NOM BLOG

Canadian Judge Rules in Favor of Canada’s Constitution Prohibiting Polygamy

 

LifeSiteNews:

The British Columbia Supreme Court ruled today that Canada’s 121-year-old law prohibiting polygamy is constitutional.

“I have concluded that this case is essentially about harm,” said B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Bauman. “More specifically, Parliament’s reasoned apprehension of harm arising out of the practice of polygamy. This includes harm to women, to children, to society and to the institution of monogamous marriage.”

“Based on the most comprehensive judicial record on the subject ever produced, I have concluded that [there is] a reasoned apprehension of harm to many in our society inherent in the practice of polygamy,” said Justice Bauman.

“This includes harm to women, to children, to society and to the institution of monogamous marriage.”

A decision on whether the ruling will be appealed is expected to be made in December.

50 Comments

  1. Rob
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

    See? It's easy to outlaw polygamy and still have legal same-sex marriage! So we can drop the "slippery slope" argument now??

  2. Daughter of Eve
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

    Ruling to be appealed.

  3. Randy E King
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 3:49 pm | Permalink

    Hypocrisy; it's not just for breakfast anymore.

    Marriage corruption supporters truly live in an 'Alice in Wonderland' world.

  4. DAVIDE
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

    Rob, it was homosexuals in Canada that were pushing for this legalization of polygamy, just like they are pushing for consent ages to be lowered. Homosexual advocacy has a lot of growing up to do and stop their habitual lying and chronic victimhood-no one likes whinners

  5. asdfsaf
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

    Just replace "polygamy" with "gay marriage" and you see how ridiculous your argument is.

  6. Louis E.
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

    Rob,it would be better to do the reverse,as polygamy,because opposite-sex partners are involved,qualifies as a genuine form of marriage that can serve a socially useful purpose.The highest priority is to end same-sex "marriage"!

  7. Rob
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 6:12 pm | Permalink

    Louis, same-sex marriage DOES serve a social purpose, several, in fact:

    1. It validates homosexuality as normal, which it is.
    2. It gives kids being raised by same-sex couples the security of having married parents
    3. It strengthens our nation's legal commitment to equal treatment of ALL (not just straight) citizens
    4. It reduces the divorce rate, as gay people can now choose a same-sex partner, rather than a different-sex partner, for lack of options. These mixed orientation marriages often fail.

    What more reasons do you need?!?!

  8. Little man
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 7:11 pm | Permalink

    Rob: We need numbers, not only concepts. Show us, then, homosexuality is 'normal', as you claim. No it isn't. There's a public interest in believing the opposite. The nation's legal commitment already provides for equal treatment. You can marry someone of the opposite sex, just like anyone - that's real equality. Gay people can chose a gay partner, already - it is a private matter, not a public matter. But you get an "A" for effort. You are illogical, and don't know it. That's the sad part.

  9. Little man
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 7:15 pm | Permalink

    Rob: you guys (or should i say, gals) think that a lower court can be quoted as proving something beyond any doubt. You are so eager to reach your preconceived conclusions, you scramble for lower courts decisions. Lower court judges benefit from making a name for themselves in one way or another. Being creative sometimes leads to rewards in the private sector, which is where these judges end up. How naive you are, man (ups!).

  10. John Noe
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 7:25 pm | Permalink

    “I have concluded that this case is essentially about harm,” said B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Bauman. “More specifically, Parliament’s reasoned apprehension of harm arising out of the practice of polygamy. This includes harm to women, to children, to society and to the institution of monogamous marriage.”

    Excellent ruling except the judge forgot one important fact: The exact same thing is true in regards to homosexual marriage. Too bad he practices a double standard. Correctly pointing out the harm of polygamous marriage while omitting the fact that we get the exact same harm with SSM.

  11. John Noe
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

    “This includes harm to women, to children, to society and to the institution of monogamous marriage.

    Great point judge as this also applies to homosexual relationships and why SSM should not be recognized.

  12. Johnny
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

    It would be great if everyone who advocates for SSM remember that if their mothers had married their girlfriends instead of your father, you would not be here having this discussion.

