Why Polygamy Should Be Legal
76
De-Criminalizing Sinful Acts
In Canada, being married to more than one person is illegal. It is in fact, a criminal offence. Section 293 of the Criminal Code prohibits “any form of polygamy [or]
entering into a conjugal union with more than one person at the same
time.” The maximum penalty is five years in prison.
While I am certainly not an advocate for polygamists, I fail to understand why it is considered a crime. Laws are intended to prevent harm to society at large. So, it is not really the "marriage" that bothers us is it? Isn't it the multiple relationships that we find abhorrent? If it is the behavior of the polygamist that troubles us - that being that he is not monogamous, then we'd better get busy and make adultry a crime too.
Seriously, a married man (or woman) is within his legal rights to cheat on his or her spouse, with or without said spouse's knowledge. A man is permitted to have sex with multiple partners, separately or all at one time without legal consequences. He is legally entitled to live "in sin" with as many "partners" as he chooses (assuming they too choose him). Society in general, does not advocate such behavior, but we don't prosecute partakers. Why then do we make it a crime for a person to "marry" multiple partners? What difference does it really make if the persons involved in the activity have gone through a "ceremony"?
Perhaps the harm to society comes in the sense of the legal rights and benefits of spouses. I may be viewing this in a very simplistic view, but why couldn't we simply not recognize the multiple spouses? Let them get "married" in their religious ceremony, but when it comes to the "state" you can only claim one spouse. Let's just get out of the bedrooms of consenting adults. Let's allow people to choose how they want to live without governement intervention, but let's protect the real interest of society by recognizing only one legal spouse per person. Isn't that really simple? Am I missing something?
There are those who will say that polygamous communities, such as Bountiful BC, are not only engaging in polygamy, but they are forcing children to marry older men. In my mind, that is a completely separate issue. Sexual abuse of a child should not be confused with polygamy. A child cannot legally consent to sexual relations with adults - period. There are child protection laws to deal with that situation, and I would support aggressive prosecution of any person, polygamist or not, who sexaully abuses or interferes with any child.
Difficult to prove? Of course it is. As a former child protection social worker, I can tell you that sexual abuse of a child is never easy to prove - even outside of religious cults.
If Bountiful’s leaders, Winston Blackmore and Jim Oler are found guilty and imprisoned, what will the financial cost be to society? Will imprisoning these two men put an end to the practise? I can't imagine that it will.
So there you have it... just some of the reasons that support the notion of de-criminalizing Polygamy.
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
very nice article very hot topic
Saskatchewan Canada allows Polygamy and even forces Polygamy upon non consenting people. Google Saskatchewan Polygamy and section 51 of their Family Property Act, which defines marriage and spousal matters in all the provincial legislation. The case law ins now set in Tami Thurlow case so the rest of Canada will have to follow.
It should be interesting to see what other Federal criminal code laws the individual provinces can ignore!
How does this section 51 allow polygamy? If anyone claimed to be the spouse of a person who already had a spouse they would either have a void conjugal union ( as in it didn't happen) or they would be charged under canadas criminal code with polygamy or Polyandry? WOuldn't the polygamists rights include the right to spend five years in prison?
Rights of new spouse51 Where a person becomes the spouse of a person who has a spouse, the rightspursuant to this Act of the subsequent spouse are subject to the rights pursuant tothis Act of the prior spouse.”
I am not sure about this but if one criminal law can be legally ignored by Saskatchewan residents then I think they couold mostly all be ignored.
I think any person could argue that they would have no idea which laws to live by if the government themselves ignore SOME federal laws?
It makes sense that this would be a good legal argument a person could use if they break a federal law in Saskatchewan?
I'm not a law expert, but I do not believe that SK law permits or forces polygamy on anyone. Polygamy is a criminal offence. It is my understanding that the SK law is, of course, open to interpretation, but its intent is to protect unsuspecting subsequent spouses.
My argument is that the practice should be de-criminalized. Legislating morality is just silly imho.
This is not a matter of de-criminalizing morality. it is a legal matter.
Uh, yeah Jason, it is a legal matter. My position is that it shouldn't be a legal matter because it is a moral issue.
A little scrutiny of Saskatchewan Justice is recommended.
Don Morgan allows Polygamy. Section 51 of the Saskatchewan Family Property Act has been used by Saskatchewan Queens Bench judges to create Polygamous marital unions for a decade. Then the government sues and wins against Orville to force him to perform same sex marriage. In a reversal (again from Morgan) now the Saskatchewan Justice department wants to make marriage commissioners’ independent of the laws against discrimination? Could it be Saskatchewan is posturing to increase immigration to Saskatchewan by having full fledged communities of Polygamists move to their province? Winston Blackmore and other Polygamists have been arguing that the Federal law against Polygamy discriminates against their religious beliefs so coincidently now Saskatchewan wants legislation to allow religious objections to be recognized in legislation.
