many others exist under the radar of the law. The claim of freedom of religion has been used widely not only for polygamy but for discipline of children which would be regarded as child abuse if the legal authorities know about it.

Another area (which is not the topic here) of religious privilege is that of tax free status in the USA. It’s an “area” in which religious groups can operate in a way that would be outside the law were it not for religious exemption. A great number of activities can hide under the protection of freedom of religion.

JAK

[_harmony]

The Vermont governor vetoed the bill. It appears there are not enough votes to override.

[_JAK]

The complexities of polygamy/polyandry would seem a moot issue in that the demand/petition for this kind of legal arrangement is extremely low in terms of percentage of individuals who so demand or petition in its favor.

JAK

Irony never was your strong ponit JAK. Way to cast a vote for tryrrany of the majority from one face while talking about equal rights from the other.

Anyhow, I think you underestimate the legal complexities which already exist for children. Some complexities already exist due to the use of surrogate mothers, sperm and egg donors, adoption / foster care / non-parental-relatives-as-guardians. Furthermore, the courts already recognize many rights even without marriage and that includes polygamists, swingers, adulterers, fornicators, and other extra-marital relationships.

There is no question that “legal complexities” are enormous under present laws and the interpretation of those laws. Those which you cite are certainly present. Adding polygamy/polyandry to the current “legal complexities” would contemporaneously add to the problems I mentioned and more.

Again, I remain skeptical that there is a significant or serious challenge to institute polygamy/polyandry in the United States.

JAK