Is Polygamy Legally Permitted in Canada?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Zantra
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
Sign up Log in
356 replies · 39K views
Homophobia is the next barrier to be torn down. The problem with people is when they think of homosexuals they get too wrapped up in the sexual act, so what they view is the sexual act and not the people themselves.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
jimmysnyder said:
My opinion is that the government has a legitimate interest in seeing people in stable relationships. I think such people live longer, commit fewer crimes, and earn more. I can't back any of that up, I just think it. I also think that the legal commitment that marriage entails is instrumental in securing the government's interest in the matter. Without the legal commitment, the stability disappears with the first spat. I can't imagine what legitimate interest the gov't has in preventing people from making this kind of commitment.

That's a far too sensible approach. So sensible that it cries out for the interjection of a religious imprimatur or too to throw any consideration of it off kilter.
 
noumed said:
... they feel like the atheists and agnostics are imposing on them on this issue.

No one is urging them to gayness. The only thing apparently sought is legal recognition for the purposes of civil issues. If the Fundamentalists want to worship their God of such intolerance then the Freedom of Religion in the country surely permits that. The only real objection is in their attempts to impose their intolerance on those that don't share their beliefs.
 
Ivan Seeking said:
Of course one might argue that we ban other marriages, such as a marriage between a father and daughter, but these bans can be justified because any offspring would be potential victims.

NeoDevin said:
I agree with pretty much everything you wrote except for this. This is not a justification for the ban on a marriage between close (genetic) relatives, only for a ban on procreation by close relatives.

Marriage laws have always assumed the couple would have kids and marriage laws tend to reflect that (the laws about inheritance, parental rights, etc).

One could argue that since a gay couple can't procreate, their relationship falls outside the bounds of marriage. The problem, logic-wise, is that heterosexual marriages aren't revoked if the couple never has kids.

Regardless of what you call it, a person should have the right to choose who's going to get their stuff, who's going to make life or death decisions about them if they're incapacitated, etc, even if the person chooses a close friend or one of their kids instead of their spouse.

The argument over what you call the relationship is kind of trivial.

(I guess it would be kind of an interesting situation where a person gets hit by a bus while they're in the middle of getting a divorce, but still married. You might not want a person trying to avoid alimony payments making the decision about whether you're removed from life support or not.)
 
LowlyPion said:
No one is urging them to gayness. The only thing apparently sought is legal recognition for the purposes of civil issues. If the Fundamentalists want to worship their God of such intolerance then the Freedom of Religion in the country surely permits that. The only real objection is in their attempts to impose their intolerance on those that don't share their beliefs.

so civil unions are an acceptable compromise?
 
If the ban were repealed and gay marriage were again legal, I could see some interesting situations come up.

"Dude, we've been like roommates for years and you got this sweet job with bennies. Will you like marry me? Like, we don't have to kiss or nuthin. When I move we'll just like get a divorce, you know? We can score on our taxes, dude!"
 
Proton Soup said:
so civil unions are an acceptable compromise?

For civil/legal issues it would seem that it is all that its required. How couples choose to relate between themselves would seem then to be a matter of privacy. Not equating then civil unions to marriage seems a silly concern.

It's merely religious interpretation over what the word marriage means - a matter that I don't see that Congress or the Courts have any particular jurisdiction.

On the other hand denying couples the opportunities and benefits of civil unions based on sexual orientation looks very much like a tyranny of the many against the rights and well being of the few. In that sense it seems antithetical to The Constitution.
 
BobG said:
Marriage laws have always assumed the couple would have kids and marriage laws tend to reflect that (the laws about inheritance, parental rights, etc).
Senior citizens marry without restriction.
 
drankin said:
If the ban were repealed and gay marriage were again legal, I could see some interesting situations come up.

"Dude, we've been like roommates for years and you got this sweet job with bennies. Will you like marry me? Like, we don't have to kiss or nuthin. When I move we'll just like get a divorce, you know? We can score on our taxes, dude!"

Good luck with that divorce when the other roommate wants alimony payments to maintain his lifestyle

Not to mention you could do the exact same thing with a roommate of the opposite gender already
 
Office_Shredder said:
Good luck with that divorce when the other roommate wants alimony payments to maintain his lifestyle

Not to mention you could do the exact same thing with a roommate of the opposite gender already

"That surf board is half mine!".
 