  13. Little man
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

    But now, a judge has gone back to looking at 'harm to children' as an important aspect. But notice the judge's appeal to the notion of "many" people reasoned opinions: "I have concluded that [there is] a reasoned apprehension of harm to many in our society inherent in the practice of polygamy,” said Justice Bauman. (sic) So, what some people are apprehensive about, matters... I don't buy it. The polygamists have a good case. But i think one woman with 3 husbands, for instance, is a better 'bread winning' combination, and it keeps the number of children to at most one per 9 month period.

  14. Son of Adam
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 8:32 pm | Permalink

    Rob, all your "reasons" involve promoting the intrests of your own ideological dogma, which comes off as narcissistic, which it is.

    Keeping marriage between a man and a woman, however, has a rational moral basis in that it:

    1. Lengthens life spans of men and women.

    2. Civilizes men and focuses them on productive pursuits. Unmarried men cause society much more trouble than married men. (How many married men do you know who rove neighborhoods in street gangs?)

    3. Protects women, who often give up or postpone their careers to have children, from being abandoned and harmed economically by uncommitted men.

    4. Protects mothers from violent crime. Mothers who have never been married are more than twice as likely to suffer from violent crime as mothers who have married.

    5. Lowers welfare costs to society.

    6. Encourages an adequate replacement birth rate, resulting in enough productive young people to contribute to society and provide social security to the elderly. The United States’ birth rate is about 2.1 per couple—any lower and the nation cannot sustain itself without immigration.

  15. Chairm
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 8:40 pm | Permalink

    Rob each of your numbered points is a falsehood.

    Anyway, there is no principled basis for limiting SSM by the number two.

    Marriage, yes, but SSM, nope.

  16. Louis E.
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 9:42 pm | Permalink

    Rob,as ever you persist in thinking repetition will make black and white into their opposites because you say so.Now for the actual facts:
    1.There must never be any validation of homosexual relationships,which can not possibly be justified or excused.
    2.Children condemned to the custody of same-sex couples need to be rescued from that calamity,and anything that further "secures" them in it must be avoided.
    3.ALL (not just straight) citizens must be held equally accountable for ONLY EVER having sexual partners of the sex opposite to their own.
    4.There is no reason for a person afflicted by same-sex sexual orientation to consider him or herself fit to marry,hence to divorce.
    Anything that encourages the formation or maintenance of same-sex sexual relationships harms society.

  17. John N.
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 11:11 pm | Permalink

    Poster #7 just gave valid reasons of why we need to reject SSM and keep it man/woman

    (1) Homosexuality is not normal behavior but is wrongfull immoral conduct. Although tolerated it should not be endorsed, encouraged, and promoted. SSM would do this

    (2) Children need moms and dads not same sex couples, allowing SSM would hurt kids

    (3) Homosexuals already have equality. If they obey the marriage laws they can marry like anyone else. They want special rights which our Constitution does not support.

    (4) SSM would increase the divorce rate as lesbians and homosexual men are known not to stay together and have sex outside of their relationships.

  18. Rob
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 11:15 pm | Permalink

    Son of Adam, the problem with your beliefs, apart from being fanciful and/or false, is that the state doesn't mind if couples marry or not, straight or gay. If procreation were a problem, the state wouldn't have legalized birth control or abortion.

    Limiting marriage to different-sex couples does not extend anyone's lifespan. Nor does limiting marriage to different-sex couples accomplish anything else on your list.

    We could limit marriage to same-race couples, with the very rational reason that mixed-race children often face hardship in a racist society like ours. But even a rational, child-focused reason is not enough to persuade the courts to prevent grownups from having the right to marry whom they wish.But at least we can put to rest the fiction that marriage is about children!

  19. Rob
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 11:17 pm | Permalink

    Chairm, in what way are my points false? From what I've read, they are widely considered to be true. Any evidence they're false?

  20. Louis E.
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 11:28 pm | Permalink

    Rob,you really need to upgrade the quality of your reading material!
    There is a state interest in there being male-female relationships.
    There is no state interest in there being any same-sex sexual relationships.
    The principle that opposite-sex relationships are a norm to be adhered to by all needs to be upheld,and the furtherance of that aim is what justifies the existence of marriage.
    There is no public interest served by the existence of races,and any rules that intrude race into qualification for an institution that exists strictly to promote male-female relationships need to be discarded.

