Women and Children First!

Ever notice how the antiequality people, who are against the freedom to marry more than one person, think women are weak? They also reveal how weak they think women are when they say that we can't have the freedom to same-sex marriage because marriage is about men protecting women. Yet some of these same types say that if a man marries more than one woman, or a woman marries more than one man, the woman or women will be doomed. How does that work?

Sometimes, they also say that children are doomed if their mother has "sister wives" or a wife.

Hans Sanders, Rockland wrote a letter to the Ottawa Citizen...

It is concern for their offsprings and the women involved that mandates a law against polygamy.

Shouldn't we let parents determine what it best for their children unless they prove to be unfit parents?

A man with 20 wives is incapable of looking after these wives and they, thus, become uneducated wards of the state -- which affects me and others in our pocketbooks.

How many men are, or ever will be, married to 20 wives? Let's be realistic. This freedom to marry is almost always about three, four, five or some people being married. We don't make it illegal for a man to have children with 20 women. Why should it be illegal for him to be married to all of them? If a child's parents are legally married, that child is less likely to be a ward of the state, and it is easier to the parents accountable.

People need to face the fact that there is no more reason to deny the freedom to marry more than one person than there is to deny the freedom to marry someone of the same sex. Prejudice and fear of "others" is what is at work here.

Update on Canadian Poly Trial

You can keep up on the trial by checking in on the blogs I list in this post. But I am continuing to pick through some of the coverage.

A professor who interviewed nearly two dozen women from the polygamous community of Bountiful, B.C., said they have happy, healthy lives, as well as control over their marriages, when they got pregnant and over their education.

But, under cross-examination Wednesday at a constitutional reference case that is weighing Canada’s law against polygamy, McGill University law professor Angela Campbell admitted she had done little fact-checking to support the women’s stories.

She interviewed the women involved. If anyone would have a complaint about being a wife in a polygynous marriage, it would be one of the wives, correct?

Campbell said not only did she believe the women’s claims that they were happy and in control of their bodies, she said it was on that basis that she concluded polygamy ought to be decriminalized.

It should be decriminalized because we should all have the freedom to marry.

Campbell argued the criminal sanction against polygamy stigmatizes the women and leaves them reluctant to access needed services or report other crimes for fear of being prosecuted or having their children taken away.

Bigots claim poly marriages are harmful, but the harm seems to be coming from bigotry. Convenient, no?

Campbell insisted the women have full control over their reproductive decisions, even though contraception violates fundamentalist Mormon beliefs.

Someone who chooses to be vegetarian for religious reasons still has full control over their diet.

Although Campbell testified that, based on her interviews, the practice of child brides was a thing of the past, she said under questioning that she had no empirical evidence to support that.

She had not, for example, looked at teen pregnancy rates, she said.

Well if teen pregnancy is an indication of being a child bride, then I guess there are many, many child brides in a lot of places in Canada and the US, including within a certain family in Alaska.

Beall describes the fundamentalist Mormon sects as cults and notes that anyone who stays within the group is more likely to have positive things to say than those who leave.

He says independent thinking is shunned. Privacy is limited. Emotional expression is undesirable. Personal desires are unwanted.

So the problem being described would be cultic behavior, not the freedom to marry.

From another article…

Campbell said women in plural marriages valued their relationships with their husbands’ other wives, referred to as "sister wives," who share in domestic responsibilities such as childcare.

Perhaps some of these marriages are superior for all involved to many monogamous ones.

At any rate, Campbell said the law against polygamy wasn’t working.

Prop H8 in Court Again Today

Canada has granted the freedom to marry to same-sex couples and a court there is now dealing with the possibility of increasing the freedom to marry to polycules. Meanwhile, Proposition 8 (Prop “H8”) is back in US federal court as we fight for the freedom of same-sex couples to marry in more places in the US.

I’m cautiously optimistic. I'd like to court to quickly decide that the lower court’s ruling was correct and again lift the ban on the freedom of (some) same-sex couples to marry in California. It remains to be seen if this will go up to the Supreme Court. It would be great if this would bring this freedom to marry to all of the other states that currently have bans, too. What would be best of all is if we got full marriage equality out of this, but that is a longshot.

Opponents of Proposition 8 contend it violates the due process and equal protection rights of gays and lesbians under the U.S. Constitution by denying them the right to marry the person of their choice and by singling them out for disparate treatment without a legitimate rationale.

Let freedom ring.

Hey Look, A Better Article on Polygamy

So many articles on polygamy portray polygamy only as polygyny, and Muslim or FLDS-style polygyny at that. But Amanda Jacobs, writing to Dixie State College students, explains the facts up front.

Take the word polygamy for instance: It is a reference term for all relationships involving more than one person, not just a man with many wives.

