News Is Polygamy Legally Permitted in Canada?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zantra
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
Polygamy is not legally permitted in Canada, as the country recognizes only monogamous marriages under the law. The discussion highlights the ongoing debates surrounding marriage equality, particularly regarding same-sex marriage, and the implications of religious definitions versus civil rights. Many argue that marriage should be a civil institution, allowing equal rights for all couples regardless of sexual orientation, while religious institutions can define marriage as they see fit. The conversation also touches on the financial and legal motivations for marriage, emphasizing the need for equitable treatment under the law. Overall, the dialogue reflects a broader societal struggle over the intersection of legal rights and personal beliefs.
  • #331
mgb_phys said:
You made the excellent point that the solution to the whole problem is for the state to not marry anyone.
People should just be free to nominate a significant other for any legal requirements.

Then if a couple want a Priest/Rabbi/Iman/Jedi to wave a magic wand over their relationship they are free to invent whatever ceremonies they want. But it's nothing to do with the state...
Which is why in some other countries this isn't as hot of an issue as it is here. I think Elton John was quoted earlier in the thread saying that it sidesteps the controversy completely by separating the religious and civil definitions. In the US, right or wrong, people have the feeling that some groups and the government are trying to dictate to religions how they should do things.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #332
drankin said:
My point is that the government should make no law concerning marriage. Gay or otherwise. There should be no discrimination between a single person or a married person. Gay person or heterosexual person. White person or black person. The only discrimination I think we can all agree on is age, that is the distinction between children and adults. Pretty much solves the controversy IMO.

Of course, this would never happen.
How 'bout male vs female? That one always gets on my nerves when I pay my car insurance...

Anyway, I agree. The only way to stop discrimination is to stop discrimination (paraphrase of a supreme court justice).
 
  • #333
russ_watters said:
How 'bout male vs female? That one always gets on my nerves when I pay my car insurance...

Anyway, I agree. The only way to stop discrimination is to stop discrimination (paraphrase of a supreme court justice).

One reason it could never happen is because divorce is such a lucrative industry for lawyers. Imagine getting a divorce and being able to keep all your own stuff and not having to pay off your spouse!
 
  • #334
skeptic2 said:
The real question is what is the state's interest in maintaining marriage between only a man and a woman. Though you may not see the specifying of marriage to be only between a man and a woman equate to gays being second class citizens, homosexuals do see it that way.
Calling it "the real question" doesn't make it so. Different sides see the issue differently - that's just a reality, whether you like it or not. People will no doubt try to frame the issue in a way that makes the outcome more favorable to their position/denigrating to the other, but that doesn't mean others will accept that framing and it doesn't make their characterization of the opposition true.

Heck, if anything that hardens the other side when people try to do that. And appears to be the predominant debate tactic of that side on this issue - not just here, but in the media too. Like that buffoon Olberman who accused people of trying to stand in the way of the happiness of others. Silly.
Though marriage is sanctioned by the church, it also satisfies many civil purposes such as child support, spousal support, and inheritance. Without marriage many women would have to, and do, rely on the state for support while they are raising children. These same issues are important to homosexuals. The state has a very important role in marriage.
True, but why does it need to? Why should a divorced couple divide their stuff equally (that's a big reason for the demise of the institution right now, imo)? Why does a couple have to be married to adopt (as if it matters: it's still only a coin flip if they will stay together)? Does not being married absolve someone of the requirement to support their kids (no)? Does your dying grandmother really want your spouse to get their inheritance (probably not, but if they do, they can put it in their will)?

These issues are, for the most part imo, wrongly connected to marriage.
 
Last edited:
  • #335
drankin said:
One reason it could never happen is because divorce is such a lucrative industry for lawyers. Imagine getting a divorce and being able to keep all your own stuff and not having to pay off your spouse!
Heh, true - there's no commission in that!

That is a big flaw in our legal system: lawers write the laws that make profit for them. It's the same flaw as when politicians vote themselves a pay raise.
 
  • #336
drankin said:
I believe in civil unions with all the same benefits of marriage. My only gripe is calling it "marriage". Leave that as a religious distinction.

Yeah well I say you don't get to define it for me. You can for yourself of course, but you can't by secular decree charge the word for everyone else that doesn't share your specific religious perspective, or your personal imperatives.

When you are in your church, only call it marriage if it's only between opposite sex partners. Refuse to sanctify same sex unions. Refuse to perform them. Knock yourself out. Debate how it may be used within the walls of your church all you want, restrict it there all you want, but trying to charge the word with your particular view of what it means ... imposing your definition through secular fiat and not through common usage, looks to me to be a less than satisfactory solution. It looks to me like an abridgment of the separation provided by the Establishment Clause.
 
  • #337
drankin said:
I believe in civil unions with all the same benefits of marriage. My only gripe is calling it "marriage". Leave that as a religious distinction.

By that logic, no marriage performed by someone like a justice of the peace should be called a marriage either. Since marriage is already legally defined as a civil institution, one can hardly argue now for the "sanctity" of all marriages.

By your definition, how many married people would no longer be married?
 
Last edited:
  • #338
Ivan Seeking said:
By that logic, no marriage performed by someone like a justice of the peace should be called a marriage either.
If we re-define it that way, yes.
By your definition, how many married people would no longer be married?
Probably none, since like with Prop 8, it wouldn't necessarily be retroactive.

That would seem to fall under the basic prohibition against ex post facto laws.
Since marriage is already legally defined as a civil institution, one can hardly argue now for the "sanctity" of all marriages.
No doubt!
 
