49

B.C. polygamy case to hear from women

Expected to defend “plural marriage,” call for decriminalization


 

Women from the fundamentalist Mormon community of Bountiful, B.C. will testify in court on Monday on the constitutionality of Canada’s anti-polygamy law. For the last two months, the B.C. Supreme Court has heard testimony from people who have parted ways with Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) and left Bountiful. They decry the practice of polygamy as physically and emotionally abusive to women and their children. However, women belonging to the fundamentalist Mormon community in Bountiful who are testifying are expected to defend polygamy as an essential component of their faith that has not been forced on them. “Although I know I have the option to say yes or no to the person I am called to the prophet to marry, I believe the prophet is inspired of God on these matters,” wrote a 25 year-old woman known only as witness No. 11 in an affidavit. Police charged Winston Blackmore and James Oler, two FLDS leaders, with polygamy two years ago, but the charges were dropped. Mainstream Mormons renounced polygamy more than a hundred years ago.

CBC News


 
Filed under:

B.C. polygamy case to hear from women

  1. The woman who said "I know I have the option to say yes or no to the person I am called to the prophet to marry," ..in not correct.
    If this woman lived in Saskatchewan and cohabitated with a married person, the government there could declare her to be another married persons spouse because Canada's polygamy laws don't apply there. She would not need to consent either, and therefore she would not have the option of becoming a subsequent spouse at all. She could be forced under law to be the spouse of a married person.

  2. The woman who said "I know I have the option to say yes or no to the person I am called to the prophet to marry," ..in not correct.
    If this woman lived in Saskatchewan and cohabitated with a married person, the government there could declare her to be another married persons spouse because Canada's polygamy laws don't apply there. She would not need to consent either, and therefore she would not have the option of becoming a subsequent spouse at all. She could be forced under law to be the spouse of a married person.

    • Canada's polygamy laws apply everywhere in Canada.

      Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada explicitly bans polygamy and threatens offenders with a five-year prison term

    • "Canada's polygamy laws don't apply there"

      !?!?! Then where do they apply? In Pakistan!?

  3. More than '''one'' Wife ?…. Why ?…I mean, that's just beyond, well, comprehension,….Why ?……

  4. More than '''one'' Wife ?…. Why ?…I mean, that's just beyond, well, comprehension,….Why ?……

    • Polygamy is more than one spouse, any gender.

      When a man has more than one wife, the relationship is called polygyny; and when a woman has more than one husband, it is called polyandry.

  5. I don't agree with polygamy. However, I don't see how our government can discriminate against this group's understanding of marriage if it feels it can redefine it in any other way than one man and one woman.

  6. I don't agree with polygamy. However, I don't see how our government can discriminate against this group's understanding of marriage if it feels it can redefine it in any other way than one man and one woman.

    • I also see nothing wrong with polygamy…..as long as we're only talking about consenting adults….adults who are freely choosing to do this….not young women 'raised in the faith' for generations, who know no other way.

      • Yes, consenting adults can do whatever they want but when they bring underage step children into the marriage and then marry them off to the elders, that is crossing the line.

        • Interbreeding is common in any of these religious communities, so step-daughters aren't their worst problem.

          • When they are under the age of consent, I think it is an issue.

  7. Polygamy is more than one spouse, any gender.

    When a man has more than one wife, the relationship is called polygyny; and when a woman has more than one husband, it is called polyandry.

  8. Canada's polygamy laws apply everywhere in Canada.

    Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada explicitly bans polygamy and threatens offenders with a five-year prison term

  9. I also see nothing wrong with polygamy…..as long as we're only talking about consenting adults….adults who are freely choosing to do this….not young women 'raised in the faith' for generations, who know no other way.

  10. Yes, consenting adults can do whatever they want but when they bring underage step children into the marriage and then marry them off to the elders, that is crossing the line.

