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

[_JohnStuartMill]

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.

The drafters of the Civil War amendments certainly did not contemplate that they would be used to argue for the illegality of miscegenation bans, or to integrate Southern classrooms. According to your jurisprudential standard, Loving v. Virginia and Brown v. Board of Education were decidedly incorrectly, and African-Americans should have meekly waited another 50 years until the legislatures deigned to advance their cause.

(In case you haven't noticed, this is just a polite way to say that your jurisprudential standard is BS.)

There is nothing substantive for me to address.

I have noted a relevant similarity between Germany under Hitler and the state for which religious conservatives pine: in both, majoritarian rule grants insufficient respect for minority rights. If you think that an electoral popularity against equal rights for gays legitimizes that opinion, then you have nothing to say against Hitler's crimes against the minorities under his rule.

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.

Actually, there's quite a bit more. There is very good empirical data suggesting that gay marriage bans are becoming more unpopular: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/ ... riage.html (The guy who runs that site graduated with honors from the University of Chicago economics department, which is famed for its mathematical rigor.) This trend is not surprising because, as already mentioned, the younger generations of voters are more likely to support gay marriage, and there is no evidence to suggest that this belief changes over time. Obviously, there are always qualifiers and caveats to the conclusions to statistical analyses, but you do not have sufficient warrant to believe that the caveats necessary to cut against my conclusion obtain.

[_marg]

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.

The first wife is the only legally recognized one. Here is a link http://www.thegatewayonline.ca/articles/opinion/2009/03/26/feds-should-go-after-cults-not-polygamy I just came across in which the person argues that rather than charge Winston Blackmore for polygamy, he should be charged for sex with females under age of consent. The person who heads an organization "Stop Polygamy in Canada" expresses disagreement in a comment below it. I've have been reading this stuff for over a day now, and I still don't get it. I read somewhere that charging Blackmore earlier has been difficult because witnesses wouldn't come forward.

[/quote]

[_JAK]

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.

The first wife is the only legally recognized one. Here is a link http://www.thegatewayonline.ca/articles/opinion/2009/03/26/feds-should-go-after-cults-not-polygamy I just came across in which the person argues that rather than charge Winston Blackmore for polygamy, he should be charged for sex with females under age of consent. The person who heads an organization "Stop Polygamy in Canada" expresses disagreement in a comment below it. I've have been reading this stuff for over a day now, and I still don't get it. I read somewhere that charging Blackmore earlier has been difficult because witnesses wouldn't come forward.

Thanks marg.

It all poses a dilemma for law enforcement as I read your links and comments. The headline: “Feds should go after cults not polygamy” In the US, cults can exist and practice their religion under freedom of religion. However, there are practices which stretch and strain the law. Often they are financial in religious groups which take in significantly large amounts of money. Mega-churches which have no denominational affiliation are often suspect. So are highly secretive groups which refuse to disclose payments to what might be, in other circumstances, legitimate pastors, custodians, secretaries, etc. Legitimate religious organizations pay salaries which are subject to tax for those which I mentioned (and others). So while the religious group is a tax-free organization, salaries paid for services are subject to tax.

I read your referenced article and find some confusion in the total of it.

For example, consider this paragraph:
“Yet by labelling this case as a constitutional challenge, lawyer-types and politicos are diverting attention away from the real issue. Back in 2006, the RCMP rightly recommended that charges of sexual exploitation should be applied to the male leaders in Bountiful. Even though it isn’t, this should be the charge facing Canada’s courts—not the abstract constitutionality of allowing polygamy as a legitimate form of religious expression.”

It is precisely under the protection of religious freedom that the people involved are justifying “sexual exploitation.” Of course they don’t call it “sexual exploitation.” If Blackmore (and others) have their lawyers argue they are practicing their religion, they are using that to justify their culture (cult). The article title attempts a difference without a distinction. Go after cults not polygamy is an oxymoron.

Polygamy is practiced by cults. While they can argue differentiation between “religious group” and “cult,” it appears a language trick. One man's sacred religion is another man's cult. If polygamy is against the law (in Canada) and cults are not against the law, it would be impossible to “go after cults.” What would be the basis for going after cults?

