Polygamists win support of civil rights group

[Stan]

B.C. Civil Liberties Assn. says polygamy law erodes dignity and denies privacy

Canada's ban on polygamy invites the state into the bedrooms of consenting adults, says a B.C. civil rights group that is siding with a controversial religious sect in a landmark court case on the federal law barring multiple marriage.

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association has filed a final argument in B.C. Supreme Court against the polygamy law, saying it is a Victorian-era statute that should be "relegated to the scrap heap of history."

"It invites the state to inspect the bedrooms — and kitchens and living rooms — of consenting adults who find fulfilment in plural relationships," association lawyer Monique Pongracic-Speier said in a statement issued Thursday.

"It erodes the dignity of people involved in those relationships and denies them the privacy that is available to couples and monogamous families."

Individuals should be free to make the life choices they wish, so long as those choices do not harm others and are made with informed consent, she said.

Final arguments in the case will begin later this month in B.C. Supreme Court, which has heard months of testimony both for and against upholding the federal law, including conflicting expert testimony about whether the practice of multiple marriage is inherently harmful to women and children.

Written arguments have already been filed by several interveners in the case, as well as the federal and provincial governments.

Governments defend law

Both levels of government are defending the law, arguing polygamy is inherently harmful and must be kept illegal. They've alleged multiple marriage inevitably leads to sexual and physical abuse, child brides, teen pregnancies and the trafficking of young girls to be married.

Provincial government lawyer Craig Jones, a former president of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, said polygamy harms not just the people involved in polygamous families, but also society as a whole.

"There is a significant increased risk to women and children in polygamous households ... and second, there are significant and measurable harms to a society in which polygamy is practised," Jones said in his written final submission.

"These latter social harms are felt regardless of whether any particular polygamous relationship is 'good' or 'bad."'

Jones rejected the argument that polygamy is a religious practice that must be protected, saying such protection doesn't extend to practices that are harmful.

The court has also heard explosive allegations that B.C. girls as young as 12 have been married off to jailed American polygamist Warren Jeffs, the "prophet" of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, a breakaway sect from the mainstream Mormon church. The mainstream church abandoned polygamy more than a century ago.

The B.C. civil rights group said it, too, is concerned about allegations of child abuse and sexual interference but argued that criminal activity should be investigated and prosecuted whether it occurs in polygamous or monogamous relationships.

The constitutional reference case before the B.C. court was prompted by the failed polygamy prosecution of Winston Blackmore and James Oler, two religious leaders from Bountiful, in southeastern B.C., a branch of the FLDS.

SOURCE

[Igakusei]

Quote:

"There is a significant increased risk to women and children in polygamous households ... and second, there are significant and measurable harms to a society in which polygamy is practised," Jones said in his written final submission.

"These latter social harms are felt regardless of whether any particular polygamous relationship is 'good' or 'bad."'

Jones rejected the argument that polygamy is a religious practice that must be protected, saying such protection doesn't extend to practices that are harmful.

I'm not going to say polygamy isn't harmful for the sake of itself (I have no idea), but I find it a little annoying that he didn't bother to defend these statements. I'd be interested in reading the court transcript when he actually does so.

[nuff sed]

IMO 'Polygamy rights' will not be far behind "gay rights'.....nuff sed

[Dr. Shane]

After polygamy will come pedophilia. People get ready. Jesus is coming. The signs are all around us.

[SivartM]

After polygamy will come pedophilia. People get ready. Jesus is coming. The signs are all around us.

Well, then Jesus ought to have come during the Old Testament when there were plenty of polygamists and nobody cared.

[Dr. Shane]

Polygamy was practiced in most all ancient cultures. More boys die from childhood illness than girls. Furthermore, more men die as warriors than women. Men would work in more dangerous jobs than women. So as a result of these factors, there have always been more women than men. Since the women's liberation movement is a relatively new thing, historically women have needed a husband in order to survive. Thus polygamy was practically a necessity.

In the New Testament believers were encouraged to have one wife and to care for the widows and orphans. If the church were to take care of the widows and orphans, that would reduce the need for polygamy significantly. Thus it shows God's plan is not for man to have more than one wife but rather to give selflessly to take care of widows and single mothers.

Prophecy clearly tells us that things will get as bad as they were in the days of Noah. So we are not looking for signs of moral decay being worse than they have ever been before. We are looking for them to be like they were in the days of Noah, in Old Testament or ancient times.

[SivartM]

There is still nothing in the Bible that condemns polygamy; eventually people are encouraged to marry one person, because that's obviously most practical, but the Bible never says anything about those who love more than one person, and aren't practicing polygamy for reproductive reasons. I don't see how it is equated with moral decay; obviously there were problems in many such relationships, but then, there were problems in every relationship back then, since women were property. It's the objectification of people that seems more representative of moral decay to me. Our vilification of polygamy seems reminiscent of China's one-child requirement (thought of course there are great differences). I don't see how anyone can get from polygamy (freedom to marry more than one person at the same time) to pedophilia (which is about using those who cannot consent).

[CoAspen]

The list will grow longer and longer...part of our 'endtime' theology!!!

You have to understand, lying, cheating, stealing, gossiping, etc, etc are not signs...just normal everyday activities!!!

[Dr. Shane]

eventually people are encouraged to marry one person, because that's obviously most practical

[SivartM]

No, I don't think it was more practical. If a society has more women than men and the women need men to take care of them, the most practical thing is to practice polygamy.

[Dr. Shane]

Slavery quite obviously deprives people of basic human rights. Does polygamy?

That isn't the issue. The issue is that the Bible permits both slavery and polygamy.

I think one could successfully argue that slavery is more immoral than polygamy. However degrees of sin are rather academic.

It is a slippery slope of immorality. It started with no-fault divorce. Then came gay marriage. Next will be polygamy. Then it will either be pedophilia or incest. It is hard to say which of the two will come first.

[SivartM]

The arguments for allowing polygamy are not based on whether or not it is sinful, but whether or not people have the right to have consensual relationships with more than one person. If you don't believe that it is moral, then you have the right to say what you like about it just as you can gay marriage. But my point remains that polygamy is never condemned in the Bible except for certain groups of people in the early church's organizational structure, and to put it on par with pedophilia is to condemn most of the main characters in the Old Testament. You can say that it was only "allowed" because of their culture, but it was still never condemned.

[Dr. Shane]

The arguments for allowing polygamy are not based on whether or not it is sinful, but whether or not people have the right to have consensual relationships