Okay, folks, it's finally going to trial

[voluptuary_manque]

I've been expecting this for a couple of years. Does freedom of religion include freedom to have multiple wives. Of course, by extension if it does then by extension it allows some other religion to claim the right to multiple husbands and another to allow group marriage. Canada may just find itself the hotbed of polyamory!


However, I expect the court to affirm the prohibition. I just want to see what justification they use.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I have to admit they have a certain point there, as long as only fully consenting adults are involved.

I don't like the idea, because it means the millionaires and rock stars will have twenty wives each, which would mean 19 men would be shut out.

 

[amicus]

That is one reason why Gay Marriage and the effort to redefine 'marriage' as other than between a man and a woman, may open a Pandora's Box of infinite combinations and permutations.

Murphy's Law: If it can happen, it will...

ami

 

[oggbashan]

I think that the UK's position on polygamous marriage is reasonable.

If the polygamous marriage is legal by the laws of the country in which the marriage took place, and those married were resident in that country at the time, then the marriage is regarded as legal when the people enter the UK. Visiting tourists, business people, diplomats - all can have and bring several wives if that is legal in their own country.

If the family then gets permanent residence in the UK, although all are still legally "married", only one wife, the first, is regarded as the "wife" in UK law although the others might be recognised as dependants of the husband.

Once resident in the UK, no further marriages can take place because the family is covered by UK law. Even if they visit another country where polygamous marriages are legal, and another woman marries the husband, that marriage is not recognised at all because the husband is a UK resident.

The law on marriages for people who move from one country to become permanent residents in another can be complex.

For example, a UK policeman emigrated to the US with his wife and children. He was employed as a police officer in the US but only after he had obtained a pardon - because he had married his wife when he was 18 and she was 16 and their first child had been born before her 17th birthday. That was illegal by the laws of the US state in which he was to be employed even though the marriage and birth were legal in England.

In France, if a British couple, one or both of whom are divorced, reside permanently and buy property, the children of the first marriage(s) can have a right to a share in the proceeds of that property on death of their parent despite any legal agreement made in the UK at the time of the divorce and any will the parent might have made.

If a Canadian polygamous family was to move permanently to the UK they would need legal advice because the UK might not recognise that the polygamous marriage is legal in Canada.

Og

 

[soflabbwlvr]

That is one reason why Gay Marriage and the effort to redefine 'marriage' as other than between a man and a woman, may open a Pandora's Box of infinite combinations and permutations.

Murphy's Law: If it can happen, it will...

ami

Ahh...the cats and dogs and horses and sheep argument. Another failed atttempt at argumentum ad absurdum. In this case, the argument for polyamory marriages is grounded in the first amendment freedom of religion. (Or the Canadian equivalent thereof). The right to marriage argument is based on the equal protection clause. Can you see how one has nothing to do with the other? Your Pandora's box of ridiculous permutations remains closed.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

I've been expecting this for a couple of years. Does freedom of religion include freedom to have multiple wives. Of course, by extension if it does then by extension it allows some other religion to claim the right to multiple husbands and another to allow group marriage. Canada may just find itself the hotbed of polyamory!


However, I expect the court to affirm the prohibition. I just want to see what justification they use.

Don't be too sure, bear. The government has been avoiding the issue for years, expecting the court will rule in favour of freedom of choice. The only concern is likely to be about consent.

There is an interesting up side to it. Under present law, the secondary wives are "single mothers" and eligible for social benefits; if the marriages are legal, then they're not entitled to those benefits.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Don't be too sure, bear. The government has been avoiding the issue for years, expecting the court will rule in favour of freedom of choice. The only concern is likely to be about consent.

There is an interesting up side to it. Under present law, the secondary wives are "single mothers" and eligible for social benefits; if the marriages are legal, then they're not entitled to those benefits.

Yeah, for the fundamentalist Mormons the 'consent' issue is the very bugger. A lot of those women are 'married' when they're underage, even by Canadian standards. That might throw the entire case into chaos. As I said, I want to see the justification, whichever way the court rules. Because some day . . .

 

[Tio_Narratore]

Yeah, for the fundamentalist Mormons the 'consent' issue is the very bugger. A lot of those women are 'married' when they're underage, even by Canadian standards. That might throw the entire case into chaos. As I said, I want to see the justification, whichever way the court rules. Because some day . . .

It's a referral case, rather than a trial; no one has been charged. The Gov't tried to charge them, but it was thrown out because a new prosecutor was hired just to give the gov't the opinion it wanted in order to charge the people at Bountiful.

