News Is Polygamy Legally Permitted in Canada?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zantra
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread 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.
  • #51
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
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.
 
  • #53
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.
 
  • #54
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.
 
  • #55
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?
 
  • #56
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.
 
  • #58
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.
 
  • #59
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.
 
  • #60
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.
 
  • #61
Moonbear said:
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.

This is what I was thinking. It may turn out to be better to have a court ruling. There is already a suit being filed. Monitary damages are not necessary for such a lawsuit. Of course they already had a California Supreme Court ruling regarding the last vote to illegalize gay marriage and apparently that wasn't enough.

I think that the "No on 8" campaign commercials, at least the radio ones, were pretty poor.
They exaggerated the school cirriculum claims of their opponents. "Yes on 8" only stated that it would happen ("like in massachusetts") not that it was written into the proposition. And really I'm rather certain that homosexuality is already discussed in schools and will be perhaps even more so if it is established that gay marriage is legal. It probably already is because of the political battle itself. And should be discussed.
Also they conveniently forgot to mention what the proposition is for. They merely state that it is about "taking away fundamental rights". The only time they mention the actual point of the bill in any way what so ever is to say that it does not make it necessary for schools to teach about homosexuality. I really hate it when political ads do that. Regardless of my own stance on the issue I find it rather irresponsible and dishonest and that perception can easily sway undicided voters away.

On the other side of the issue the "Yes on 8" ads sounded so rediculous that I can't believe many people even took them seriously. The best thing they had going for them were the sound bites of Gavin Newsom. He sounded like such an a**hole and those sound bites were probably the primary reason for the success of those ads.
 
  • #62
I'm saddened by the outcome in California too. But like a number of people have voiced above I think that the best solution is the "nuclear option", complete disestablishment of marriage as a civil institution, and make everyone gay or straight get something called a "civil union". I think that much of the discord is caused by the perception that refining the definition of the civil thing called "marriage" is affecting the religious thing called "marriage".
⚛​
 
  • #63
That was the problem in the UK - so it was just called a 'civil ceremony'.
It's pretty much the same as a civil wedding without the word married and has all the same legal / tax implications.
Ironically there is a (small) campaing to allow'gay weddings for all' - from people that want the legal bit but don't even want a civil weding ceremony.
 
  • #64
Out of curiosity heterosexual married couples are referred to as husband and wife, anyone know how homosexual married couples are referred to?
 
  • #65
Moonbear said:
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.

One would think that would be the case. If one were to construe The Constitution strictly then it seems a stretch to exclude gays from equal enjoyment and application of the Law.

But one never knows. Looking at Judge Thomas for instance, there may be a conflict with his predilection to choose States Rights (the State Constitution in this case) over the Federal law. But then again his opinion that affirmative action isn't supported by the 14th Amendment based on it's reliance on race might put him in a bind, with respect to passing state laws defining marriage as being the exclusive province of heterosexuals.
 
  • #66
Art said:
Out of curiosity heterosexual married couples are referred to as husband and wife, anyone know how homosexual married couples are referred to?

Husband and Husband/Wife and Wife.
 
  • #67
  • #69
Math Is Hard said:
There's a big protest going on over this right now.
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/l...l_Battle_over_Same_Sex_Marriage_Not_Over.html
They let us go early from work and I just barely made it past the federal building before things got hairy (our parking structure is very near there). Trucks of police in riot gear were moving in and it was pretty slow going.

It is a sad turn of events to think that the moral police have gone riot in trying to impose their brand of tyranny on those that are otherwise law abiding and constructive members of society.

If it does go to the Supreme Court there would be no better court to strike down the California statute given its current make-up. If they decide otherwise, the country as a whole will be surely be inflamed, as much as anything by whatever reasoning they might use to arrive at such a decision.

As a side note, for anyone thinking that Palin was a disaster, imagine if the Mormon Romney had been on the ticket.
 
  • #70
  • #71
Math Is Hard said:
It's not just the Mormons. There's a lot of unhappiness with the black and hispanic voters on this issue:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/06/AR2008110603880.html


As one of our radio commentators put it, "They came for Obama, they stayed for Prop 8."

I see that. But I also think its a lot of Mormon money. I think the choice of sites suggests the protesters know that too.

What a shame the Mormons didn't put that money they put into Prop 8 to help in the community instead.
 
  • #72
  • #73
I think the Mormon church pulled something shady here. They didn't directly put money into the "Yes on prop 8" commercials, but they (allegedly) influenced their church members to finance those ads. There's a big outcry from the protesters that the Mormon church should be taxed over this issue. I am not sure how those rules work, or if anyone can prove that this is what happened.