LowlyPion said:
For civil/legal issues it would seem that it is all that its required. How couples choose to relate between themselves would seem then to be a matter of privacy. Not equating then civil unions to marriage seems a silly concern.

It's merely religious interpretation over what the word marriage means - a matter that I don't see that Congress or the Courts have any particular jurisdiction.

On the other hand denying couples the opportunities and benefits of civil unions based on sexual orientation looks very much like a tyranny of the many against the rights and well being of the few. In that sense it seems antithetical to The Constitution.

yeah, I'm not really in favor of the government having anything to do with marriage, myself, because i think it's an infringement on religious freedom. but as for the issue at hand, i don't think anything less than the term 'marriage' will be deemed acceptable because the issue isn't so much about rights as it is being accepted. i expect the actual marriage rate to be very low.
 
Proton Soup said:
yeah, I'm not really in favor of the government having anything to do with marriage, myself, because i think it's an infringement on religious freedom. but as for the issue at hand, i don't think anything less than the term 'marriage' will be deemed acceptable because the issue isn't so much about rights as it is being accepted. i expect the actual marriage rate to be very low.

The solution of course is to redact past laws and make the terms equivalent and remove the definition issue to religious observance, such that current and future law applies to civil unions equally and what any religion may want to call its union between adherents, they would be free to use whatever term they felt was appropriate.

To a certain extent Prop 8 is only about trying to edit the dictionary through mandate. You'd think there were better things to do.
 
If the government shouldn't have anything to do with marriages, the government shouldn't regulate marriage licenses. It's ridiculous to have the government define marriage, but insist it needs to use your definition because otherwise it's infringing on your religion. Get rid of the word marriage and call everything a civil union and it solves a whole host of problems
 
LowlyPion said:
The only thing apparently sought is legal recognition for the purposes of civil issues.

The biggest common misconception people here has is that same-sex couples already had the same rights as married couples due to AB 205. What they don't realize is AB 205 does not allow them to file joint tax income return and their status is not recognized by the federal govt.

Actually, if you think about how much money is raised from this proposition alone, I wonder how much genuine interest the politicians had in this. /shrug
 
The most shocking thing about this episode is that you can apparently amend the Constitution of California by nothing more than a simple majority of the voters. "Tyrrany of the majority?" What's that?
 
quadraphonics said:
The most shocking thing about this episode is that you can apparently amend the Constitution of California by nothing more than a simple majority of the voters. "Tyrrany of the majority?" What's that?

California and Colorado - two states that don't even understand the meaning of 'constitution'. Given the option, voters alter their state constitutions with the same abandon as they would a local tax bill.

One of the several state constitutional amendments up for a vote in Colorado would have made it more difficult for voters to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot and easier to get a simple resolution (or law) onto the ballot. Unfortunately, that amendment failed.

One amendment voters got onto the ballot and approved restricted state legislators' ability to control taxes. In fact, if tax revenues fall because of a recession, it's impossible to restore revenues back to the previous rate. Even if taxes were cut but an improved economy increased revenues too fast, the state would have to refund the excess revenue. The result is a budget that has to constantly cut services, even when cutting those services forces the state to lose federal dollars.

Another amendment voters managed to put on the ballot and get approved guarantees increases in education spending at a minimum rate. Even if the state has reduced revenue due to a recession and can never recover from that recession because of the TABOR amendment, education spending has to increase.

Eventually, Colorado will be the only state in the union that devotes 100% of its budget to education. Then I guess it will top that by giving 110% when it comes to education.

Voters can't be counted on to think their action through. They usually just react to good commercials. We elect representatives that can devote full time to these sort of things for a reason.
 
quadraphonics said:
The most shocking thing about this episode is that you can apparently amend the Constitution of California by nothing more than a simple majority of the voters. "Tyrrany of the majority?" What's that?

Same simple majority that buys any good commercials they see... I swear if it wasn't for the electoral college, I wonder where we'd be as a country today...
 
In california it's because the TV/movie industry relies on the income from ads telling you to vote Yes/No on Prop N.

Odd wording though - normally when people get confused by a ballot they vote 'no' 9and the framers of propositions know this). So the assumption has to be that people will go into the ballot, against gay marriage and vote 'no' on the proposition and defeat it.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, this whole direct democracy idea has gone a bit too far. Many times the initiatives are deceptively named and packaged to sound like the opposite of what they are, in the hopes that people won't have time to figure them out in all the confusion.

