50

Bountiful women defend polygamy

Women say plural marriage is their decision


 

In a case to determine whether Canada’s polygamy laws are constitutional, several women from the fundamentalist Mormon community in Bountiful, B.C. testified in the province’s Supreme Court in defence of plural marriage. The women were unidentified and testified via video link and did not show their faces. One woman, 24, described having a dream about her future husband, whom she married at 17, saying, “I felt like my marriage was a revelation from God because it happened to be the same person I had seen in that dream and I accepted that.” Many of the women who appeared in court were in their teens when they married, and had come to Canada from the U.S. on student visas. A 22-year-old unmarried woman testified that she feels she would have a choice of whether or not to marry. The provincial government argues that polygamy encourages human trafficking and subjugates women. The case arose from the prosecution of Bountiful’s leaders, Winston Blackmore and James Oler, in 2009.

CBC News


 
Filed under:

Bountiful women defend polygamy

  1. we need to prosecute the men involved in statutory rape (age of child, teen mother, DNA taken and tested)

    as well as deal with child support issues, since most of these women are on welfare! (seriously, why do we pay for single mothers without checking infant DNA and having it on file, so we can nail the fathers for support no matter how long it may take to find the fathers!)

    In addition we need to do some wholesale deportation for any illegal immigrants from the USA.

    This might cut the problem down to size, and discourage this nonsense.

  2. we need to prosecute the men involved in statutory rape (age of child, teen mother, DNA taken and tested)

    as well as deal with child support issues, since most of these women are on welfare! (seriously, why do we pay for single mothers without checking infant DNA and having it on file, so we can nail the fathers for support no matter how long it may take to find the fathers!)

    In addition we need to do some wholesale deportation for any illegal immigrants from the USA.

    This might cut the problem down to size, and discourage this nonsense.

  3. I can not for the life of me understand why someone would want to do this.

    On the women side: brainwashed, probably abused, no Independent future.

    On the men side: un-educated, probably abused, believe that sex between adults and children is normal, low IQ.

    A nation should encourage its citizens to evolve.

    Polygamy goes the other way.

  4. I can not for the life of me understand why someone would want to do this.

    On the women side: brainwashed, probably abused, no Independent future.

    On the men side: un-educated, probably abused, believe that sex between adults and children is normal, low IQ.

    A nation should encourage its citizens to evolve.

    Polygamy goes the other way.

    • Should a nation throw them in jail for maintaining a relationship which might be frowned upon but would not result in criminal penalties except for the fact they engaged in a religious ceremony before entering into it?

  5. While I am as opposed to statutory rape, child marriage, and arranged marriage without the consent of the parties involved as the next guy, it doesn't make sense that polygamous marriages involving consenting adults should be banned in Canada when Canada permits marriage between two people of the same sex. Just think: if two lesbians who wanted to have a child married the same man, they wouldn't need a sperm donor. However, I don't think the sperm banks would like that idea very much.

  6. While I am as opposed to statutory rape, child marriage, and arranged marriage without the consent of the parties involved as the next guy, it doesn't make sense that polygamous marriages involving consenting adults should be banned in Canada when Canada permits marriage between two people of the same sex. Just think: if two lesbians who wanted to have a child married the same man, they wouldn't need a sperm donor. However, I don't think the sperm banks would like that idea very much.

    • It's not a manner of banning or allowing the legal relationship, it's a matter of putting them in jail for it.

    • The difference is that a marriage between two people of the same sex is stil a bilateral arrangement which requires no change to laws beyond ignoring the sex of the partners – i.e. they get the exact same benefits and restrictions as heterosexual married couples.

      Polygamy, if legalized, would require a substantial restructuring of a substantial portion of our laws, and – as we would have to allow just about any combination if we were to treat people equally under the law – it would be extremely difficult to set out laws to cover the potential variations. Legistaltion would take forever topass; court challenges would abound; nearly every dissolution of a polygamous marriage would require court time to disentangle property and other rights.

      Given how few would actually pursue polygamy, that's an unaceptably high cost to be borne by society as a whole for the benefit of so few.

      • Keith, you have expressed the problem admirably.

        It's just so complicated to let people, even consenting adults, be free to establish relationships however they want, including multiple spouses simultaneously. And of course the serially married's property disentanglement and property rights precedents couldn't possibly stand as precedents for the problems you've identified, because polygamy is just so confusing and shocking.

        Throw them all the men in jail and commit the women to mental health programs.