  • #339
Mmmm yeah I'm going to have to agree with the person that said we must use the "civil union" term for legal purposes but the word marriage should be associated with as much arbitrariness and ambiguity as the word god or love. Just like most people define god, love, differently so too "marriage" should be lumped in this category. Just some word people can play around with as they see fit to make themselves happy. Get over it I say, as long as the rights are the same... this is all that matters.
 
  • #340
thoughtgaze said:
Mmmm yeah I'm going to have to agree with the person that said we must use the "civil union" term for legal purposes but the word marriage should be associated with as much arbitrariness and ambiguity as the word god or love.

Great line from Luka in Taxi

When we get married our hands are tied together over a cow that must moo 3 times.
>Really, what does that signify?
In my culture we believe that is only mindless superstition and pointless ritual that separate us from the animals.
 
  • #341
LowlyPion said:
Yeah well I say you don't get to define it for me. You can for yourself of course, but you can't by secular decree charge the word for everyone else that doesn't share your specific religious perspective, or your personal imperatives.

When you are in your church, only call it marriage if it's only between opposite sex partners. Refuse to sanctify same sex unions. Refuse to perform them. Knock yourself out. Debate how it may be used within the walls of your church all you want, restrict it there all you want, but trying to charge the word with your particular view of what it means ... imposing your definition through secular fiat and not through common usage, looks to me to be a less than satisfactory solution. It looks to me like an abridgment of the separation provided by the Establishment Clause.

It's the other way around. Marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman. Marriage between the same sex is a new "definition" imposed by the homosexual community.
 
  • #343
Ivan Seeking said:
When Prop 8 was passed, apparently there was a last minute disinformation campaign that threw the black vote [a bit of irony considering the long and historic battle for civil rights, for blacks]. So it may be that the bill could be overturned fairly soon given another popular vote.
drankin said:
So you believe that it is ironic that blacks would vote against gay marriage? Maybe it is because they realize that gay marriage is not a race issue. It is a marriage issue.
LowlyPion said:
As to blacks supporting Prop 8 in the last election, let's see how they vote in the next, after being reminded that there but for the Grace of God were they not all that long ago, simply because of the color of their skin.
Both hispanics and blacks, while tending to vote liberal, are fairly conservative when it comes to issues of "family values" and the like.
I actually think that relating the gay marriage issue to racism and apartheid is considered laughable and even insulting to a lot of black people. Especially since a lot of people, particularly religious people, believe that homosexuality is a choice. Even if they except that gays are born that way there is still the fact that a gay person will only be descriminated against if it is found out they are gay. It doesn't take much to find out a person is black. Obviously a gay couple necessarily outs themselves when they try to get married but the relation is still likely to be seen as rediculous by people who deal with bigotry as a matter of course when ever a bigot so much as sees them.
I think they really need to be careful about these sorts of comments or they may hurt their cause more than helping it. All of their material that I have heard and seen has been either melodramatic or so vague as to not even mention the fact that they are referring to gay marriage.

drankin said:
I believe in civil unions with all the same benefits of marriage. My only gripe is calling it "marriage". Leave that as a religious distinction.
Best resolution for the problem. Call all "marriages" between anyone civil unions for all legal purposes and no longer use the word "marriage" for any legal purpose at all what ever.
 
  • #344
drankin said:
I believe in civil unions with all the same benefits of marriage. My only gripe is calling it "marriage". Leave that as a religious distinction.

It seems that different people mean different things by the term "marriage." There are at least two different terms, namely religious marriage and civil marriage. From what I can gather (and I could very well be wrong) people don't intend on changing the definition of religious marriage, but of the definition of civil marriage to include homosexual. Where I'm from these are called 'civil partnerships' but carry all the same benefits of marriage in the eyes of the law.

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.
 
  • #345
cristo said:
It seems that different people mean different things by the term "marriage." There are at least two different terms, namely religious marriage and civil marriage. From what I can gather (and I could very well be wrong) people don't intend on changing the definition of religious marriage, but of the definition of civil marriage to include homosexual. Where I'm from these are called 'civil partnerships' but carry all the same benefits of marriage in the eyes of the law.

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.

That's basically it. The term marriage has always meant a family commitment between a man and a woman for the last few thousand years or so. Now, it doesn't mean that... so much. People are a bit confused about how marriage applies, partially because they don't understand what homosexuality has to do with it. It's strange to them, doesn't make much sense and it's hijacking their idea of family and the associated values.
 
  • #346
drankin said:
People are a bit confused about how marriage applies, partially because they don't understand what homosexuality has to do with it. It's strange to them, doesn't make much sense and it's hijacking their idea of family and the associated values.
What about it precludes homosexuality?
 
  • #347
TheStatutoryApe said:
What about it precludes homosexuality?

Absolutely, nothing.
 
  • #348
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.

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?
 
  • #349
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?

But that's a different topic of discussion. The question here is 'why should one type of relationship be recognised by the state and other types not?', not 'why should the state acknowledge any relationship?'.
 
  • #350
cristo said:
It seems that different people mean different things by the term "marriage." There are at least two different terms, namely religious marriage and civil marriage. From what I can gather (and I could very well be wrong) people don't intend on changing the definition of religious marriage, but of the definition of civil marriage to include homosexual. Where I'm from these are called 'civil partnerships' but carry all the same benefits of marriage in the eyes of the law.

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.

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.
 
  • #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:
  • #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