  21. Daughter of Eve
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 11:46 pm | Permalink

    Rob is right--the state isn't interested in whether or not the individuals in a married couple are gay or straight. We (the state) aren't interested in proving or disproving a person's sexual orientation, or to whom they are attracted. We are, however, interested in ensuring that each child born is taken care of by both his/her biological parents, which is a given in man/woman marriage, but not so in SSM. We are interested in making sure that a man and a woman who make a baby together stay together to raise their child, taking equal responsibility.

    Tell us, if marriage isn't about children, then why do we presume that the children of a married man are his, with the expectation that he must take full responsibility for them? We call it "presumption of paternity." Furthermore, if marriage has nothing to do with children, why do we restrict opposite-sexed or even same-sexed siblings or parents and their opposite sexed or same-sexed children from getting married?

    Why do we restrict marriage to couples? What's so special about "2" in a marriage?

  22. Daughter of Eve
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 11:49 pm | Permalink

    Rob asserts that grownups have the right to marry whomever they wish. This is not accurate. We don't allow same-sex siblings to marry, nor a parent and child; we don't allow groups to marry either. Why don't we Rob?

  23. Son of Adam
    Posted November 27, 2011 at 1:04 am | Permalink

    Rob, the fact of the matter is that only men and women can procreate with one another. Marriage is the means by which they can establish a stable raising environment for whatever children come out of that union. If marriage is redefined by the state to being only about the sexual fulfilment of adults then children will be considered an irrelevant byproduct in favor of such narcissistic hedonism.

    Much research has been done to back up my list. Marriage DOES lengthen the lifespans of men and women.

    http://jech.bmj.com/content/60/9/760.abstract

    DOES protect women from violent crime:

    http://www.familyfacts.org/search?type=findings&q=Marriage:+Still+the+Safest+Place+for+Women+and+Children&findingId=7349

    and DOES lower welfare costs:

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Projects/Marriage-Poverty/Marriage-and-Poverty-in-the-US

  24. Nathan
    Posted November 27, 2011 at 4:13 am | Permalink

    Sonofadam:

    1: it's a fair assumption to say marriage would also lengthen the lifespans of gay couples, so banning them from marriage actually causes harm to them by decreasing their life expectancy.

    2: Marriage would also protect gay and lesbians families and increase their safety. Banning gay couples from marriage causes them harm my depriving them of this protection

    3: Marriage would also lower welfare costs for gay and lesbian headed families. It harms them and society in general to ban them from the protection of marriage. It makes them more likely to be on welfare and increases societies costs to provide economic support.

    So banning gay and lesbian couples from marriage is punitive. It harms them by decreasing their life expectancy, denies them legal protections, and makes them more likely to be on welfare. Was that the point?

  25. Randy
    Posted November 27, 2011 at 7:13 am | Permalink

    I see Rob is NOT about equal rights for all canadians. He is a bigot.

  26. Rob
    Posted November 27, 2011 at 8:28 am | Permalink

    "Marriage DOES lengthen the lifespans of men and women."

    Exactly. That's why it's highly immoral to withhold marriage rights, as some states still do, from gay people: they are denied longer lives.

  27. Rob
    Posted November 27, 2011 at 8:28 am | Permalink

    Randy, where did you get that from? I strongly support equal rights for all citizens, wherever they may live.

  28. Son of Adam
    Posted November 27, 2011 at 10:39 am | Permalink

    "Exactly. That's why it's highly immoral to withhold marriage rights, as some states still do, from gay people: they are denied longer lives."

    I said men AND women, Rob. Putting the two genders together lead to longer healthier lives, not setting them apart.

  29. Randy
    Posted November 27, 2011 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

    From post # 1 as you stated the following:

    See? It's easy to outlaw polygamy and still have legal same-sex marriage! So we can drop the "slippery slope" argument now??

    With that comment right there. Your statement about strongly supporting equal rights for all citizens is a big lie.

  30. Louis E.
    Posted November 27, 2011 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

    What is immoral,Rob,is for any people to allow their homosexuality to influence them to the extent of calling themselves "gay people" in reference to it.

  31. QueerNE
    Posted November 27, 2011 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

    Everyone here seems to believe that children being raised in a same-sex environment is a futuristic concept. It isn't. And that's why you're flagrant disregard for the parenting abilitiy of queer couples is so misguided. People are being raised by queer couples. They're turning out fine. Not every queer parent is; nor is every straight parent.