        • "And of course the serially married's property disentanglement and property rights precedents couldn't possibly stand as precedents for the problems you've identified"

          No, actually, they can't. Currently, in a bilateral arrangement, in a divorce or legal separation, each gets 50%. But if A marries B and then C, then subsequently A and B get divorced, does A get 50% or 33%? When A and B married it was 50/50 – but if it gets split that way, then C's property rights are diminished. The more marriages there are, the more complex it gets – and that's just a very simplistic model. Reality would be much more complex. And that's not factoring in family law. I don't want to be paying salaries for all the additional judges it would take to sort it all out…

        • "Throw them all the men in jail and commit the women to mental health programs"

          I never discussed whether or not it should be criminalized, or otherwise made a judgment on the individuals involved, in my response. Tony equated gay and polygamous marriages because each differs from the long-accepted norm of a single heterosexual bond. My main point is that he's comparing apples and oranges – gay and polygamous marriages are NOT the same, and require substantially different levels of change in our laws in order to make them legal.

          • So, you do realize that criminalization is the ONLY issue in the current court case, right? Nobody is talking about legally recognizing any multi-person union. This case is 100 percent about jail time, and 0 percent about property settlements.

  7. The whole matter is goofy.
    Saskatchewan Attorney General in Canada has already stated publically, numerous times ,that multiple marriages are legal in that province, including forced marriages.
    People need to give their heads a shake. Polygamy is legal in case law in Canada. Gget over it.
    Provinces are the jurisdictions that prosecute, The feds have no say over that. Polygamy is already legal in Saskatchewan, so the rest of the provinces can also continue to ignore federal criminal code.

  8. The whole matter is goofy.
    Saskatchewan Attorney General in Canada has already stated publically, numerous times ,that multiple marriages are legal in that province, including forced marriages.
    People need to give their heads a shake. Polygamy is legal in case law in Canada. Gget over it.
    Provinces are the jurisdictions that prosecute, The feds have no say over that. Polygamy is already legal in Saskatchewan, so the rest of the provinces can also continue to ignore federal criminal code.

    • Polygamy isn't legal anywhere in Canada. Nor are forced marriages of any kind.

      If you have a source stating otherwise, then post it.

      • Following is from a family court judicial ruling in Saskatchewan where the justice official reveals the provinces official position that multiple spouses are permitted in that province. Read between the lines and you will see that the respondent did not consent to the become the spouse of a married person. The ruling authorized the married person to take the unmarried person as their same time legal spouse, without the consent of their current spouse nor the subsequent spouse.
        "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 rights under the Charter [ss. 1, 2(a) and (b), 7, 12, 15, 33]."

        • This doesn't legalize either polygamy or forced marriages.

          Stop and think. Wouldn't 'forced marriages' or legal polygamy in Sask have made the national headlines??

          Not to mention a fast trip to the Supreme Court?

          • Here are comments from Stop polygamy Canada site.
            "In re-reading Honourable Don Morgan, Q.C., Justice Minister for the Province of Saskatchewan's letter, I, too, find Section 51 troublesome. This means that property is divided fairly not only between the legally married spouses but the division is extended to include anyone that one of the spouses decided to live common-law with without having divorced his/her previous spouse.

            Also, this being the case, Muslim Sharia Law does not have to be implemented in order for Muslim polygamy (or any other type of polygamy for that matter) to take place in Saskatchewan"

    • The law that people keep pointing to as "proof" that multiple marriages are "legal" is really, as I read it and as it has been interpreted by the courts, intended to clarify property rights in instances where a couple separates but does not divorce, and one or both parties then cohabits with someone else. It gives the later cohabitant equal property rights over property obtained jointly during the period of cohabitation – i.e. it essentially recognizes the first split as a commonlaw divorce. It recognizes and allows rights for serial monogamy without paperwork – not simultaneous multiple spouses.

      • No Keith, you are incorrect (again) in the extreme. Also, you obviously do NOT know how it has been interpreted by the family law courts of Saskatchewan. The legislation is designed to allow judicial authorities to " sanction and make legal" " multiple spouses at the same time". After the courts have "recognized" the multiple "married" spouses it goes on to divide property amongst the spouses (not according to your incorrect theory). The "new" and "subsequent" spouses have "marital" property rights (not property obtained jointly after cohabitation Keith.. property is marital nature..means ALL property from any date, even whilst one or more are also married to others in Canada. There is no such thing as a common law divorce either. You also have no clue referencing serial monogomy either, as to "serial monogamy" as in one saskatchewan case the new " forced subsequent spouse" also fathered a child by yet another women at the time. Does that sound like serial monogomy? If you don't know facts, why comment?