I can tell you for sure that there was a bombardment of those ads (with flimsy hyped-up scare tactics) whoever was financing them.
 
  • #74
Math Is Hard said:
It's not just the Mormons. There's a lot of unhappiness with the black and hispanic voters on this issue:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/06/AR2008110603880.html


As one of our radio commentators put it, "They came for Obama, they stayed for Prop 8."

That's so crazy. Ever since I heard that Proposition 8 passed, I've been trying to imagine what the Californians who voted for it would be like. I'm from the East Coast and I've traveled to the West Coast a lot but never lived there, so my concept of the average Californian is a complete stereotype - it was just a question mark in my head, no idea who a Prop 8 voter would be. I guess it's blacks and latinos and Mormons.

In the Washington Post piece it quoted one guy as saying, "The gay community was never considered a third of a person." My immediate reaction is, no disrespect for the civil rights challenges of the black community, but you've never been considered a third of a person yourself, buddy.

You know what this reminds me of? The early Roman Christians, having been persecuted under the Romans and crucified and fed to lions and all that, once they found themselves in charge of the Roman Empire went straight to persecuting everyone else, even other Christians like the Donatists and the Arians.

The Mormons, btw, have faced quite a lot of persecution too during the last 200 years. But they obviously can give as good as they get.
⚛​
 
  • #75
CaptainQuasar said:
That's so crazy. Ever since I heard that Proposition 8 passed, I've been trying to imagine what the Californians who voted for it would be like. I'm from the East Coast and I've traveled to the West Coast a lot but never lived there, so my concept of the average Californian is a complete stereotype - it was just a question mark in my head, no idea who a Prop 8 voter would be. I guess it's blacks and latinos and Mormons.

Its something that I guess not many people realize. Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, ect., all tend to be religious and/or have 'traditional values'. And people only really pay attention to racist/bigoted white people so the minorities more or less get free rein to be as bigoted as they like. It's only recently become a news item around here that there are heavy racial tensions in certain areas between blacks and hispanics. Also consider the extremely large number of mexican epithets for homosexuals.
 
  • #77
I think the point of this proposition was that if you wag your finger and say 'No' a whole lot, that they may stop.
 
  • #78
TheStatutoryApe said:
Its something that I guess not many people realize. Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, ect., all tend to be religious and/or have 'traditional values'. And people only really pay attention to racist/bigoted white people so the minorities more or less get free rein to be as bigoted as they like. It's only recently become a news item around here that there are heavy racial tensions in certain areas between blacks and hispanics. Also consider the extremely large number of mexican epithets for homosexuals.

What do you mean by 'not many people realize'? About 16.9% of people don't realize? (Religious Affiliations)

About 83.1% of Americans belong to a religion - regardless of race. Breaking down the 16.1% further (0.8% refused to answer the survey), 4% are atheists or agnostic. 12.1% don't belong to a religion, but are not atheist or agnostic.

I don't know what percentage of Californians belong to a religion, but I doubt 47.5% don't belong to a religion.

I'm not sure you can tie a 52% to 47.5% vote to a 83.1% to 16.1% distribution of 'religious' people. You would have to go a couple steps further to identify particular religions that are completely intolerant of gays and how ardent the religion's followers are. Face it, quite a few folks go to church because they've gone to church their whole lives and don't put a lot of thought into whether their personal views match their religion's views.
 
Last edited:
  • #79
CaptainQuasar said:
That's so crazy. Ever since I heard that Proposition 8 passed, I've been trying to imagine what the Californians who voted for it would be like. I'm from the East Coast and I've traveled to the West Coast a lot but never lived there, so my concept of the average Californian is a complete stereotype - it was just a question mark in my head, no idea who a Prop 8 voter would be. I guess it's blacks and latinos and Mormons.

California is a very big state, and once you leave the coastal cities, it's largely rural. There is no shortage of conservative white people, even in the cities (see Orange County and San Diego). This is the state that gave us Nixon and Reagan, remember, and which currently has a Republican governor.

That said, California conservatism usually has less to do with the culture wars and more to do with fiscal and foreign policy issues. You don't see a lot of churchgoers getting worked up about abortion or heavy metal, for the most part. Which does suggest that it was other demographics driving this result...
 
  • #80
Math Is Hard said:
I think the Mormon church pulled something shady here. They didn't directly put money into the "Yes on prop 8" commercials, but they (allegedly) influenced their church members to finance those ads. There's a big outcry from the protesters that the Mormon church should be taxed over this issue. I am not sure how those rules work, or if anyone can prove that this is what happened.