According to definitions found in Webster's dictionary, there are actually three types of these relationships: polygyny, where a man has multiple wives at the same time; polyandry, where a woman has more than one husband at a time; or group marriage, where a family consists of multiple husbands and multiple wives.

Thank you for that. She then goes on to write about three people who grew up with polygyny.

Williams wants people who didn't grow up in the religion to remember that there is good and bad in everything.

"Most of these [polygamists] are good people," Williams said. "They aren't trying to destroy the world. It is just another religion that is just trying to gain their salvation."

And their marriage is not a threat to anyone else's.

DSC Student Danalee Dial, a junior theater major from St. George, didn't grow up in Colorado City, Ariz., or the surrounding communities, and also didn't have the stereotypical old-fashioned clothing that one would expect a polygamist to wear.

In fact, Dial wanted to make it known there are many different types of polygamists, and not all polygamous families are alike. She said her childhood was quite normal and her family wasn't a part of a certain religion.

Polygamy is normal for some people. Normal families, where good things, bad things, and silly thing happen, just like in other families, are polygamous.

All of the former polygamists interviewed said they felt their lives were pretty average growing up. But one strong message found through their interviews is that maybe life within polygamy isn't much different from any other one and to never judge another lifestyle without fully knowing about it.

Thank you, Amanda Jacobs. We need more articles like this one to aid in the fight for the freedom to marry.

Polyamory Is Not For Her

Mariana Caplan wrote about some "Zen boyfriends" she had. She recounts one who informed her he was polyamorous, something she hadn't heard of before.

"Are you monogamous?"

I looked at him confused. "Did you ask if I was monogamous?"

"Yes. Are you monogamous?"

"Forgive me if I sound a little stupid or silly, but monogamous as opposed to what?"

"Polyamorous."

"Poly-what?"

"Polyaaaaamorous. It means that your love is not limited to one person. You love freely and unconditionally because that is your nature, but you are not limited to one person or one commitment for the rest of your life. I am polyamorous, and I am interested in having a relationship with you. For now you would be my 'primary partner,' but I would like the autonomy to love, or at least engage sexually with others freely and have 'secondary' relationships with them."

"So let me get this straight. You're saying that if I'm your girlfriend I have to be okay with you sleeping with other women whenever you want to? It kind of sounds like this polyamory is some fancy psycho-spiritual justification for sleeping around."

Actually, a lot of poly people have very clear boundaries. It isn't "anything goes" in most cases. Some are faithful to two lovers, not involving anyone else. Ever.

He can't be for real, I thought. He probably just hasn't found the right woman. If he loves me enough, he'll snap out of it. I dismissed it from my mind, we spent a couple of months falling madly in love, and we were on our way home from our first romantic weekend getaway when he said to me:

"My lover from Spain is moving here to be with me for six months. She is going to be my primary partner now, but I am open to you being my secondary relationship."

"What?!? Are you for real?! I thought we were just starting to fall in love?"

"We were. I mean, we are. But I love her, too. I love everybody. I warned you that this was going to happen. My love is limitless and unconditional and therefore isn't limited to you. I must listen to my heart."

"Are you sure it is your heart talking and not your balls?"

Quite often, it is the heart and the head. Sometimes it is the balls. If it isn't for you, you are free not to be poly. That is the decision she made. But for other people, it is what suits them best. And they should be able to have that.

Not All Nonmonogamy is Polyamory

Lacey Mason of the Daily Nebraskan considers polyamory. Not for her, but in general.

My friend announced this weekend that she and her husband are now in an open relationship. Also known as polyamory (having multiple romantic partners), the relationship was met with some controversy.

"Open" and "polyamorous" are not the same thing. There are polycules that are closed. There are also people who consider themselves monogamous in that they only love each other and live with each other, but are open to having someone join them for sex, not a social relationship.

She felt that sexually exclusive relationships could work for some but were a fight against nature.

For some people, they are.

I cringe at the thought of unprotected people sleeping with people who are sleeping with other people who are also unprotected. If just one has an STI, everyone has an STI.

That's the way it works in serial monogamy, too.

Polyamory also isn't for the insecure or codependent. An open relationship only works when both partners are in it together. There needs to be the utmost transparency, open communication, trust and, above all, respect. The partners in a committed relationship still need to put each other first, and if one partner decides they are no longer interested in the arrangement, it needs to end for both.

I'm in total agreement.

So, is polyamory right or wrong? There's no steadfast answer. If you aren't into it, it's probably not right. But when two consenting adults are, it's probably not wrong.

That's a good way of looking at it. Let consenting adults choose for themselves. Let people marry, or not, the person or persons they want to marry.

Let Siblings Marry

Someone asked "Why are incestuous marriages illegal? Why can't cousins or siblings marry?"

