The implications of 'family diversity'

From the Post - Criminal act or religious right?

To understand the moral and legal conundrum of polygamy in Canada, consider that when the Canadian Bar Association discusses the matter at its annual meeting next week, it will be part of a larger discussion about the "implications of family diversity."

The practice of having multiple spouses -- illegal for more than a century -- is being considered alongside serial monogamy, surrogacy arrangements and same-sex relationships as being among those societal changes "charting new legal territory for family relationships" being examined by a panel probing what it means when the law moves into the bedrooms of the nation.

"Family diversity". That pretty much includes everything, doesn't it?

Jason Gratl, a criminal lawyer and president of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, said it is important to distinguish between a moral disdain of polygamist marriage and a desire for a legal recourse to crimes sheltered "by the insular community structures and bonds of loyalty."

"It's tempting to point at polygamy as the determining factor which creates abuse," he said. "But one should resist that temptation in light of the fact that similar abuses occur in quite ordinary marriages. And no one is suggesting wiping out the institution of marriage because some of those marriages lead to insular family structures."

Absolutely. There are many marriages where one party is very controlling and manipulative. And child abuse can occur in any family situation.



And we're not just talking about polygamy in Bountiful:

Beverley Baines, a law professor at Queen's University, was coauthor of a report released last year that said Section 293 would likely fail a court challenge and called for polygamy to be decriminalized. (The report did not call for legalization, which she said would mean a change to the Marriage Act.)

She said if polygamy was no longer illegal, it could then be studied and really understood -- not just in the context of the goings on at Bountiful, but also how common the practice may be among Canada's many immigrants who may come from countries where polygamy is not unusual.

However, Katherine Young, a professor of religion at McGill University, believes the legalization of same-sex marriages has changed the rules.

"Once you start to change definitions there can be a whole set of repercussions," she said. "[Now] you're going to have to argue whether there's any substantial reason to restrict marriage to two people. The last argument was whether we have to restrict to two people of different sex, now we have to make an argument why it should be restricted to two. And now we have even weaker grounds for doing it."

But let's have none of that slippery slope argument!! Pull-eeze.



Irwin assured us that it would never happen:

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler had earlier denied there was any link between the two issues. "We don't see any connection – I repeat, any connection – between the issue of polygamy and the issue of same-sex marriage," he said Thursday.

Too late to turn back the tide people. Let's just cut the crap and admit it.

* * * *

Related: Obviously Queer Liberal would not agree with me, but he does reference a very interesting article in today's Globe by Margaret Somerville.

And Eric weighs in again here.

Koby gives his opinion here.

I am definitely outnumbered, but that's o.k. I love a good debate.

* * * *

Tuesday Update: Polygamists should have the same rights and freedoms as other people.