Yeah, the LDS itself didn't donate money, as political lobbying (particularly across state lines) would violate its status as a tax-exempt, apolitical religious organization. Instead, they simply instructed their members to donate heavily, and set up clearing houses for the donations. A very large portion of the budget for Yes on 8 came from Mormons, mostly out of state. Various prominent Mormon businessmen inside CA were contacted and urged to participate, including one gay Mormon in CA who got angry and instead donated to the No on 8 campaign.

But, yeah, if they're going to dedicate their substantial organizational and funding capabilities to affecting political outcomes in my state, they should not get any tax breaks for being "apolitical."
 
  • #81
quadraphonics said:
gay Mormon

How does a gay person believe in Mormonism?
 
  • #82
BobG said:
About 83.1% of Americans belong to a religion - regardless of race. Breaking down the 16.1% further (0.8% refused to answer the survey), 4% are atheists or agnostic. 12.1% don't belong to a religion, but are not atheist or agnostic.
Actually I've read that realistically it's more like 21% of Americans are atheist/agnostic, the majority of those numbers prefering to sit on the agnostic "fence". I can't find the study, but what they were saying basically is that many people won't admit to being agnostic or atheist in a public poll. I would tend to agree that the percentage is much higher than polls suggest. Many people lie about how often they go to church as well. :-p

My dad was an atheist, but no one outside of my mother and my siblings knew, not even my dad's siblings knew. I also know a number of agnostics that attend church services occasionally, either for family or friends or just for sentimental reasons. An atheist friend of mine attends traditional Catholic Christmas mass because he likes it, and he wasn't raised Catholic.
 
  • #83
NeoDevin said:
How does a gay person believe in Mormonism?

The same way a straight Mormon does, I suppose...

Seriously, though, there are more gay Mormons/Catholics/etc. than people seem to realize. Just because they teach that you're evil and work to oppress people like you doesn't mean that you weren't born into that religion, or that your family isn't committed to it, etc. Probably they believe that the teachings pertaining to homosexuality are wrong and will eventually be reconsidered, but in most cases I suspect that it's a simple matter of weighing the costs of staying in the church (living with some annoying sermons about homosexuality) vs the costs of leaving (isolation from one's family, going to hell, etc.)
 
  • #84
quadraphonics said:
The same way a straight Mormon does, I suppose...

Seriously, though, there are more gay Mormons/Catholics/etc. than people seem to realize. Just because they teach that you're evil and work to oppress people like you doesn't mean that you weren't born into that religion, or that your family isn't committed to it, etc. Probably they believe that the teachings pertaining to homosexuality are wrong and will eventually be reconsidered, but in most cases I suspect that it's a simple matter of weighing the costs of staying in the church (living with some annoying sermons about homosexuality) vs the costs of leaving (isolation from one's family, going to hell, etc.)
True, how many devoutly religious people commit adultery and a whole range of other "sins" according to their religion?
 
  • #85
NeoDevin said:
How does a gay person believe in Mormonism?

Without making any judgements for or against religion, or homosexuality...

One has nothing to do with the other. Most Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin, but they also believe that we are all sinners. In fact, the fallibility of all humans is essential to the concept of salvation.

By definition, even the most rigid Christians should welcome gays into their churches with open arms.
 
  • #86
Evo said:
True, how many devoutly religious people commit adultery and a whole range of other "sins" according to their religion?
Or how many catholic couples use contraception?
 
  • #87
No one can live entirely according to the teachings of a church or religion. According to Christian beliefs, only Jesus was perfect. The rest of us can only strive to be better than we are today.
 
  • #88
Ivan Seeking said:
No one can live entirely according to the teachings of a church or religion.
You can alsways pick a church with lower standards. the FSM is pretty easy to get along with. Among brand name churches sihkism is pretty low on no-fun rules.

According to Christian beliefs, only Jesus was perfect.
Ironic that the perfect catholic was Jewish.
 
  • #89
mgb_phys said:
You can alsways pick a church with lower standards. the FSM is pretty easy to get along with. Among brand name churches sihkism is pretty low on no-fun rules.

:smile: I suppose so. Ultimately people do choose their church based on their own feelings, beliefs, and interpretation of the Bible.

Ironic that the perfect catholic was Jewish.

Ironic? That is an essential aspect of the story. In fact, the Catholics believe that the apostle Peter, believed to be the first Pope, was given his authority directly by Jesus.
 
  • #90
I meant ironic because of a certain amount of unchristian behaviour between the church of Rome and Jesus's co-religionists over the last couple of millenia.
 
  • #91
As long as there are people paying there will be a church for anyone.
 