  11. Interbreeding is common in any of these religious communities, so step-daughters aren't their worst problem.

  12. When they are under the age of consent, I think it is an issue.

  13. …..with a provision they cannot draw social assistance of any sort while the guy has whatever number of wives, he should be able to support his stable. the child tax benefit will keep him in the money anyway! so why should they care…really! not that i am pro for this strange domestic situation but on the precedence set by others…next in line…marriage to dogs cats horses etc etc…..like the logic? strange world isn't it? and getting stranger

  14. …..with a provision they cannot draw social assistance of any sort while the guy has whatever number of wives, he should be able to support his stable. the child tax benefit will keep him in the money anyway! so why should they care…really! not that i am pro for this strange domestic situation but on the precedence set by others…next in line…marriage to dogs cats horses etc etc…..like the logic? strange world isn't it? and getting stranger

    • Polygamy is a far older practice than our current monogomy.

      • prove it.

  15. "Canada's polygamy laws don't apply there"

    !?!?! Then where do they apply? In Pakistan!?

  16. If Canada alows Mormons to practice polygamy, it will open wide door to muslims who will come
    here with multiple wives to collect welfare for them. It is already happening in multi-culti Toronto.

  17. If Canada alows Mormons to practice polygamy, it will open wide door to muslims who will come
    here with multiple wives to collect welfare for them. It is already happening in multi-culti Toronto.

    • and the benevolent citizens foot the bill for these immigrant dudes pretending and citing holiness and religious freedom…what a crock!

    • Mormons are not the only people who practice non-monogamy. In fact, they're the minority. The majority of people who are in non-monogamus relationships are non-secular. This is the same argument as "let's not let them in to our country because they'll take our jobs." and it's equally as untrue.

  18. What they need is 'informed consent'. The age doesn't matter if they are 6th generation Mormon who've never been outside the commune. In-breeding is also a concern at any age.

  19. Polygamy is a far older practice than our current monogomy.

  20. Marriage laws should be repealed and not replaced, the government has no business in our most personal relationship, and the legal system has completely undermined marriage with divorce law in any case.

    Religion married people for centuries before government came along, if people want to be 'married' they can do so within the religion of their choice or create some other ceremony for themsleves. It's not the government's or public's business.

    Polygamy is the best formula for creating a society ready to do violence, wealthy guys get multiple wives, poor young men with no prospect of having a companion and a family are ripe for organization into forces for violence, that or they destroy their own society.

  21. Marriage laws should be repealed and not replaced, the government has no business in our most personal relationship, and the legal system has completely undermined marriage with divorce law in any case.

    Religion married people for centuries before government came along, if people want to be 'married' they can do so within the religion of their choice or create some other ceremony for themsleves. It's not the government's or public's business.

    Polygamy is the best formula for creating a society ready to do violence, wealthy guys get multiple wives, poor young men with no prospect of having a companion and a family are ripe for organization into forces for violence, that or they destroy their own society.

    • Marriage is a legal contract. It's about property.

    • I do wonder if you notice that you contradict yourself here… You say that the government has no business in our most personal relationships, but then decry polygamy as breeding violence. If the government has no business in concenting adult's relationships, where does your business or opinion weigh in? You can't have it both ways.

      Your opinion of polygamy shows me that your knowledge of it is not very deep. I would suggest reading up on it, learning about it, and then taking a look at the situation again. I can guarentee you that it's not "wealthy guys getting multiple wives" etc. because I am a most-definately not-wealthy woman in a relationship with two very not-wealthy men who are not in a relationship together. This is commonly called a "V". Right there, my situation shows that your view on polygamy is invalid.

  22. Marriage is a legal contract. It's about property.

  23. and the benevolent citizens foot the bill for these immigrant dudes pretending and citing holiness and religious freedom…what a crock!

  24. Some of these women who come to the commune bring children who have not been raised there. This women marry a man then marry their child (mostly teenage daughters) who are 15 or 16 off to another older man in the group or perhaps the same man they have married. There is no "informed consent" on the part of the teenager as her mother signs the consent for her to marry underage. It is an arranged marriage.