Consider the problems in this paragraph:
“Bountiful has been on the radar for a long time, and until this year, the Criminal Code’s ban against polygamy has been dormant for 60 years. It’s not so much that we have trouble with the practice of maintaining multiple spouses, but that young girls are being caught in the crossfire and exploited because of certain people abusing their religion. That’s where police and prosecutors need to step into the fold, challenging the tangible crimes that they can document and combat within the framework of Canada’s justice system.”

What I highlighted is opinion regarding “abusing their religion.” How is the law going to make a case for that? If the prosecutors are unable to get individual girls to testify that they have been abused, the prosecutors have no case. Perhaps they have that, but nothing I have read indicates there is much willing court testimony to abuse.

If, in fact, the law has looked away from what it knows is infraction on the law (practicing polygamists), the abuse under the secrecy of religious cover is likely to go unabated. In any case, unless “cults” are ruled illegal, there is no way to “go after cults” as the first writer advocates.

Previously, I asked how pervasive this polygamist practice is under the secrecy of religion in Canada. Of course that’s a difficult if not impossible issue to answer. It appears that without question, this is a thorny issue/problem for the law to address. Slippery definitions by defense attorneys and even the shear letter of law leave little solid ground for speedy dispensation.

JAK

[_Brackite]

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

Vermont Legalises Gay Marriage - Tyranny of the Legislature?:

[_marg]

The article title attempts a difference without a distinction. Go after cults not polygamy is an oxymoron.

I understood the writer's point. Polygamy is really not the problem. What consenting adults do privately is their business. People have sexual affairs and the government doesn't get involved and shouldn't. The issue with Bountiful is that it is a patriarchal cult. Individuals are indoctrinated into accepting a system in which the women are treated as chattel. Even if females were married at the age of consent of 18, the system is still wrong. The children are not given an adequate education, nor skills which would enable them to leave the group and self support. And they are indoctrinated into believing in order to get into heaven they must comply with polygynous marriages. The cult should not be allowed. The kids should not be subjected to such an abusive upbringing.

Polygamy is practiced by cults. While they can argue differentiation between “religious group” and “cult,” it appears a language trick. One man's sacred religion is another man's cult. If polygamy is against the law (in Canada) and cults are not against the law, it would be impossible to “go after cults.” What would be the basis for going after cults?

The schooling is inadequate, the indoctrination of polygyny of the young is wrong. Polygamy itself is not wrong, for those who truly chose it. But anyone brought up in such a system, is not really able to freely choose.

Consider the problems in this paragraph:
“Bountiful has been on the radar for a long time, and until this year, the Criminal Code’s ban against polygamy has been dormant for 60 years. It’s not so much that we have trouble with the practice of maintaining multiple spouses, but that young girls are being caught in the crossfire and exploited because of certain people abusing their religion. That’s where police and prosecutors need to step into the fold, challenging the tangible crimes that they can document and combat within the framework of Canada’s justice system.”

What I highlighted is opinion regarding “abusing their religion.” How is the law going to make a case for that? If the prosecutors are unable to get individual girls to testify that they have been abused, the prosecutors have no case. Perhaps they have that, but nothing I have read indicates there is much willing court testimony to abuse.

That has been the difficulty in laying charges, girls not complaining, however again it's because of the indoctrination. The girls are indoctrinated to accept and fear hell if they don't accept.

If, in fact, the law has looked away from what it knows is infraction on the law (practicing polygamists), the abuse under the secrecy of religious cover is likely to go unabated. In any case, unless “cults” are ruled illegal, there is no way to “go after cults” as the first writer advocates.

Well in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sec 15 & 28.. guarantee women equal rights to men. And Canada has signed a U.N. treaty..Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) treaty which it would be violating if it allowed polygamy. [url]http://www.fafia-afai.org/en/research/cedaw[/url

Previously, I asked how pervasive this polygamist practice is under the secrecy of religion in Canada. Of course that’s a difficult if not impossible issue to answer. It appears that without question, this is a thorny issue/problem for the law to address. Slippery definitions by defense attorneys and even the shear letter of law leave little solid ground for speedy dispensation.

It's not a significant problem, however if polygamy becomes legal it would likely turn into one.

[_JohnStuartMill]

marg, it sounds like your problem is with patriarchal cults, not polygamy per se. Maybe you should focus on the former.