There are federal criminal code laws respecting Polygamy and religious discrimination. They protect Canadians. Saskatchewan ignores them with a little legal wrangling. The real motives are hidden from the simple public.
Thanks for that info Observer. It would appear that SK agrees with me.
I'm curious about the "real" motives that are hidden from the public though?
You state: " Let them get "married" in their religious ceremony, but when it comes to the "state" you can only claim one spouse."
This is not at all true in Saskatchewan. The rest of Canada, yes it is true.
There are several cases in Saskatchewan where the Queens Bench Justices have "created subsequent spouses" using Section 51 of the FAMILY Property Act.
Don Morgan says the law is "just there to recognize that sometimes people move on without geting a divorce". When he says "move on" Don Morgan means to get another (or more ) legal spouses.
For certain 2 women who were married claimed to have subsequent spouses and the judges made the "spousal unions" legal despite knowing the women had existing spouses and were not divorced at the time.
Could it be that the Sk Government wants persons to be able to "object on religious grounds" to Federal anti-polygamy laws so that immigration will see Saskatchewan first as a destination for Polygamists from all over the globe? In order to protect ALL the Saskatchewan legislation ( there are alot) that allows multiple same time conjugal unions Saskatchewan needs to have legislation that allows persons and government sanctioned officials (such as marrriage commissioners, ministers and even judges) to opt in or out of performing or sanctioning gay marriages and performing , assisting with and providing consent for plural conjugal unions. Canada and Saskatchewan already have in place Criminal Code and Human Rights legislation that protect persons from discrimination. Saskatchewan wants to "add" provincial legislation that allows the province to control who, what, when and where "conscientious" or "religious" or "individual" objections to following the federal criminal code can occur. In effect, they wish to create their own criminal code. That way, when they transgress Federal law in the courts, there is no scrutiny. For example, who is scrutinizing the Queens Bench judges that Provide consent, are party to consent, assist with and provide access to..multiple conjugal unions?
Canad's Federal Criminal Code states:
Every one who:(a) practises or enters into or in any manner agrees or consents to practise or enter into(i) any form of polygamy, or(ii) 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, or(b) celebrates, assists or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or consent that purports to sanction a relationship mentioned in subparagraph (i) or (ii), is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. Where an accused is charged with an offence under this section, no averment or proof of the method by which the alleged relationship was entered into, agreed to or consented to is necessary in the indictment or on the trial of the accused, nor is it 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.
Look at 1 (C) ... It is readily apparent that Saskatchewan judges who have "assisted with, provided consent for, sanctioned and been LEGAL party to" creating same time conjugal unions need serious police scrutiny.
However, if marriage commissioners (regulated by the crown) and judges (regulated by another crown) can "object to" and ignore Federal laws, then Saskatchewan Justice can also do so with impunity. Read.. they can't successfully be sued for their past, present and intended future actions because they will be protected by Saskatchewan legislation that allows them to ignore Federal Criminal Code laws.
Saskatchewan Legislation in many statutes claims similar to this from the FAMILY act:
“Rights of new spouse51 Where a person becomes the spouse of a person who has a spouse, the rightspursuant to this Act of the subsequent spouse are subject to the rights pursuant tothis Act of the prior spouse.”Saskatchewan judges use this section of their spousal property law to argue that married people can also have any number of other spouses at the same time.If this is an immigration plan for boosting Saskatchewans economy..it seems strange. If it is just arrogant incompetence..there seems to be alot of that in Saskatchewan Justices' past and present.
According to that Saskatchewan Section 51 Family Property Act, the subsequent spouse would not get property or other spousal considerations equal to the "first-in" spouse.
Isn't that discrimination? How can the first spouse have more rights than the second same time spouse?
I don't think its discrimination Dale. Since polygamy is illegal, the subsequent spouses are not legally spouses. It protects the original which is considered legal.
To quote another Hubpage, "It is children who end up being the victim of polygamy."
Read the article, "How polygamy leads to slavery", for a different perspective.
Before you decide that polygamy should be legalized, familiarize yourselves with the medical literature on the topic. There is consistent evidence in the medical literature that polygyny, the practice of a man having multiple wives, is associated with the development of depression, anxiety, somatization disorder, and psychiatric hospitalizations for suicidal ideation in the wives of polygynous marriages. Additionally, polygamy is associated with poor mental health outcomes for children. Review the literature on polygyny written by Alean Al - Krenawi via the google scholar program, then reach a conclusion on your feelings regarding legalizing polgyny.
sean.rutger says:
9 months ago
I agree. Thoreau wrote "government governs best when governs least," and I've subscribed to that notion ever since the first time I read it. As far as polygamy goes, your argument against its criminality is technically correct, and I agree with the underlying notion that informed it. That is, whatever happens between consenting adults is nobody else's business. Good luck getting that law changed. If you succeed, I might move my family to Canada for some expansion! (j/k)