Is Polygamy a Crime in Canada?

  • News
  • Thread starter Zantra
  • Start date
In summary, the passing of California Proposition 8 in 2008 has sparked a significant amount of controversy and tension in the state, with heated debates and demonstrations from both sides. The proposition, which aimed to ban same-sex marriage, has been met with resistance and backlash from the LGBTQ+ community and their allies. Some have suggested a compromise where all unions between two people
  • #351
skeptic2 said:
One difference is it is difficult to construct a verb for civil partnership. What would it be? "Mom, Dad, I'm going to civil partner with Bob." makes it sound like regular marriage isn't so civil. Then there's marital status question on so many forms... Married, Single, Civil Partnered. Also birth or adoption certificates - Mother's name, Father's name, Civil Partner's name.

The imposition of a religious definition is absurd. I'm unclear why the Right Wing even finds this distinction important. Trying to legislate the definition is just silly. The sooner Prop 8 is over turned by statute ... I'm convinced that it will happen ... the better for everyone. This isn't even a problem except insofar as it would be used to deny rights to same sex partnerships.

Ted Olson is the former Solicitor General for President George W. Bush and is considered to be solidly conservative in his judicial philosophy. However Ted Olson seems to take a more libertarian point of view when it comes to same sex marriage.

To that end, Ted Olson has filed suit in US District Court to stop the enforcement of Proposition 8, allowing same sex couples to marry, while the matter of decided in federal courts. Ted Olson fully expects the question to go all the way to the United States Supreme Court.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1789104/ted_olson_vs_proposition_8.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #352
CRGreathouse said:
I don't understand what is so beneficial to society about defining a special legal relationship between exactly two people who may and may not be the same sex. What purpose is served here?

What does this allow that contract law does not?

Marriage is a type of contract. For all the griping that we hear about the sanctity of marriage and family values in the eyes of the law a marriage is really just another type of contract. The only real difference is that it is historically connected to a religious ceremony.
 
  • #353
TheStatutoryApe said:
Marriage is a type of contract. For all the griping that we hear about the sanctity of marriage and family values in the eyes of the law a marriage is really just another type of contract. The only real difference is that it is historically connected to a religious ceremony.

Would people be as anxious to define what Communion means in the State Constitution as they would seem to be to impose their idea of how the word Marriage may be used in secular life?
 
  • #354
TheStatutoryApe said:
Marriage is a type of contract. For all the griping that we hear about the sanctity of marriage and family values in the eyes of the law a marriage is really just another type of contract. The only real difference is that it is historically connected to a religious ceremony.

Nah. With marriage the government can (and does!) change the terms at will, and the spouses can't change the terms. With contract law the government has a much more restricted ability to change the terms and the 'spouses' (partners, etc.) can set the terms to whatever they want.
 
  • #355
CRGreathouse said:
Nah. With marriage the government can (and does!) change the terms at will, and the spouses can't change the terms. With contract law the government has a much more restricted ability to change the terms and the 'spouses' (partners, etc.) can set the terms to whatever they want.

Just a plain old marriage creates the legal relationship as spouses, essentially under contract, but sets no negotiated terms. So with nothing other than an agreement to enter into such a legal relationship the terms are set by the laws and legal definitions of the state. The same would apply to any similar contract in the absence of specified terms. If I wrote up a contract that simply said I will pay someone [$] rent per month in exchange for living in their garage, depending on the legal requirements of the state, I am now in a tenant landlord relationship with that person. I will now be subject to the applicable laws and legal definitions as set down by the state and those will change as the state changes them. At any time before or after entering into such an arrangement I can make further contractual agreements which will limit the states ability to alter the terms of our legal relationship. The same applies to marriage. There exist both pre and post nuptual agreements, so yes spouses can change the terms of their legal relationship both before and after getting married.

What exactly is the big difference?
 
  • #356
cristo said:
I don't see what all the fuss is about, to be honest. Of course homosexual civil marriage should be recognised by the state as equal to heterosexual civil marriage, since it's pretty discriminatory not to. Whether the definition of religious marriage should be changed is a matter for the church to decide.

The religious right and other social conservatives want to deny rights to homosexuals based on religious or personal bias. I don't think it is any more complicated than that. It is discrimination.

They do make one interesting point: Why is polygamy illegal?

It seems to me that the answer is that polygamy should be legal. Ironically, here the tables are turned and religious groups like the so-called Reformed Church of Latter Day Saints [essentially, fundamentalist Mormons], are denied the right to multiple partners, as is allowed by their religion. At the core of this issue, it seems, is one Christian ethic taking precendence over another.
 
Last edited:
  • #357

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top