    If you deign to respond to this, give me a response for this point: What benefit will come to the children being raised in SS couples NOW will come from continuing to deny their parents the benefits of marriage?

    I am not asking you to redefine parentage for me. I am not asking you tell me why homosexuality is wrong. Just answer that question.

  32. QueerNE
    Posted November 27, 2011 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

    *that was to say, not every quer or straight parent is a good one

  33. Rob
    Posted November 27, 2011 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

    Well, any couple raising children should not only be allowed to marry, they should be encouraged to marry! Children are better off, according to marriage expert Maggie Gallagher, when their parents are married. We must not treat children like acceptable collateral damage, because we want to harm their parents!

  34. Little man
    Posted November 27, 2011 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

    Queer from the N.E. says: 'People are being raised by queer couples. They're turning out fine.' Adults are being raised by queer couples? That's a new one. Scientifically, what is the meaning of 'fine'? Statistically, you can check out this blog, regarding a) The ill-defined research quoted by queers from all over; b) The lack of time for statistical research to arrive at definite conclusions; c) research case studies are mostly per testimony of so-called lesbians. Sappho of the Greek island of Lesbos, a poet who formed a woman's society, wasn't even sexually attracted to women. Same-sex civil marriage advocacy is a big fraud.

  35. QueerNE
    Posted November 27, 2011 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

    Little man

    Scientifically, 'fine' means functioning in society with sound physiological health, as well as emotionally stable for the parts in which parents can be involved-- there are medical conditions that no amount of love can cure. That's not also to say that all queer people are capable of being parents.

    And that you aren't privy to knowing people that have same-sex parents is no one's fault but your demographic. It shouldn't take a scientific report to satisfy you. Talk to a person.

    Also, I guess my use of the word people might have seemed peculiar, but equally strange is the notion that parenting ceases when the child reaches adulthood.

    Finally, I'm a queer from Nebraska. :)

  36. Louis E.
    Posted November 27, 2011 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

    QueerNE,good psychological health requires a firm understanding of the innate indefensibility of same-sex sexual relationships.Those who can not teach that by example can not be fit parents.
    Rob,children in the custody of same-sex couples must be rescued from those couples at once!

  37. Woody
    Posted November 27, 2011 at 9:24 pm | Permalink

    "We are, however, interested in ensuring that each child born is taken care of by both his/her biological parents, which is a given in man/woman marriage, but not so in SSM. We are interested in making sure that a man and a woman who make a baby together stay together to raise their child, taking equal responsibility"

    Right Daughter of Eve, which is precisely why we (the state) guarantee that every child's biological parents get and stay married. This is why divorce, birth out of wedlock, adoption and foster parenting are specifically forbidden.

    "Tell us, if marriage isn't about children, then why do we presume that the children of a married man are his, with the expectation that he must take full responsibility for them? We call it "presumption of paternity."

    The operative terminology here is "take full responsibility for them". The assumption is that if a couple is married and the couple is raising children, then both spouses are responsible for raising the children. This goes for both spouses, regardless if a male spouse is perceived to be the child's or children's biological father. Even in a same sex marriage, both spouses are expected to be responsible for caring for and providing for the children being raised by the union. Which is precisely why marriage equality is a must- every child deserves the equal legal protection that is afforded when a couple decides to raise children within a marriage union.

    "Why do we restrict marriage to couples? What's so special about "2" in a marriage?"

    Have you ever tried to form a contract among more than 2 parties? It can be quite daunting... Remember, marriage is a promise of commitment between 2 parties, to the exclusion of others.

  38. mikev6
    Posted November 27, 2011 at 9:42 pm | Permalink

    Louis:

    I happen to think that children in the custody of fundamentalist Christians must be rescued from those couples at once! Good psychological health requires a firm understanding of of the innate indefensibility of a literal interpretation of the Bible.

    This makes about as much sense as your statements. Care to provide some backing for your assertions?

  39. Louis E.
    Posted November 28, 2011 at 12:16 am | Permalink

    Mikev6,I happen to have a lot of sympathy with your stated position on Biblical literalists,never having seen credible evidence that the Infinitely First Cause writes books or founds official fan clubs for itself.But the same reasoning power that should lead us to reject creation myths should lead us to acknowledge the exclusively normative nature of opposite-sex sexual relationships in any sexually dimorphic species,and form a sense of responsibility to adhere to that norm.