Actually, there are places where first cousins can marry, and in some of those places where that is encouraged. Not so much for siblings. Prohibitions against consanguineous marriages are vestiges of a narrow-minded and prejudiced past. But it is always interesting to see how people try to defend this denial of the right to marry.

genetics, morals.

Which morality would that be? As far as a genetics, that's not true because there is a difference between marriage and reproduction. Also, we do not criminalize people with genetic diseases who reproduce.

ew why would anyone even be attracted to a cousin or sibling?

Because they're attractive, lovable, dependable, and kind? If your cousins and siblings aren't, too bad for you. And you don't have to marry them anyway. But why deny others what they want?

The same reason people with diabetes or AIDS can't marry; they may pass on ailments to their offspring.

Yes, there is a lot of ignorance out there, folks.

Here's a somewhat intelligent answer...

That was back when the Bible was considered fully legal to use to back laws.

And now that it isn't allowed as much in a court of law, it's still illegal because really no one has challenged it in court.

It's a matter of time. Let's speed that up!

A husband from outside your family was an advantage as it allowed a woman to gain resources from both her birth and husbands family and gave a wider network of family to support her children.

Life is a lot different now. There really isn't a strong enough reason to deny the right to marry to consanguineous lovers. It's mostly ignorance and bigotry keeping this marriage ban in place.

Now is the Time

Time magazine has an article about the Canadian poly trial that focuses only the FLDS’ practice of polygyny.

Some Mormon groups and civil libertarians claim that the law is unconstitutional because it violates rights to freedom of religion.

It violates the fundamental right to marry.

Craig Jones, a lawyer for the province, noted that if the law were overturned, Canada would be come the only western country to sanction polygamy.

Progress has to happen somewhere first.

Much is made of the FLDS subculture. If that truly is problematic, then deal with that. Don’t deny this freedom to marry to everyone else based on the actions of a few. There are many, many more poly people than the ones found within the FLDS.

Lawyers for the community say that if polygamy were legalized, the members of the sect would not have to be so cut off from the rest of society. "The criminalization of polygamy drives its participants to separate themselves from mainstream society," says Robert Wickett, who represents the FLDS. "Members will testify that they do not want to live as pariahs, separate and apart from society."

Bring polygamy out of the shadows and support the right to marriage.

Calgary Herald is Anti-Equality

The Calgary Herald published an editorial calling for the denial of marriage equality.

The British Columbia Supreme Court must rule that Canada's law forbidding polygamy should stand. The case should be decided taking into account the greater good of society and gender equality.

In a country that has gender equality, granting the freedom to marry more than one person would not diminish that. Rather, it gives people more choices, more freedom to be who they are.

Let's face it -- there is nothing noble about the cause of polygamy, and much that is ignoble about it.

There’s nothing noble about wanting to marry your lovers and raise children in within a legal marriage? Your bigotry is showing. But let’s set aside “noble.” How about fairness and equality?

Polygamy is about men wanting to have sex with as many women as they like in a marriage. It is rarely about women having more than one husband.

So what? Why not grant people, men and women, the freedom to decide for themselves? Most heterosexual men want to have sex with as many women as they like. Some are rebuffed, some choose one at a time for the sake of what they consider personal discipline, religious or family pressures, or because they find that to suit them. What is so bad about someone who finds monogamy doesn’t suit him wanting to marry both or all of the persons he loves, if they agree?

And in the case of Bountiful, the case which spurred the hearing on polygamy now taking place in Vancouver, it is about men having sex with under-age girls, cloaking themselves in the thin veneer of religious freedoms -- a veneer which should fool few.

I’m all for setting an age of consent and sticking to that, enforcing it with law. Doesn't Canada already do that? What does that have to do with consenting adults?

Polygamy is about the sexual exploitation of women and girls.

The way some men choose to practive polygyny may be that way, but this is as bigoted of a statement as saying that same-sex marriage is about one man exploiting another, or that interracial marriage is about one race exploiting another. Some people want more than one spouse based largely on sexual considerations. So what? For others, it is more about love, friendship, cooperation, and a million other things. Why should they be denied this freedom to marry?

Those involved in polyamory protest that laws against polygamy need to be dropped to accommodate them. One is free, in this marvellously free country, to take as many concurrent lovers as one wishes.

Interracial couples can still be lovers without getting married. Same-sex couples can still be lovers without getting married. Well so can heterosexual couples of the same race. But they're allowed to marry. You’re denying marriage to consenting adults for no logical reason.

But we need to draw the line at the sanctity of marriage, for if Canada does not stand for something, then it stands for nothing at all.

That is exactly what the bigots said six years ago about the freedom to have a same-sex marriage. “Consenting adults” is a great line. What is wrong with that line?