So it isn't specifically about Mormonism, but about the legal defionition of marriage. It is still within the gov't's purview to make laws regulating the age, nature, and demonstration of consent. It may be time to eliminate the "with parental consent" clause for underage marriage.

 

[3113]

So it isn't specifically about Mormonism, but about the legal defionition of marriage. It is still within the gov't's purview to make laws regulating the age, nature, and demonstration of consent. It may be time to eliminate the "with parental consent" clause for underage marriage.

I think that's a very good point.

My opinion is that multiple marriages should be legal, IF all involved are of age and consent. But I'd throw in a few more caveats--like how the tax laws work (for example, you can't get more tax exemptions for more wives/husbands) and that any involved in such a marriage must, by law, work out divorce settlements and child custody before being allowed to marry. I would, in short, force anyone wanting to take a second wife or husband to create a prenup. Any time one added in another wife/husband, the prenup would have to be done up again with all spouses involved.

I'm all for consenting adults being allowed to have any kind of group marriage they want, but I'm not going to let them get away with being sloppy or irresponsible about it. You want it? You work for it. No marrying that second husband on a whim, and no help from the government because you want more wives and kids. And I'd bring in Islamic advise on this one (but I'd make it law), that there's no taking on a second wife if you can't treat her (or afford to treat her) equal to the first. I'd let wives (and husbands) go to court and to argue about unequal treatment and get their fair share.

I think these people think they're going to get their way and have it easy. I think they should get their way--and be made aware that they're going to have to do it right or not at all. Their religion doesn't exempt them from being responsible for their actions.

 

[oggbashan]

... And I'd bring in Islamic advise on this one (but I'd make it law), that there's no taking on a second wife if you can't treat her (or afford to treat her) equal to the first. I'd let wives (and husbands) go to court and to argue about unequal treatment and get their fair share.

...

Most Islamic law suggests that you cannot have more than one wife unless you can afford to support them equally and there is a maximum of four.

In the 19th Century a rich or powerful husband could evade the minimum by having four official wives and any number of concubines.

In my day as King Og, Kings were exempt from such petty restrictions. I lost count of the number of my wives and the concubines ran into hundreds.

They were expensive and think of the trouble that I could have experienced with dozens of mothers-in-law (and some of them were Jewish mothers-in-law all wanting to make chicken soup).

I had a solution - awkward mothers-in-law could be exiled or just slaughtered for disrespect to the King.

Og

 

[Stella_Omega]

I always get a kick out of the whining about how "rich men" will get all the wives.
You guys are forgetting the earning power, such as it is, of women. How many conventional marriages do you know of, where the man supports his wife, and she never needs to work?

The one polygamous "marriage" that I know of-- one rather charismatic message courier who rollerblades all over Manhattan for a living, and six baby-mommas-- guess who takes care of whom?

The woman I know in that 'family' says that the friendship and support of five other women is the best thing about the situation.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I always get a kick out of the whining about how "rich men" will get all the wives.
You guys are forgetting the earning power, such as it is, of women.

The one polygamous "marriage" that I know of-- one rather charismatic message courier who rollerblades all over Manhattan for a living, and six baby-mommas-- guess who takes care of whom?

The woman I know in that 'family' says that the friendship and support of five other women is the best thing about the situation.

The very concept that in this day and age one spouse would take care of and support the others is utter nonsense. Damned few people want to be 'house spouses' any more simply because being out in the workplace is mentally more stimulating. On the other hand, consider the following. If one member of the pod wants to stay home and do the Martha Stewart thing and the others (however many of each sex there were) were working, think of the economic powerhouse you would create.

 

[3113]

I don't like the idea, because it means the millionaires and rock stars will have twenty wives each, which would mean 19 men would be shut out.

Dude! They already have that. They just don't call 'em wives. In fact, they get to have their cake and eat it, too. They get twenty "wives" without needing to legally support them--which they'd have to do if said women were "wives" not girlfriends, mistresses, groupies.

Rock Stars and Millionaires will always be able to get and have as many babes as they want, hogging them for themselves and leaving your normal schlubs without

 

[Boxlicker101]

I think that's a very good point.

My opinion is that multiple marriages should be legal, IF all involved are of age and consent. But I'd throw in a few more caveats--like how the tax laws work (for example, you can't get more tax exemptions for more wives/husbands) and that any involved in such a marriage must, by law, work out divorce settlements and child custody before being allowed to marry. I would, in short, force anyone wanting to take a second wife or husband to create a prenup. Any time one added in another wife/husband, the prenup would have to be done up again with all spouses involved.

