Polygamy

[Cecil]

OTTAWA -- A new study for the federal Justice Department says Canada should get rid of its law banning polygamy and change other legislation to help women and children living in such multiple-spouse relationships.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20060113/POLYGAMY13/TPNational/Canada

The commission didn't recommend condoning polygamous marriages, nor requiring them to be performed, only that polygamy should no longer be a criminal offense in Canada. Given that the law is not being enforced, it doesn't seem to make much of a difference whether it exists or not. An investigation into an LDS (Latter-Day Saints) cult in Bountiful, BC revealed hundreds of polygamous marriages, but the attorney general did not lay charges, citing religious freedom.

Also related tangientally are remarks from Ramzan Kadyrov, the premier of Chechnya. He's said that since so many males have been killed in the war, introducing polygamy is necessary to restore the population.

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/new...RUKOC_0_UK-RUSSIA-POLYGAMY.xml&archived=False

What do you think? Should polygamy be legal? Should it be a right? Is there a difference between freely chosen polygamy and that of the LDS church?

 

[rikzilla]

If it feels good do it!

I don't see any reason why not unless someone can show how others are harmed by it....

-z

 

[shecky]

I don't see how a polygamous marriage is the govt's business. As far as the govt is concerned, marriage is (or should be) a purely legal contract.

Regarding the remarks from Ramzan Kadyrov, this gets into wackier territory. The implication being that having children are ultimately a duty to the state.

 

[Belz...]

What do you think? Should polygamy be legal? Should it be a right? Is there a difference between freely chosen polygamy and that of the LDS church?

2 words. Consenting adults.

 

[Ed]

If it feels good do it!

I don't see any reason why not unless someone can show how others are harmed by it....

-z

Like enhanced social services like for that guy in Utah?

I have very little problem with what people do, provided they pay their own way.

 

[Bluegill]

I agree. Marriage should be seen as a contract between two, or more, consenting adults. If someone else doesn't want to consider it a marriage, who cares? If someone wants to consider himself married to a hundred women, who cares?

 

[Ed]

I agree. Marriage should be seen as a contract between two, or more, consenting adults. If someone else doesn't want to consider it a marriage, who cares? If someone wants to consider himself married to a hundred women, who cares?

I do, if there is some bill that comes due.

 

[Manny]

I agree. Marriage should be seen as a contract between two, or more, consenting adults. If someone else doesn't want to consider it a marriage, who cares? If someone wants to consider himself married to a hundred women, who cares?

Well, sort of. Should Social Security pay survivors benefits to more than one spouse?

 

[Cleon]

The problem comes when you're talking about legal benefits of marriage--not just SS, but everything from 401Ks (or Canadian equivalent) to hospital visiting rights. Taxes. Welfare. The right to not have to testify against your spouse (what if he's accused of beating another spouse?). It becomes very, very complicated.


Further muddying the waters is the fact that where polygamy is practiced, particularly in fundamentalist strains of Mormonism and Islam, it tends to be very hard on women and children. Specifically, women are treated like chattel slaves and married off at a very young age (often before they're legally considered women).

So I really don't see this as cut-and-dried as others make it out to be.

 

[Amapola]

Polygamous marriages can sound good but there are hidden costs and harms. Usually the "husband" has all his wives sign up for welfare as single mothers. That means that society is bearing the burden of these children, since the "husband" typically can not care for that many kids. (In the polygamous marriages in UT, there are LOTS of kids. The women I knew had between 4 and 6 kids each. The UT group are the polygamous marriages I was familiar with since a lot of polygamists were friends and neighbors.) Then there is the whole belief structure, which can be damaging to the kids to grow up with. Many polygamists marry off their daughters at a very young age, and often it is to male relatives, such as an uncle. If a girl resists this, she can be beaten into submission. This happened right before I left UT; the girl wanted to stay in high school but her father wanted her to marry her uncle. She managed to escape (she was beaten up pretty badly by her father) and told authorities and so got away. In a polygamous society, a young girl like this is simply considered an asset.

Read the book "Under the Banner of Heaven" by John Krakauer. You may just change your mind about how "harmless" polygamy is. I do agree that REAL adults (not 14 year old kids) who actually know what they are doing and understand the consequences, can do just as they please....... but in the polygamous societies that I know of, these young kids aren't truly "consenting adults".