  • #92
I do think it's a bit unfair to blame religion for homophobia - these people don't like gays and say so in church and at the ballot box. I'm not sure it's really god's fault.

To quote the famous Jewish philosopher Brooks in his seminal work Blazing Saddles.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons."
 
  • #93
quadraphonics said:
The same way a straight Mormon does, I suppose...

Seriously, though, there are more gay Mormons/Catholics/etc. than people seem to realize. Just because they teach that you're evil and work to oppress people like you doesn't mean that you weren't born into that religion, or that your family isn't committed to it, etc. Probably they believe that the teachings pertaining to homosexuality are wrong and will eventually be reconsidered, but in most cases I suspect that it's a simple matter of weighing the costs of staying in the church (living with some annoying sermons about homosexuality) vs the costs of leaving (isolation from one's family, going to hell, etc.)

Not only that but there are probably lots of them who simply believe in everything except the homosexuality part. Just like most Christians don't consider themselves bound by many of the mitzvahs of Judaism.

To provide a larger example, take a look at things like Wiccanism and Neo-paganism. For many people those are complete make-your-own-religions, they pick through historical and quasi-historical information like they're at a dinner buffet, choosing whatever they think is nifty and leaving out anything they turn up their nose at. (I won't conceal it, I have almost no respect whatsoever for people who approach religion that way and then insist on others taking their "faith" seriously as though they're rock-solid, deeply held beliefs.)

So I can definitely buy people trimming or otherwise slightly modifying the faith they grew up with in the light of strong personal convictions they've arrived at in adult life. The puritanical sexuality element that is often part of Christianity in this era was a fairly late comer, mostly introduced by St. Augustine four centuries after Christ.
⚛​
 
  • #94
I did think it was funny when the pope complained about people's pick and mix attitude to religion - given that christianity started as Judaism Lite.
 
  • #95
mgb_phys said:
I do think it's a bit unfair to blame religion for homophobia -

I'm not blaming religion for homophobia. I'm blaming a religion for encouraging people all over the country to interfere in my state's politics, and then turning around and demanding a tax break (which I end up paying for) because of their "apolitical" nature. I have the distinct impression that they would not react kindly to a California-based religion working to legalize gay marriage in Utah.
 
  • #96
quadraphonics said:
and demanding a tax break (which I end up paying for) because of their "apolitical" nature.
It would be particularly unfair to make mormons pay tax. They aren't allowed coffe - Salt Lake City is like a strange parallel universe without starbucks - there is no way you can work your way through a US tax form without a few expressos.
 
  • #97
mgb_phys said:
It would be particularly unfair to make mormons pay tax. They aren't allowed coffe - Salt Lake City is like a strange parallel universe without starbucks - there is no way you can work your way through a US tax form without a few expressos.

Well, I don't drink coffee, and they still tax me, so... and, anyway, what do you need coffee for if you also don't stay up late or drink?
 
  • #98
BobG said:
What do you mean by 'not many people realize'? About 16.9% of people don't realize?

Sorry, my point wasn't very clear.
I mean that although CA is heavily Democrat and votes in a Democrat for president many of those democrats are really fairly conservative when it comes to many issues. Homosexuality being one of them. Hispanics, who make up a very significant portion of the electorate here, tend to be quite religious, quite intolerant of homosexuals, and also tend to register as democrats.

So while many people may think that its inbred evangelical rednecks and neocons who passed this proposition its simply not true. Most of the local conservative talk radio people are very much against it. "John & Ken" even chastized a woman who called them to tell them how happy she was it passed.

This isn't exactly a party issue.
 
  • #99
TheStatutoryApe said:
Sorry, my point wasn't very clear.
I mean that although CA is heavily Democrat and votes in a Democrat for president many of those democrats are really fairly conservative when it comes to many issues. Homosexuality being one of them. Hispanics, who make up a very significant portion of the electorate here, tend to be quite religious, quite intolerant of homosexuals, and also tend to register as democrats.

So while many people may think that its inbred evangelical rednecks and neocons who passed this proposition its simply not true. Most of the local conservative talk radio people are very much against it. "John & Ken" even chastized a woman who called them to tell them how happy she was it passed.

This isn't exactly a party issue.

Another point is that blacks tended to favor prop 8, so the same blacks whose high turned out helped Obama also contributed to Prop 8.
 
  • #100
Zantra said:
Another point is that blacks tended to favor prop 8, so the same blacks whose high turned out helped Obama also contributed to Prop 8.

I heard about this. 70% of voting blacks voted to ban gay marriage in Cali. So gays protested at a white church. I heard an interview of a black man who said it would be interesting to see them protest at their churches but figures they are going the path of least resistance.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top