I'm all for consenting adults being allowed to have any kind of group marriage they want, but I'm not going to let them get away with being sloppy or irresponsible about it. You want it? You work for it. No marrying that second husband on a whim, and no help from the government because you want more wives and kids. And I'd bring in Islamic advise on this one (but I'd make it law), that there's no taking on a second wife if you can't treat her (or afford to treat her) equal to the first. I'd let wives (and husbands) go to court and to argue about unequal treatment and get their fair share.

I think these people think they're going to get their way and have it easy. I think they should get their way--and be made aware that they're going to have to do it right or not at all. Their religion doesn't exempt them from being responsible for their actions.

For simplicity, I'll just say wives, but that can be taken to mean husbands or wives.

So far as exemptions go, a married couple (one husband and one wife) can file joint tax returns and can declare, as dependents, anybody living with them who has little or no income, as long as such habitation does not break any laws. If a man has a polygamous marriage, he can declare all his wives as dependents.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Dude! They already have that. They just don't call 'em wives. In fact, they get to have their cake and eat it, too. They get twenty "wives" without needing to legally support them--which they'd have to do if said women were "wives" not girlfriends, mistresses, groupies.

Rock Stars and Millionaires will always be able to get and have as many babes as they want, hogging them for themselves and leaving your normal schlubs without

The kind of woman who only associates with rock stars and cyberlords isn't anyone I'd want in my bed, anyway. Give me a sensible 'female person' with hearty appetites and wit over some over-dolled Barbie any day.



And don't even get me started on political groupies!

 

[3113]

For simplicity, I'll just say wives, but that can be taken to mean husbands or wives.

So far as exemptions go, a married couple (one husband and one wife) can file joint tax returns and can declare, as dependents, anybody living with them who has little or no income, as long as such habitation does not break any laws. If a man has a polygamous marriage, he can declare all his wives as dependents.

Are you sure ANYONE living with them can be declared a dependent? If so, then a man can currently declare all is wives dependents whether or not the U.S. recognizes his relationship with them as a legal marriage.

I think if he can legally marry them, then it should be one big, joint tax return for all husband/wives, and none can be declared dependents (unless a wife/husband can NOW be declared a dependent of husband/wife?).

 

[Safe_Bet]

Ahh...the cats and dogs and horses and sheep argument. Another failed atttempt at argumentum ad absurdum. In this case, the argument for polyamory marriages is grounded in the first amendment freedom of religion. (Or the Canadian equivalent thereof). The right to marriage argument is based on the equal protection clause. Can you see how one has nothing to do with the other? Your Pandora's box of ridiculous permutations remains closed.

Yeah, Amicus is worried about his cats and dogs getting married because his dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

His cat, on the other hand, is prohibited from doing so because it is in love with another cat and that's an abomination according to the conservatives asshats!

In reality, the only Pandora's Box is between his ears!





Now back to to the sane...


Who says that every plural family in Canada would be mixed gender??? I coupld easily see several women joining together within a marriage. The financial dynamics would be greatly enhanced and, as Stella O said, the nurturing and love generated by multiple, jointly married women would be amazing.

(The sex would be pretty damn good too! )

 

[Boxlicker101]

I always get a kick out of the whining about how "rich men" will get all the wives.
You guys are forgetting the earning power, such as it is, of women. How many conventional marriages do you know of, where the man supports his wife, and she never needs to work?

The one polygamous "marriage" that I know of-- one rather charismatic message courier who rollerblades all over Manhattan for a living, and six baby-mommas-- guess who takes care of whom?

The woman I know in that 'family' says that the friendship and support of five other women is the best thing about the situation.

As for who takes care of them financially, I would say the state of New York and/or local governments hand over money for most of the support of the baby mammas and their babies. If so, and they are not physically or mentally handicapped, they should be ashamed of themselves for being bums and leeches. If the group is actually self-supporting, I say more power to them.

I am aware of the earning power of women. I have had three wives, each of whom worked, but there are women who prefer to sit around and be financially supported by a man or by the government. If the man is cool with the arrangement, it is nobody's business but their own, but if she or they are supported by the taxpayer, it becomes everybody's business.

 

[Safe_Bet]

As for who takes care of them financially, I would say the state of New York and/or local governments hand over money for most of the support of the baby mammas and their babies. If so, and they are not physically or mentally handicapped, they should be ashamed of themselves for being bums and leeches. If the group is actually self-supporting, I say more power to them.