Some level of direct democracy is a good thing, as it keeps the elected representatives on their toes, lest the voters simply bypass them and pass an initiative. It can work as a good hedge against special interests as well. But it's ridiculous that it provides a loophole for changing the Constitution with a much lower standard of support than would be required in the Legislature. There should be a 2/3 requirement, not a simple majority.
 
BobG said:
Marriage laws have always assumed the couple would have kids and marriage laws tend to reflect that (the laws about inheritance, parental rights, etc).

One could argue that since a gay couple can't procreate, their relationship falls outside the bounds of marriage. The problem, logic-wise, is that heterosexual marriages aren't revoked if the couple never has kids.

jimmysnyder said:
Senior citizens marry without restriction.

Indeed, my post-menopausal mother was allowed to remarry. If they're going to make an argument against marriage based on ability to procreate, then nobody who has had a vasectomy, hysterectomy, or is post-menopausal should be allowed to marry. In fact, if you choose not to have children, should your marriage be annulled and all back-taxes repaid?

Oh, and let's not forget that gay couples CAN have children nowadays, either through surrogate mothers for the gay male couples, or via artificial insemination for the gay female couples. Reproductive technologies really have gotten to the point where those arguments don't hold much water at all.
 
I guess we are going to go back to the days when a man can annul a marriage if his wife appears to be barren. It was always the woman's fault, never a woman getting to annul the marriage because her husband's little guys couldn't perform.
 
i am very saddened by this result, simply because it is another victory for intolerance and bigotry. I also have some close gay friends in california who have just been insulted and denied their rights, so it is also personally hurtful.
 
Evo said:
I guess we are going to go back to the days when a man can annul a marriage if his wife appears to be barren. It was always the woman's fault, never a woman getting to annul the marriage because her husband's little guys couldn't perform.

:confused: Where did that come from?
 
Moonbear said:
Oh, and let's not forget that gay couples CAN have children nowadays, either through surrogate mothers for the gay male couples, or via artificial insemination for the gay female couples. Reproductive technologies really have gotten to the point where those arguments don't hold much water at all.

And anyway, adoption has always rendered such arguments nonsensical in the first place. Not that it matters: the whole "raising a family" thing is just a code for bigoted sentiments. The entire point is that the kind of people that don't want gay people to marry wouldn't want them to raise children in the first place. For exmaple, the campaign in favor of Proposition h8 in CA leaned heavily on the premise that if gay marriage is permitted, children might be taught in school that... gay marriage is permitted.
 
Evo said:
Addressing previous posts about consummating marriage as a condition of what defines marriage. Where will the nonsense end? Not to mention the intiatives to ban gays from adopting. It is already the law in Florida.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news...battle-lines-of-same-sex-marriage-debate.html

Okay, I just don't see how that would pertain to women and not men. We are able to test for male infertility now, so it could work either way.

On the positive side, with a discriminatory law in place, there is now cause for gay couples to start filing lawsuits and try to get it to the Supreme Court level. The moment they pay a higher tax rate than a married couple, or have to pay additional legal fees to set up legal power of attorney in the event of them being medically incapacitated, when those authorities are de facto parts of marriage for heterosexual couples, they have damages to claim and can start the lawsuit. It really only takes one state to get it to the Supreme Court and rule it unconstitutional for all states.
 
Yeah, they could, in principle, try to get SCOTUS to declare the California Constitution to be... wait for it... unconstitutional. This is a long shot, and not likely to be pursued, however, as the current Supreme Court is considered to be a hostile audience for these arguments. Whatever merit you or I might think they have, SCOTUS is going to be extremely hesitant to make a ruling that requires all states to permit gay marriage.
 
quadraphonics said:
Yeah, they could, in principle, try to get SCOTUS to declare the California Constitution to be... wait for it... unconstitutional. This is a long shot, and not likely to be pursued, however, as the current Supreme Court is considered to be a hostile audience for these arguments. Whatever merit you or I might think they have, SCOTUS is going to be extremely hesitant to make a ruling that requires all states to permit gay marriage.

All they need to demonstrate is that it violates equal protection, just as the old Brown v. Board of Education accomplished the same for blacks in schools.