And Canada stands for marriage being between two people only, two consenting adults and no more than that.

On what basis must it be limited to two? Since when is the Calgary Herald the authority on who should have the freedom to marry? To determine which adults relationships are worthy and which ones are unworthy?

What a disappointing editorial.

Another Example of Blaming Polygamy Instead of Abuse

Two letters were published in response to an article “B.C. court to decide whether polygamy protected by religious freedoms,” Nov. 22

Jancis M. Andrews, Sechelt, B.C….

The real issue here is not an ancient patriarchal practice that treats women as chattels and sexual collectibles, but whether the B.C. Supreme Court will uphold sections 15 and 28 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that guarantee women equality with men. That is the issue in a nutshell, no more, no less.

Gender equality is essential to full marriage equality.

Polygamy comes to us from the dark ages, and there is ample evidence that the practice harms women and children and reduces women to second-class citizenship. It is more than past time that it was dumped into the garbage can of history, where it belongs.

Polygamy is as old as sex. There is no evidence that polygamy harms women and children. What harms women and children is inequality, abuse, and a lack of choice, whether or not there is polygyny in cultures that condone or encourage such things.

With full marriage equality, men and women would be free to choose their spouses. If a woman chooses to be one of several wives with one husband, that would be her choice, as it would be if she chose to have several husbands.

James Knott, Mississauga…

Why is the question even being raised? All Canadians should be subject to the same laws, regardless of religious beliefs.

I agree. All Canadians (and people in the rest of the world) should have the freedom to marry the person or person(s) they love, regardless of religion, race, gender, relation, or age, as long as they are consenting adults.

Who Has Expertise on Polygamy?

Certainly not people who have never practiced it nor studied it.

The Vancouver Sun had a poor article on Angela Campbell, whose expertise is a factor in the poly trial in Canada.

She is expected to argue that polygamy ought to be decriminalized because the harms caused to women and children stem not from plural marriages, but from the societal stigma that attaches to them.

“Although the threat of criminal sanction does not seem to thwart or halt polygamy in [the fundamentalist Mormon community of] Bountiful, participants indicated that the fact that polygamy is criminalized causes them to feel stigmatized and looked upon with disdain within the larger community,” Campbell writes.

Because of that stigma, she says, they are marginalized from the mainstream and less likely likely to seek services or help for themselves or their children; they are afraid that they might be arrested, jailed or have their children taken away from them.

Lack of equality harms.

Another expert witness – law professor Nicholas Bala from Queen's University – has suggested in his affidavit that Campbell's research is based on “a sample of women who are most positively disposed [to] this practise.”

You mean people who actually have experienced it and lived? Aren’t they they best people to ask?

Bala, whose affidavit was filed by Stop Polygamy in Canada, suggests that women whose experiences with polygamy were negative might have been intimidated into silence.

They can submit their own testimony. Nobody in the government is going to force them into a marriage. But there is the risk that someone will break up poly families.

Campbell offers no evidence other than unnamed women's assertions that girls as young as 15 and 16 are no longer being placed in arranged marriages.

She also offers no evidence that she has stopped beating her wife. It isn’t her obligation to show that. Let the authorities investigate. The reporter could have also noted that Campbell hasn’t proven the group isn’t hiding stolen nuclear warheads.

And she has nothing to back her claims that women are free to choose contraception, other than her assertion that “some” women told her that they wanted birth control that was “invisible” to their husbands; others had sought information about “natural birth control” and another who described contraception as “taboo” and “very frowned upon.”

Try to follow this. I will go slowly...

If Canadian women are free to choose contraception, and
these women are Canadians, then
they are free to choose contraception.

The paper has provided Campbell’s affidavits here and here.

World AIDS Day

Lots of people like to imply or outright claim that gay sex or polyamory or polygamy spreads HIV.

What can spread HIV is when someone who isn’t infected has unprotected sex or shared a needle with someone who is infected. So yes, a gay person or poly person can get and spread HIV, but so can anyone.

A gay man will never get HIV if he never comes in contact with body fluid from someone who is infected with HIV.

A woman can have 1, 2, 3, or 7 sex partners or wives or husbands in her life at the same time and never get HIV if none of her lovers or spouses has HIV.

And certainly, siblings who grow up experimenting and then growing into a lifelong marital relationship will never get HIV if neither of them has unprotected sex with someone who does have HIV.

Conversely, two heterosexual virgins can meet, marry and stay monogamous and they can both get HIV if one of them shares a needle with someone who has HIV.

So rather than using the tragedy of AIDS to make bigoted statements about LGBT people or poly people, how about we focus on prevention of transmission, treating those infected with HIV so they don't get AIDS, and caring for those with AIDS?