[_marg]

marg, it sounds like your problem is with patriarchal cults, not polygamy per se. Maybe you should focus on the former.

What I see as the problem is not the issue. In Canada Civil marriage laws have been changed to include same sex marriages between 2 people. What some people are saying is that if the marriage law can be changed to include 2 people of the same sex, then why shouldn't it be changed to include multiple partners. That's how this relates to your topic.

This recent situation in which 2 polygamists leaders are charged with breaking an antipolygamist law may very well not take into consideration the abuse which results as a result of cult indoctrination. Originally the reason for the polygamy law was to restrict the religious practice of Mormons, the law was not set up to consider abuse of women or children. It is largely suspected that the leaders will not be found guilty, whether they are or are not, it is also suspected it will eventually go the the Supreme court by polygamists, probably with some financial support from the U.S. counterpart in order to have polygamy legalized.

I don't know if the same situation can occur in the U.S. in which, if marriages are changed legally to include 2 of the same sex, then why not polygamous marriages as well. Your initial remark regarding polygamy was that you don't see a problem with consenting adults. Well how does one determine whether an adult has truly consented, if they were brought up with heavy indoctrination. So I think changing what is legal in marriages can become a slippery slope into allowing abusive situations, if people who look at the argument, don't appreciate all the issues involved.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Well how does one determine whether an adult has truly consented, if they were brought up with heavy indoctrination.

This cuts equally against letting gay people enter into straight marriages. If Johnny LDS, who has an innate attraction to men, gets married to Sally, then isn't this the same as your scenario? I just don't see an objection to polygamy that is unique.

[_marg]

Well how does one determine whether an adult has truly consented, if they were brought up with heavy indoctrination.

This cuts equally against letting gay people enter into straight marriages. If Johnny LDS, who has an innate attraction to men, gets married to Sally, then isn't this the same as your scenario? I just don't see an objection to polygamy that is unique.

I'm sorry John I'm not following you. I think gays should be able to marry, I do think they are consenting adults. Polygamy though is a religious practice in the majority of cases. It's archaic, abusive to women and children and in the majority of cases is not a freely chosen decision absent religious indoctrination along with restricted access to quality education and skills necessary for an independent life in modern society. So the issue is, how can polygamy be eliminated. Even though it's illegal it still goes on in the U.S. and Canada. And if it ever became legal it would likely increase..because there is just too much respect given religious groups in N.A.

[_Calculus Crusader]

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.

The drafters of the Civil War amendments certainly did not contemplate that they would be used to argue for the illegality of miscegenation bans, or to integrate Southern classrooms. According to your jurisprudential standard, Loving v. Virginia and Brown v. Board of Education were decidedly incorrectly, and African-Americans should have meekly waited another 50 years until the legislatures deigned to advance their cause.

I am a contextualist, not an original-intentist. Blacks were explicitly granted equal protection under the law via constitutional amendment and the U.S. had almost 100 years of data at the time of Brown to demonstrate that they were denied equal protection under segregation.

I have noted a relevant similarity between Germany under Hitler and the state for which religious conservatives pine: in both, majoritarian rule grants insufficient respect for minority rights. If you think that an electoral popularity against equal rights for gays legitimizes that opinion, then you have nothing to say against Hitler's crimes against the minorities under his rule.

Dear hayseed,

Appeals to analogy are known as the weakest form of argumentation for a reason. Your analogy is not valid; Nazi Germany was not a proper democratic state.

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

Actually, there's quite a bit more. There is very good empirical data suggesting that gay marriage bans are becoming more unpopular: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/ ... riage.html (The guy who runs that site graduated with honors from the University of Chicago economics department, which is famed for its mathematical rigor.) This trend is not surprising because, as already mentioned, the younger generations of voters are more likely to support gay marriage, and there is no evidence to suggest that this belief changes over time. Obviously, there are always qualifiers and caveats to the conclusions to statistical analyses, but you do not have sufficient warrant to believe that the caveats necessary to cut against my conclusion obtain.

A. I don't care if he "graduated with honors from the University of Chicago economics department." That does not mean he knows how to conduct a legitimate sample survey and/or correctly interpret a sample survey.

B. I do not necessarily dispute that the youth demographic is more accepting of gay "marriage" in some regions. What I dispute is that survey results give you license to prognosticate to 2060.