A question, Shemp, do you have even one wife? Or are you one of the many TM brahmacharis? :-D
ShempMcGurk wrote: > POLYGAMY AROUND THE CORNER > > > REAL Women of Canada - (Realistic, Equal, Active, for Life) > > Conservative leader, Stephen Harper, and Liberal MP, Tom Wappel, were > ridiculed during the same-sex marriage debate last spring when they claimed > that the same-sex marriage bill would lead to demands for the legalization of > polygamous unions. It turns out, however, that they were right on the mark. > > Same-sex marriage in Canada has only been legal for about six months, but > already the demands for polygamy have been creeping out from the dark shadows > and are gradually moving onto centre stage. The issue will soon be before the > courts in BC. > > This court case will result from a situation in the community of Bountiful, > situated near Creston, BC, in the interior of the province, that has been the > home of a renegade branch of the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons). This > community's beliefs include polygamy as one of its tenets. It argues that > polygamy is a legitimate way of life and marriage. The leader of the > community and his assortment of wives have boldly appeared on TV, radio and > in print, unabashedly discussing their joy and happiness about being in > polygamous relationships and all the supposed advantages, (obviously for the > male at least!) The Attorney General of BC, Wally Oppal, has merely blushed > and looked the other way, and has not prosecuted the leader of the polygamous > community. Why? Because he knows that with the passing of the same-sex > marriage legislation, and the protection of religion in the Charter, there > has been created serious legal problems for the Crown in prosecuting such a > case. That is, to lay a charge of polygamy will be dangerous, since the > courts could then follow the identical arguments heard once in the trumped > up, same-sex marriage court challenges in 2003. > > Provincial Attorney General, Oppal, would have happily continued to ignore > the polygamous business in Bountiful except for the fact that the Attorney > General of Utah, Mark Shurtleff, came calling on him in late November > demanding that something be done, as girls as young as 13 years of age have > been crossing the border from Utah into Bountiful to be married off to much > older men. Another troublesome issue is that some of the polygamous wives in > Bountiful have begun to complain about their treatment and their lack of > consent to their "marriage" arrangements. Also, young men have been ejected > from the Community in order to avoid a competition for young wives with the > older leaders in the community. > > As a result of these problems, the RCMP has recently undertaken an > investigation of Bountiful. Based on the RCMP's findings, the Provincial > Attorney General may then be obliged to lay charges against the leaders of > the polygamous sect in Bountiful. > > New Debate on Polygamy > > If so, a new debate on marriage, to legalize polygamous marriages will hit > the public eye. The exact same arguments, that were used to recognize > same-sex partnerships as legal marriages, will be heard again. One of these > arguments will be that the failure to approve polygamous marriage is due to > the stereotypical treatment causing historical disadvantages against people > who love each other. Another argument will be that since the courts have > conceded that procreation no longer provides sufficient reason to restrict > marriage to heterosexuals, then there is no reason to restrict marriage to > other sexual arrangements as well. > > And why not? Take marriage away from its historically recognized essence of > one man and one woman, and there is no logical reason to restrict other > marital arrangements, such as those who love two women, or bisexuals who have > a sexual desire for both sexes. The fact that these arrangements are > currently prohibited under the Criminal Code is no argument because > homosexual conduct was also illegal until relatively recently. The laws > against polygamy can also be similarly changed. > > What a mess the courts have created! In their zeal to be liberal and > progressive and to make the world aware of their trailblazing spirit, the > Canadian judges have made fools of themselves and us. They are also tearing > down the foundations of society, while establishing a dangerous precipice on > which the institution of marriage is now tilting. > > Polygamy Established Elsewhere > > Canada, however, isn't the only nation facing the problem of polygamous > marriages. For example, Norway's Directorate of Immigration has reported > that, despite the illegality of polygamy in Norway, it is becoming > increasingly prevalent, since Norway liberalized the "marriage" laws by > allowing legal civil unions for same-sex couples. Now Norwegian men travel > abroad to meet and marry women, where polygamy is legal. Then they bring > their new "wives" to Norway to live together under legal civil unions, in > one, happy, polygamous harem. > > The Netherlands > > The Netherlands is experiencing this problem in a very big way. In September > 2005, the government approved a polygamous union when a Dutch man and two > women were given a license for their three-way legal union. The male in the > union claims that, since both of his "wives" are bi-sexual, there is no > jealousy between them - they're all just happily loving one another. > > Ill