Sunday, April 17, 2011

Chief Justice Robert Bauman Must Rule For Freedom in Canada

The trial over the polygamous freedom to marry in Canada is now with the chief justice, who should be on the right side of history, ruling to increase the freedom to marry. Here's Daphne Bramham's take.

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association summarized the position succinctly this week:

"By intruding into adults' decisions about the form of conjugal relationship that best meets their personal needs and aspirations, the law overextends the reach of the criminal law into individuals' private lives, intruding into their most private relationships."

While acknowledging that some of the evidence was shocking, the challengers argued that criminal laws such as those governing sexual exploitation, abuse or trafficking are more appropriate than using the polygamy law.

Prosecute abusers. Let consenting adults marry. Canada should lead the way in North America in moving towards full marriage equality. The bigots tried to deny the same-sex freedom to marry, now they want to stop the polygamous freedom to marry. Don't let them stand in the way of progress.
— — —


  1. I wrote a good post but when I tried to post it using my wordpress profile your site just disappeared it! I guess you don't want any disagreement with your teenage girl abusing POV?

  2. Andrew,

    I have not done anything to prevent you from making a comment. It must have been a problem with one of the services (WordPress or Blogger) or your computing device.

    Thanks for reading and commenting, although apparently you haven not read enough of what I have written here.

    I am strongly against abuse, including abuse of teenage girls. Fully half of my ancestors were teen girls at some point. I think abuse should be prosecuted severely.

    I'm also against telling a woman who has reached the age of consent that she can't marry the person(s) of her choosing, even if she wants to marry an older man who is married to other women already.

  3. Saskatchewan offers full protection from criminal prosecution for polygamists BUT the hitch is that you can only be civilly married to one person and the others must be common law spouses. However, there is legal protection and recognition of multiple marital status within the family law courts. Another hitch is that the "subsequent spouses" do not need to consent to the government imposed marital rights and obligations so you need to be careful..or you will find yourself the legal spouse of a married person even when you don't consent but cohabited with them!

  4. Thank you for that, Jarrod. It is my position that When a third person is added, it should be up to the existing couple if that third person will be a primary or secondary to either of them (should the third person be marrying both) or to the spouse to which he or she is getting married. Other than that, the person should be a fully recognized spouse, not a second-class citizen.

    The existing spouses should have veto power, preferably in the form of easy access to divorce should they disapprove of their spouse taking on another spouse.

  5. What is the status of this court case? Anyone know?

  6. I have not heard anything. I will keep an eye out and report when news breaks.

  7. In Saskatchewan there is no veto power of first in spouses over their existing spouses taking on other spouses. The "subsequent spouse" does not have the right to not consent either. The family law courts just declare them to be spouses if they cohabit.

  8. Thanks, Anonymous for that info. Full marriage equality should include the freedoms to NOT marry, and to divorce. Where I live, one spouse is able to divorce even if the other spouse objects, so there is no way of stopping someone from taking on a new spouse As long as there is equal access to divorce, that will allow an "objection."


To prevent spam, comments will have to be approved, so your comment may not appear for several hours. Feedback is welcome, including disagreement. I only delete/reject/mark as spam: spam, vulgar or hateful attacks, repeated spouting of bigotry from the same person that does not add to the discussion, and the like. I will not reject comments based on disagreement, but if you don't think consenting adults should be free to love each other, then I do not consent to have you repeatedly spout hate on my blog without adding anything to the discourse.

If you want to write to me privately, then either contact me on Facebook, email me at fullmarriageequality at protonmail dot com, or tell me in your comment that you do NOT want it published. Otherwise, anything you write here is fair game to be used in a subsequent entry. If you want to be anonymous, that is fine.

IT IS OK TO TALK ABOUT SEX IN YOUR COMMENTS, BUT PLEASE CHOOSE YOUR WORDS CAREFULLY AS I WANT THIS BLOG TO BE AS "SAFE FOR WORK" AS POSSIBLE. If your comment includes graphic descriptions of activity involving minors, it's not going to get published.