  9. Bountiful's children are brought up from birth, and are taught for 2 hours every day in their schools, that they must practise polygamy or their souls will burn for ever in Hell. They are also taught that they must obey the "Prophet" or, once again, their souls will burn for all eternity in Hell. (How lovely for the prophet!) Ridiculous? Of course. But if you were taught a crazy philosophy from the day you were born, you'd believe it too, especially if you were taught that mainstream Canadians are evil. These people are to be pitied, and how they can be helped when their minds are so warped and twisted, I do not know. Theirs is not a bona fide religion; theirs is a cult. But the elders must not be allowed to get away with impregnating underage girls. That's statutory rape, and the BC government is culpable for not having charged the elders years ago. The government knows damn well that religion does not excuse the sexual exploitation of kids. It's way past time that the guilty men of Bountiful were charged and jailed.

  10. Bountiful's children are brought up from birth, and are taught for 2 hours every day in their schools, that they must practise polygamy or their souls will burn for ever in Hell. They are also taught that they must obey the "Prophet" or, once again, their souls will burn for all eternity in Hell. (How lovely for the prophet!) Ridiculous? Of course. But if you were taught a crazy philosophy from the day you were born, you'd believe it too, especially if you were taught that mainstream Canadians are evil. These people are to be pitied, and how they can be helped when their minds are so warped and twisted, I do not know. Theirs is not a bona fide religion; theirs is a cult. But the elders must not be allowed to get away with impregnating underage girls. That's statutory rape, and the BC government is culpable for not having charged the elders years ago. The government knows damn well that religion does not excuse the sexual exploitation of kids. It's way past time that the guilty men of Bountiful were charged and jailed.

    • Great, Jancis, and after we jail those 30 guys or whatever it is in Bountiful, we can start in on the thousands of non-religious polyamorists, right? Including the ones with one woman and several guys, right? Better to punish 1000 innocents, than to let one guilty man go free, eh, Jancis?

  11. Well of course they would. They've been raised in the life.

  12. Well of course they would. They've been raised in the life.

  13. Polygamy isn't legal anywhere in Canada. Nor are forced marriages of any kind.

    If you have a source stating otherwise, then post it.

  14. Should a nation throw them in jail for maintaining a relationship which might be frowned upon but would not result in criminal penalties except for the fact they engaged in a religious ceremony before entering into it?

  15. It's not a manner of banning or allowing the legal relationship, it's a matter of putting them in jail for it.

  16. The difference is that a marriage between two people of the same sex is stil a bilateral arrangement which requires no change to laws beyond ignoring the sex of the partners – i.e. they get the exact same benefits and restrictions as heterosexual married couples.

    Polygamy, if legalized, would require a substantial restructuring of a substantial portion of our laws, and – as we would have to allow just about any combination if we were to treat people equally under the law – it would be extremely difficult to set out laws to cover the potential variations. Legistaltion would take forever topass; court challenges would abound; nearly every dissolution of a polygamous marriage would require court time to disentangle property and other rights.

    Given how few would actually pursue polygamy, that's an unaceptably high cost to be borne by society as a whole for the benefit of so few.

  17. The law that people keep pointing to as "proof" that multiple marriages are "legal" is really, as I read it and as it has been interpreted by the courts, intended to clarify property rights in instances where a couple separates but does not divorce, and one or both parties then cohabits with someone else. It gives the later cohabitant equal property rights over property obtained jointly during the period of cohabitation – i.e. it essentially recognizes the first split as a commonlaw divorce. It recognizes and allows rights for serial monogamy without paperwork – not simultaneous multiple spouses.

  18. “I felt like my marriage was a revelation from God because it happened to be the same person I had seen in that dream and I accepted that.”

    How about that – wet dreams are prophetic revelation!

  19. “I felt like my marriage was a revelation from God because it happened to be the same person I had seen in that dream and I accepted that.”

    How about that – wet dreams are prophetic revelation!

  20. Marriage laws should be repealed, the government has no business in our most personal of relationships. Divorce law has undermined marriage to such an extent that marriage law is practically meaningless anyhow. Everyone should be treated equally before the law and by our government – as individuals.