Effects of Same-sex Marriage > > The common theme when same-sex marriage was argued last spring in Canada was > that the Netherlands had experienced no ill effects from same-sex marriage > and that the issue was no longer contentious there. > > Had the actual situation in the Netherlands been disclosed, however, the > story would have been much different. It would have disclosed that there has > been a substantial increase in out-of-wedlock births and parental > cohabitation as a result of the legalizing of same-sex marriages in that > country. > > That is, the broad Dutch acceptance of same-sex marriage, which detached > marriage as an institution from parenthood in the public mind, has led to > substantial changes in Dutch society. In addition same-sex marriages have > also now started the Netherlands down the slippery slope to group marriage. > The Dutch Minister of Justice, Piet Hein Donner, recently refused to ban > group marriages as he states that multi-partner marriage contracts serves a > "useful regulating function". In short, it is difficult to withhold equal > standing for another organized sexual minority once same-sex marriage is > accepted. > > Polygamy in the US > > The pressure for group marriage has also started in the US. The Unitarian > Church, headquartered in Boston, played a key role in the legalization of gay > marriage in Massachusetts. That church has now begun to promote public > acceptance of polygamy and polyamory, (which refers to open stable > relationships among more than two people, blending heterosexuality, > homosexuality and bisexuality). Unitarian ministers in the US are already are > performing "joining ceremonies" for polyamorous families. > > Status on Polygamy in Canada > > With the overlapping of same-sex marriage rights and the co-habitation > contracts such as occurs in Holland, it was understandable that the Canadian > Department of Justice and the Status of Women a year ago at a cost of > $150,000 commissioned four separate studies on polygamy. The attention > grabber paper on these studies was released in the middle of January this > year. It was written by three feminist / lesbians, law professors at Queens > University. These same individuals were among consultants retained by the Law > Commission in its report "Beyond Conjugality" tabled in the House of Commons > on December 2001. That Commission's report recommended that all close > relationships should be recognized by law, not just the relationship of a man > and woman in marriage. The Commission recommended also, of course, that > same-sex marriage be legalized. In their study of polygamy, the three > consultants advocated decriminalization of polygamy and urged that Canada, > allow immigration by polygamous families. They also argued that Canada's > current prohibition against polygamy in the Criminal Code may well be > unconstitutional. Their study unfortunately, gave little attention to the > children of such polygamous unions and the fact that polygamous families are > plagued by spouse abuse, poverty and fathers not involved in the care of > their children - apparently, not issues for these feminist / lesbians. > > Justice Minister Cotler Misinforms Committee on May 12, 2005 > > In view of his department commissioning several studies on polygamy, it was > disingenuous of the Liberal Minister of Justice, Irwin Cotler, to argue in > his testimony before the House of Commons Committee studying the same-sex > marriage legalization, on May 12, 2005 that polygamy, incest, etc. will not > result from the passage of Bill C-38, since "bigamy and incest are criminal > offences in Canada. That is the law of the land. That will not change." > Perhaps Mr. Cotler believes Canadians were easily confused by his statements. > Common sense tells us that if the government could make the revolutionary > change in the definition of marriage, by opening it up to two "persons," > regardless of their sex, then it is perfectly capable of making further > amendments to the legislation at a later date for polygamy. That is, the > courts may well find polygamous or group marriage an equality right on the > grounds of the criteria for "equality" chosen by the Supreme Court of Canada > in Law v. Canada [1999] I.S.C.R. 497. That is, when a person "feels" > demeaned, by his or her exclusion from a law then the law is discriminatory. > Why cannot that same criterion be applied to polygamy, incest, etc.? > > Perhaps, also, Mr. Cotler was not aware that advocates of polyamory (group > marriage) are taking their cue from the movement for gay marriage which is > now the favourite cause of scholars of family law (see The New York > University Review of Law and Social Change: "Monogamy's Law: Compulsory > Monogamy and Polyamorous Existence 2004," Volume 29. Number 2). Polyamorists > have long treated their inclination toward multi-partner sex as analogous to > homosexuality. In short, the arguments for the logic of gay marriage extend > to state sanctioned polyamory as well. > > The truth is, by keeping the label and the legal status of marriage, but > changing its meaning and concept, in the legalizing of same-sex marriages, > this necessarily involves rejection of what marriage actually means and has > meant for millennia. Marriage then means everything and includes anything and > this means nothing. > > Polygamy can and will become a serious problem for Canadians in the future. > > realwomenca.com > Originally published February, 2006 > > > >