  40. ResistSSA
    Posted November 28, 2011 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    NEQueer asks: "What benefit will come to the children being raised in SS couples NOW will come from continuing to deny their parents the benefits of marriage?"

    The question implies that the reason for marriage is to make sure children are brought up in the most prosperous environment possible so that they turn out "fine." That's incorrect. The reason for marriage is to encourage male-female unions so that moms and dads take responsibility for their kids and that kids have a mom and a dad. How the kids are raised and what "fine" is is not the government's concern; that's the family's business.

    So, the government doesn't care what impact denying same-sex guardians marriage has on kids. The kids in those relationships have already missed out on being brought up by their mom and dad and all the things that only a mom and a dad can provide to their child.

  41. Pat
    Posted November 28, 2011 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

    Marriage doesn't put two genders together. It puts two people together.
    Unless, of course, you're promoting polygamy as the only viable legalized marriage...

  42. Louis E.
    Posted November 28, 2011 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

    Pat,marriage exists to put male people together with female people.Typically one of each,but not in all cultures.Anyway,without the requirement of joining male to female it is useless.

  43. Little man
    Posted November 28, 2011 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

    Queer from Nebraska: You say: 'It shouldn't take a scientific report to satisfy you.' Now we know you don't have scientific proof. That's exactly what i was asserting. Sorry, 'fine' is not a scientific term. But you seem to think i am against adoption by a same-sex couple. I am not. If an opposite-sex, married couple, is not available for an orphan, and if the child is old enough to have a say, i believe same-sex couples (an uncle and his nephew, for instance; or a pair of homosexual persuasion with no pedophile tendencies, should be allowed, by law, to adopt an orphan. With the attacks on the institution of civil marriage, there are lots of orphans or abandoned children to go around, yes, even for couples of homosexual persuasion (as a last resort). So, we are getting to know each other. I am in the West too (or East, if you go around the World the other direction) :)

  44. John Noe
    Posted November 28, 2011 at 10:37 pm | Permalink

    Brillant posts as always Daughter of Eve, as we note how poster #37 has taken your excellent post and tried to twist it to say something else.
    We all understand the importance of tying children to marriage to their mothers and fathers.

    No poster #33 we clearly mean man/woman marriage when we say couples should be married.

  45. QueerNE
    Posted November 29, 2011 at 11:34 am | Permalink

    I was not suggesting that there is no scientific proof. I was suggesting that while research has been/is being done on the subject, it shouldn't require scientific proof to accept the fact that gay couples are capable a parenting.

  46. Ash
    Posted November 29, 2011 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

    Rob: "Well, any couple raising children should not only be allowed to marry, they should be encouraged to marry!"

    I know two sisters who are raising their children together.

    "Children are better off, according to marriage expert Maggie Gallagher, when their parents are married."

    I don't see how this is acheived with same sex marriage. If the actual parents of the children raised by same sex couples were married, that would constitute an opposite sex marriage. Same sex marriage does nothing to give a child "married parents."

  47. Daughter of Eve
    Posted November 29, 2011 at 10:13 pm | Permalink

    My follow up to Woody would be that in a SSM, that at least one biological parent is not, for whatever reason, living up to his or her responsibility to raise the child which he/she co-created. That is not an issue in man/woman marriage. We don't want to give men or women the idea they are off the hook for taking responsibility for their own offspring. Furthermore, 2 women cannot replace the relationship of a father with his children, just as no 2 men can take the place of the mother. Man + woman is the basic unit of our dual-gendered society.

  48. Anne
    Posted November 30, 2011 at 7:26 am | Permalink

    Rob, the solution to same sex couples raising children is not to allow or encourage them to marry, but to forbid and discourage them from raising children. They are sterile for a reason. They are not good for children.

  49. QueerNE
    Posted December 1, 2011 at 10:17 am | Permalink

    DoE

    Your view of gender is immensely limited. To suggest that when it comes to gender there is only a binary is at best, inaccurate.

  50. Daughter of Eve
    Posted December 1, 2011 at 11:37 am | Permalink

    No, my view of gender is accurate. There may be those with confused chromosomes, but for purposes of procreation, universally, there is only man + woman. And procreation is at the heart of marriage.