 

[Ed]

I think Cecil was thinking him and Jessica Simpson and J-Lo in his OP.

I saw some polygamous compounds in Utah, outside of Sandy. Very odd, very Roger Cormanish.

 

[pgwenthold]

Polygamous marriages can sound good but there are hidden costs and harms. Usually the "husband" has all his wives sign up for welfare as single mothers. .

Of course he does! What is he supposed to do, list them all as wives? The state won't accept that.

This is not a problem of polygamy. It is a problem of making polygamy illegal.

 

[Amapola]

Of course he does! What is he supposed to do, list them all as wives? The state won't accept that.

This is not a problem of polygamy. It is a problem of making polygamy illegal.

No, it is a problem of people thinking someone else should feed and clothe them, and choosing to do that. It is not so much the fact that they are not allowed to be married it is the fact that they are on WELFARE. That is a problem (at least, one of them) of polygamy. You have to be pretty rich to support 5 wives and 30 kids; so why do that? You want to pay for me to own 30 horses, even though I can't afford them?

*Edited for spelling...... geesh....

 

[pgwenthold]

No, it is a problem of people thinking someone else should feed and clothe them, and choosing to do that. It is not so much the fact that they are not allowed to be married it is the fact that they are on WELFARE.

They are allowed on welfare because they are, according to the state, unwed mothers.

If the state would recognize them as being married, they wouldn't be eligible for welfare. However, because polygamy is prohibited, they must be classified as unwed mothers, and consequently get all the welfare benefits that unwed mothers get.

 

[Ed]

They are allowed on welfare because they are, according to the state, unwed mothers.

If the state would recognize them as being married, they wouldn't be eligible for welfare. However, because polygamy is prohibited, they must be classified as unwed mothers, and consequently get all the welfare benefits that unwed mothers get.

No. It is financial status, no marriage.

 

[Badger]

Polygamy is having at least one spouse too many. Sometimes the same is true of monogamy. (to paraphrase someone....I forget who)

I'm on the "Keep the government out of the bedroom" bandwagon. No listing of numerous spouses as single parents. They're married. No being forced to testify against one's spouse. Treat 'em all the same. Split the assets amongst surviving spouses upon death, etc. I don't see a huge problem at all.

WRT the lifestyle of such a large family, that's the choice that the consenting adults make, and the consequences of making such a choice.

 

[BeProf]

Polygamy is having at least one spouse too many. Sometimes the same is true of monogamy. (to paraphrase someone....I forget who)

I'm on the "Keep the government out of the bedroom" bandwagon. No listing of numerous spouses as single parents. They're married. No being forced to testify against one's spouse. Treat 'em all the same. Split the assets amongst surviving spouses upon death, etc. I don't see a huge problem at all.

WRT the lifestyle of such a large family, that's the choice that the consenting adults make, and the consequences of making such a choice.

I'm not going to touch the moral/ethical issues, but from a purely "unintended consequences" angle:

What's to stop a Mob Boss from "marrying" his underlings, thereby preventing the government from forcing them to testify against him?

What's to stop a person from marrying everyone in his whole town, thereby forcing his employer to provide benefits to everyone?

 

[Ed]

I'm on the "Keep the government out of the bedroom" bandwagon. No listing of numerous spouses as single parents. They're married. No being forced to testify against one's spouse. Treat 'em all the same. Split the assets amongst surviving spouses upon death, etc. I don't see a huge problem at all.

WRT the lifestyle of such a large family, that's the choice that the consenting adults make, and the consequences of making such a choice.

and there is the government.

 

[epepke]

It would be interesting to see what would happen if this came to court.

By my esitmation of the Charter of Rights, the Government would have to provide some justification for preventing polygamy.

This is more-or-less what happened in the case of same-sex marriage.

 

[pgwenthold]

No. It is financial status, no marriage.

Huh? Marriage status is ultimately important. Otherwise, my mother could have just applied for welfare, on the grounds that she had six children and no job.

However, she was married, and therefore her need was based on their joint income, and not just hers.

Similarly, in a polygamous marriage, they would look at the income of the husband and judge welfare eligibility on the basis of the combined income.

Of course, there would need to be special law defining dependent eligibility in polygamous marriage in order to prevent a husband from claiming financial hardship because he has 14 wives, but that can be addressed if polygamy is legal. However, if it is just called illegal, it can't be regulated at all.