  25. Some of these women who come to the commune bring children who have not been raised there. This women marry a man then marry their child (mostly teenage daughters) who are 15 or 16 off to another older man in the group or perhaps the same man they have married. There is no "informed consent" on the part of the teenager as her mother signs the consent for her to marry underage. It is an arranged marriage.

    • Of course, many of the marriages aren't real marriages and require no consent. Given that a person can only be legally married once in Canada, the first marriage is the only legal marriage.

  26. Of course, many of the marriages aren't real marriages and require no consent. Given that a person can only be legally married once in Canada, the first marriage is the only legal marriage.

  27. Saskatchewan Canada has already had a Constitutional Questions Act case where an unmarried man claimed the province was offending his constitutional rights to force him "become the spouse of a person who has a n existing spouse". He said they had the right to make him a common law spouse of an unmarried person, but not to a married person. He lost the case and the court determined that there was no chance of his being criminally charged with consenting to polygamy (in that province). The man declared he did not consent in the first place to become the married womans spouse . The court made him the legally re3cognized sametime spouse of the married woman. Below is some actual wording from the 2008 court case where the province of Saskatchewan admits to sanctioning polygamy, which is also an illegal action under s.293 of the criminal code of Canada..

    "The respondent filed a document entitled "Notice of Motion under the Constitutional Questions Act". The respondent alleges that the provisions of the FPA (Saskatchewan Family Property Act) which permit an individual to have more than one spouse at the same time, offend and deny his constitutional rights".

  28. Saskatchewan Canada has already had a Constitutional Questions Act case where an unmarried man claimed the province was offending his constitutional rights to force him "become the spouse of a person who has a n existing spouse". He said they had the right to make him a common law spouse of an unmarried person, but not to a married person. He lost the case and the court determined that there was no chance of his being criminally charged with consenting to polygamy (in that province). The man declared he did not consent in the first place to become the married womans spouse . The court made him the legally re3cognized sametime spouse of the married woman. Below is some actual wording from the 2008 court case where the province of Saskatchewan admits to sanctioning polygamy, which is also an illegal action under s.293 of the criminal code of Canada..

    "The respondent filed a document entitled "Notice of Motion under the Constitutional Questions Act". The respondent alleges that the provisions of the FPA (Saskatchewan Family Property Act) which permit an individual to have more than one spouse at the same time, offend and deny his constitutional rights".

    • Do you have any links to where the documents for that trial are published? I only ask because what you've quoted here is nothing about the verdict, just that he filed the paperwork. Anyone can file paperwork with the courts saying anything. It's the verdict that matters.

      • that is the wording from the verdict. It was found not to violate the mans charter rights to force him to become the sametime spouse of a married woman. The stop polygamy canada website has more actual wording from the trial.

  29. I do wonder if you notice that you contradict yourself here… You say that the government has no business in our most personal relationships, but then decry polygamy as breeding violence. If the government has no business in concenting adult's relationships, where does your business or opinion weigh in? You can't have it both ways.

    Your opinion of polygamy shows me that your knowledge of it is not very deep. I would suggest reading up on it, learning about it, and then taking a look at the situation again. I can guarentee you that it's not "wealthy guys getting multiple wives" etc. because I am a most-definately not-wealthy woman in a relationship with two very not-wealthy men who are not in a relationship together. This is commonly called a "V". Right there, my situation shows that your view on polygamy is invalid.

  30. Do you have any links to where the documents for that trial are published? I only ask because what you've quoted here is nothing about the verdict, just that he filed the paperwork. Anyone can file paperwork with the courts saying anything. It's the verdict that matters.

  31. Mormons are not the only people who practice non-monogamy. In fact, they're the minority. The majority of people who are in non-monogamus relationships are non-secular. This is the same argument as "let's not let them in to our country because they'll take our jobs." and it's equally as untrue.

  32. that is the wording from the verdict. It was found not to violate the mans charter rights to force him to become the sametime spouse of a married woman. The stop polygamy canada website has more actual wording from the trial.

  33. prove it.

Sign in to comment.