I am aware of the earning power of women. I have had three wives, each of whom worked, but there are women who prefer to sit around and be financially supported by a man or by the government. If the man is cool with the arrangement, it is nobody's business but their own, but if she or they are supported by the taxpayer, it becomes everybody's business.

Nice stereotyping.

How about all the men who never pay a cent of their child support or alimony? I guess that makes ALL men deadbeats, right?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
As for who takes care of them financially, I would say the state of New York and/or local governments hand over money for most of the support of the baby mammas and their babies. If so, and they are not physically or mentally handicapped, they should be ashamed of themselves for being bums and leeches. If the group is actually self-supporting, I say more power to them.

I am aware of the earning power of women. I have had three wives, each of whom worked, but there are women who prefer to sit around and be financially supported by a man or by the government. If the man is cool with the arrangement, it is nobody's business but their own, but if she or they are supported by the taxpayer, it becomes everybody's business.

Nice stereotyping.

How about all the men who never pay a cent of their child support or alimony? I guess that makes ALL men deadbeats, right?

What stereotyping? We are all aware there are people, mostly women and of all races, who live off government handouts and whose children live off government handouts. This is a major bone of contention between Liberals and Conservatives, and I am strongly with the Cons on this issue.

Men who can pay child support for their own children and refuse to do so are deadbeats. I am ambivalent regarding alimony. Men who do support their children are not deadbeats, at least in that regard.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Why does every thread here degenerate into politics? I started this as an examination of the legal question and its ramifications. Please stick with the matter at hand, folks, it will make the discussion so much more civil and pleasant. Thanks.

 

[Stella_Omega]

As for who takes care of them financially, I would say the state of New York and/or local governments hand over money for most of the support of the baby mammas and their babies. If so, and they are not physically or mentally handicapped, they should be ashamed of themselves for being bums and leeches. If the group is actually self-supporting, I say more power to them.

Wow, assume much? Don't answer that, of course you do.
of the women that I met;

One woman is a bakery chef.

One woman works the cash register at a chain pharmacy.

One woman is in tech school and sharing space with the pastry chef.

My friend is a registered nurse.

all in all, the women support themselves, and the guy helps out or is supported by them at times.

I am aware of the earning power of women. I have had three wives, each of whom worked, but there are women who prefer to sit around and be financially supported by a man or by the government. eek: If the man is cool with the arrangement, it is nobody's business but their own, but if she or they are supported by the taxpayer, it becomes everybody's business.

That is utterly beside the point, and has nothing but nothing to do with this conversation.

 

[3113]

Quote:
What stereotyping?

Box, darling, if you mention ONLY WOMEN as relying on the government, that's stereotyping for a couple of reasons.

First, you don't back up your assertion that "mostly women" are on welfare. Really? Statistics? Second, even if there is a large percentage of women on welfare at any given time, how many of them have no interest in working or supporting themselves and their children? They're hardly lazy bums if they must go on welfare for a while (as a desperate measure to feed their children), hate it, and are doing all they can to get a job and be back to paying taxes as soon as they can.

Second, women were the only ones you mentioned as being on welfare in your first post. That makes it seem that no men do any such thing. You assume that people reading your posts will fill in the blanks for you, add in that unspoken "and men." They won't. They'll take what you say--or do not say--as being you. And so far, the YOU that you are displaying is sounding very sexist.

It's sexist in that it didn't originally mention men at all, and sexist in that it offered up an assertion unsupported by facts--one that said that most women on welfare were bums. Meaning most women are leeches...and men are not. That is how your posts read, Box.

If you fill in the blanks yourself for us, like saying upfront that women AND men who don't work for a living when they can are bums, for example, then you might not come across that way.

 

[3113]

Yeah, Amicus is worried about his cats and dogs getting married because his dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

My cat (well, a good image of her type): http://www.pictures-of-cats.org/images/white-cat-turkish-angora.jpg

Her signature:

http://rockandglitter.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/paw-print.jpg

Obviously, she'll be the bride as she's already wearing white

 

[Safe_Bet]

My cat (well, a good image of her type): http://www.pictures-of-cats.org/images/white-cat-turkish-angora.jpg

Her signature:

http://rockandglitter.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/paw-print.jpg

Obviously, she'll be the bride as she's already wearing white

Nope sorry. Pussy marrying pussy is illegal in most states. trust me on this one!

Now if you cat were to move to Iowa...