I mean if people are allowed to be polygamists, the next thing you know men will be allowed to marry men, and women will be allowed to marry women. ;-)
Canadian Press, Vancouver:
A special prosecutor has concluded there's not enough evidence to charge members of a British Columbia polygamist colony with sex offences involving minors, partly because the women involved said they wanted to have sex with the older men."The real issue here is that the number of so-called complainants that we have have all told us that they consented to the act that took place," Oppal said Wednesday...[A]authorities tried to pursue charges that the women had been sexually exploited by a person in a position of trust, but that effort was again thwarted. "There's no evidence of exploitation," Oppal said. "In fact, it was surprising to me the number of young women who told police that they were the aggressors, that they wanted to have sex with the older men." (emphasis mine)
BC Special Prosecutor Richard Peck wrote:
"There is a substantial body of scholarship supporting the position that polygamy is socially harmful."Written by folks who just took an objective look at the situation, no doubt. Me, I looked all over my house and yard and I couldn't find a single difference it made. I've heard tell there used to be a substantial amount of scholarship supporting the positions that blacks and women shouldn't get the vote and that gay folks were mentally ill.
The article says Peck "thinks Canada's anti-polygamy law does not violate the Charter of Rights guarantee of religious freedom."
Wanna bet?
And, of course, there's always that pesky Freedom of Association clause, too. Polygamy might be "associating on steroids", but that's all it is.
Just so you know: I'm not for or against polygamy in the legal or social sense. As long as it's not coercive, I really don't care who is sleeping or living with who, and I really don't see how other folks' love lives is my business. But then it's not the government's business either, any more than it is the next door neighbour's.
7 comments:
"Just so you know: I'm not for or against polygamy in the legal or social sense. As long as it's not coercive, I really don't care who is sleeping or living with who, and I really don't see how other folks' love lives is my business. But then it's not the government's business either, any more than it is the next door neighbour's."
Bingo. As long as its a truly voluntary situation, I personally don't care. It neither breaks my legs nor picks my pockets, as the saying goes.
That being said, I would be curious to know how many of the child brides in Bountiful actually consented to their situation? From some of the reports I have heard from those that have "escaped", not many.
Then again, maybe people ought to be more concerned about the child part and not the number of brides part...
Then again, maybe people ought to be more concerned about the child part and not the number of brides part...
Good point. 14 year old girls who have been born and raised in this type of society would probably never even think of refusing to do as their parents and elders ask, much less go to outside authorities and lodge official complaints. If they ain't complainin' and they don't figger they're bein' physically abused, it's tough to see where the law oughta get involved.
Marriage oughta be in the realm of religion. We can pass a one person, one spouse law for civil purposes (pensions, medical, death benefits, etc.) If gummint were to recognize and condone civil unions and leave teh more contentious marriage question to the churches, we'd be better off, sez I.
JB
jimbobby: why should the government be playing favoriurites with Canadian living arrangements. There's no good reason for the government to take one subset of relationships and play "have we got a deal for you; the rest of you, too bad".
In other words, what possible use is a "one person, one spouse" law for civil benefits? Or look at it this way: maybe the government oughtta get out of the civil benefits business, too, and leave that to insurance companies and financial institutions. In the meantime, the government can simply say "we pay this much for this long, and that's it".
Mike: Children are always a special case, pretty much no matter what type of law is being written.
maybe people ought to be more concerned about the child part and not the number of brides part...
Exactly.
14 year old girls who have been born and raised in this type of society would probably never even think of refusing to do as their parents and elders ask, much less go to outside authorities and lodge official complaints
Well, that does seem to be the case with the majority of Christian monogamists, for just one example.
...maybe the government oughtta get out of the civil benefits business, too, and leave that to insurance companies and financial institutions.
If you wanna see how well that works, there's a nearby country that already does it that way. I've had personal experience of the shortcomings of that system.
In our system, we do offer pensions and survivor benefits to spouses. Even in Canada, private insurers offer medical benefits to spouses - prescription drugs, eyeglasses, dental, etc. The one spouse thing would be so Brigham's 10 wives aren't gettin' 10x the gummint and insurance money they oughta get.
JB
JB,
I think Ron is saying the government ought to have a one price payout no matter how many spouses or dependents you have...
Mike: yeah, exactly. If they're gonna do it at all, a one price payout is more fair than some preferential scale based on the "form of the family".
I got no problem with that.
How about the guy who works fer an outfit that supplies premium medical benefits to his family? If wife #1 needs eyeglasses, she gets 'em paid by the insurance. If wife #2 needs a prescription, she gets it paid fer by the insurance. If wife #3 needs her teeth fixed, she gets it paid by the insurance.
These arguments get into the absurd fantasy utopian realm. In an ideal society, a lot of things would be different. We'd be able to trust everyone to take only their fair share. Nobody would use weapons against anyone else. The gummint would take its big nose outta our business. Unfortunately, we can't trust our fellow human beings to behave fairly so we've developed some rules and conventions to keep us from being victimized by antisocial, greedy bastards.
Those idjits can have 50 wives apiece, fer all I care. Just so long as they ain't abusin' kiddies and so long as it ain't gougin' the public purse. The dang insurance companies can figger out how to withold benefits. They're good at that.
Anybuddy with more'n one wifemate's got some sympathy from me. I reckon maybe they're the ones all that viagraSPAM is directed at.
JB
Post a Comment