  21. Marriage laws should be repealed, the government has no business in our most personal of relationships. Divorce law has undermined marriage to such an extent that marriage law is practically meaningless anyhow. Everyone should be treated equally before the law and by our government – as individuals.

    • Marriage is a legal property contract between individuals. It is there for protection. The rest is just ribbon and tulle to jazz it up.

  22. Following is from a family court judicial ruling in Saskatchewan where the justice official reveals the provinces official position that multiple spouses are permitted in that province. Read between the lines and you will see that the respondent did not consent to the become the spouse of a married person. The ruling authorized the married person to take the unmarried person as their same time legal spouse, without the consent of their current spouse nor the subsequent spouse.
    "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 rights under the Charter [ss. 1, 2(a) and (b), 7, 12, 15, 33]."

  23. This doesn't legalize either polygamy or forced marriages.

    Stop and think. Wouldn't 'forced marriages' or legal polygamy in Sask have made the national headlines??

    Not to mention a fast trip to the Supreme Court?

  24. Marriage is a legal property contract between individuals. It is there for protection. The rest is just ribbon and tulle to jazz it up.

  25. Keith, you have expressed the problem admirably.

    It's just so complicated to let people, even consenting adults, be free to establish relationships however they want, including multiple spouses simultaneously. And of course the serially married's property disentanglement and property rights precedents couldn't possibly stand as precedents for the problems you've identified, because polygamy is just so confusing and shocking.

    Throw them all the men in jail and commit the women to mental health programs.

  26. Can someone explain the distinction between "plural" marriage and polygamy? The proponents of multiple wives seem to be making one.

  27. Can someone explain the distinction between "plural" marriage and polygamy? The proponents of multiple wives seem to be making one.

  28. "And of course the serially married's property disentanglement and property rights precedents couldn't possibly stand as precedents for the problems you've identified"

    No, actually, they can't. Currently, in a bilateral arrangement, in a divorce or legal separation, each gets 50%. But if A marries B and then C, then subsequently A and B get divorced, does A get 50% or 33%? When A and B married it was 50/50 – but if it gets split that way, then C's property rights are diminished. The more marriages there are, the more complex it gets – and that's just a very simplistic model. Reality would be much more complex. And that's not factoring in family law. I don't want to be paying salaries for all the additional judges it would take to sort it all out…

  29. "Throw them all the men in jail and commit the women to mental health programs"

    I never discussed whether or not it should be criminalized, or otherwise made a judgment on the individuals involved, in my response. Tony equated gay and polygamous marriages because each differs from the long-accepted norm of a single heterosexual bond. My main point is that he's comparing apples and oranges – gay and polygamous marriages are NOT the same, and require substantially different levels of change in our laws in order to make them legal.

  30. So, you do realize that criminalization is the ONLY issue in the current court case, right? Nobody is talking about legally recognizing any multi-person union. This case is 100 percent about jail time, and 0 percent about property settlements.

  31. Great, Jancis, and after we jail those 30 guys or whatever it is in Bountiful, we can start in on the thousands of non-religious polyamorists, right? Including the ones with one woman and several guys, right? Better to punish 1000 innocents, than to let one guilty man go free, eh, Jancis?

  32. No Keith, you are incorrect (again) in the extreme. Also, you obviously do NOT know how it has been interpreted by the family law courts of Saskatchewan. The legislation is designed to allow judicial authorities to " sanction and make legal" " multiple spouses at the same time". After the courts have "recognized" the multiple "married" spouses it goes on to divide property amongst the spouses (not according to your incorrect theory). The "new" and "subsequent" spouses have "marital" property rights (not property obtained jointly after cohabitation Keith.. property is marital nature..means ALL property from any date, even whilst one or more are also married to others in Canada. There is no such thing as a common law divorce either. You also have no clue referencing serial monogomy either, as to "serial monogamy" as in one saskatchewan case the new " forced subsequent spouse" also fathered a child by yet another women at the time. Does that sound like serial monogomy? If you don't know facts, why comment?

  33. Here are comments from Stop polygamy Canada site.
    "In re-reading Honourable Don Morgan, Q.C., Justice Minister for the Province of Saskatchewan's letter, I, too, find Section 51 troublesome. This means that property is divided fairly not only between the legally married spouses but the division is extended to include anyone that one of the spouses decided to live common-law with without having divorced his/her previous spouse.

    Also, this being the case, Muslim Sharia Law does not have to be implemented in order for Muslim polygamy (or any other type of polygamy for that matter) to take place in Saskatchewan"

Sign in to comment.