Polygamy, is it time to toss this one around?

[stephen55]

In the province of British Columbia the Crown is gearing up to put polygamy on trial.

http://www.canada.com/life/polygamy+trial+draws+list+interveners/2491191/story.html

In southeastern BC in the community of Bountiful (go figure) there are two factions of the breakaway Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is led by Warren Jeffs, (currently doing time in I believe, Utah).

The factions are lead by Winston Blackmore and James Oler, who were both charged with practicing polygamy under Canada's Criminal Code. Due to alleged interference by BC's Attorney General, Blackmore and Oler's lawyers were successful in having the charges thrown out. An earlier BC attorney General had sought an opinion as to whether the conviction of a person charged with bigamy would survive a Supreme Court challenge under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects freedom of religion. The opinion was that the survival of the conviction was unlikely. The Crown proceeded anyway via a special prosecutor, thus leading to the successful defense of Crown interference. In Canada, even polygamists get due process.

So, the Crown is going ahead with a trial, as yet set, by directing BC's Supreme Court to clarify the anti-polygamy law and rule on whether it violates the Charter.

Various groups, including Blackmore and Oler, have sought intervener status in the case. The Holocaust denying free speech types, polyamorists, women's groups, child advocacy groups, the BC Teachers federation and others are all lining up to have their say.

Of note, Blackmore is suing the BC Government claiming he was unlawfully prosecuted.

http://www.canada.com/life/Winston+Blackmore+sues+government+polygamy+prosecution/2441672/story.html



So.....what do Litsters have to say about polygamy?

 

[LaRocha]

Polygamy is awesome and the future of state recognized marriage between consenting adults. However, I hope those Fundamentalist "Mormon" child molesters go to jail for whatever they can send them to jail for.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Poly marriage should be legal, the religious issue is beside the point.

 

[stephen55]

The question is going to be all about freedom of religion...

Poly marriage should be legal, the religious issue is beside the point.

I'm reasonably sure that the Crown in this case is more concerned with young teen aged girls being Sealed in Celestial Union to middle aged men who feel it is their religious duty to keep all of their "wives' popping out babies, or at least enough of them to guarantee his place in Heaven.

What consenting adults do, is another matter. A former Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Elliot Trudeau once said words to the effect that the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. This was at the time Parliament was making divorce easier to obtain and tossing out laws against homosexual sex. However, consent always implies the ability to consent.

The religious issues here are the point. These young girls are brought up to accept that this is their role and are taught that to not accept this role is an offense against God, thus guaranteeing eternal Damnation. Let's put aside what happens to all the young men who don't get a place in that society, being denied the opportunity to marry, due to a lack of young women as yet unsealed so to speak as well as only being allowed to marry at the whim of the local elders, who seem to like keeping it all in their own families (go figure). Young girls are shipped out to be sealed, shipped in to be sealed without so much as a whimper. Such is the extent of their education. Those that do rebel and those older women who get out are excommunicated and shunned. Warren Jeffs was infamous for taking women and their children, from one man and giving then to another, based on his idea of who was toeing the party line. (Read; he used it to control his position of power.) I don't see a lot of consent here.

Blackmore and Oler feel that Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedom's guarantee of freedom of religion trumps a young girls right to not be sexually abused. Well, not exactly. These guys don't see what they're doing as being sexual abuse in the first place. To them it's freedom of religion and the Crown should stay out of Bountiful.

It promises to be a really big legal brouhaha. Does freedom of religion trump the Crown's interest in protecting women and children from abuse? Is polygamy an abuse? If not, why not? I'm looking forward to following this case. Who knows where it will go?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

There are several factions among the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Not all of them go along with the Jeffs or the other two when it comes to underage girls. What the Canadian court needs to decide is that while polygamy between adults is just fine, minors are minors. Of course, to provide equal protection under the law, polyandry has to be as legal as polygyny. Group marriage, here we come!

 

[3113]

There are several factions among the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Not all of them go along with the Jeffs or the other two when it comes to underage girls. What the Canadian court needs to decide is that while polygamy between adults is just fine, minors are minors. Of course, to provide equal protection under the law, polyandry has to be as legal as polygyny. Group marriage, here we come!

I'm in total agreement BUT, I'd postulate that there be tax laws and other laws about divorce, property ownershio and child custody in place before any such legalization takes place. Let's see how eager Jeffs and others are to have that many wives when they have equal right under the law to sue him for property, children, etc. And when he has to pay a certain amount of taxes per child to play for schooling etc.

If one man has fifty kids, that's fine, but I don't want my tax dollars paying for those kids to be schooled, housed, clothed. He pays taxes ahead of time per child.

If someone is going to enter into a group marriage I want them to do so with eyes opened, soberly and wisely. Not just "Hey, think I'll take on a few more wives and have a dozen kids that the state will take care of for me..."

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I'm in total agreement BUT, I'd postulate that there be tax laws and other laws about divorce, property ownershio and child custody in place before any such legalization takes place. Let's see how eager Jeffs and others are to have that many wives when they have equal right under the law to sue him for property, children, etc. And when he has to pay a certain amount of taxes per child to play for schooling etc.

If one man has fifty kids, that's fine, but I don't want my tax dollars paying for those kids to be schooled, housed, clothed. He pays taxes ahead of time per child.

If someone is going to enter into a group marriage I want them to do so with eyes opened, soberly and wisely. Not just "Hey, think I'll take on a few more wives and have a dozen kids that the state will take care of for me..."

One hundred per cent! Of course, a multi-adult family that ran in an intelligent manner could be an economic powerhouse. Say a four adult household with three incomes and one stay-at-home who makes sure the kids are brought up well instead of relying on day care? Sort of like a medieval monastery with benefits!

 

[R. Richard]

There are several factions among the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Not all of them go along with the Jeffs or the other two when it comes to underage girls. What the Canadian court needs to decide is that while polygamy between adults is just fine, minors are minors. Of course, to provide equal protection under the law, polyandry has to be as legal as polygyny. Group marriage, here we come!

The problem seen with current polygamy is that the adult men who control the community accumulate several wives. Among the many wives are underage girls. The boys and young men of the community are put in a situation where they mostly can't marry, because there are no girls left for them to marry. As you might imagine, the community doesn't want to spend a lot of time educating boys who will be forced out of the community, since they have no place, and girls who are to be used as breeding stock only. Worse yet, is that even the elder men of the community can't really support multiple families, so the women are mostly on welfare/aid to dependent children. Thus, the monagamous taxpayer supports Joe Polygamist and his families. Plus, the monagamous taxpayer also supports Johnny Forcedout, who is abandoned somewhere with no money and no job skills.

Polyandry would likely ease the problem somewhat, since it's probably that the queen bee would want her husbands to be able to earn a living, so that they could support her. However, the most likely source for multiple husbands would be the Johnny Forcedouts from the polygyny communities. The Johnny Forcedouts would then have to be trained, at monagamous taxpayer expense to get job skills. Then, JF would start to wonder why he gets one fuck a week from the QB, when he could maybe raid a polygyny community and get some exclusive hot young pussy, instead of the older QB.

The entire thing was tried in the San Francisco area of the 1960s. Communes were set up in the land to the East of SF and the flower children settled in to smoke dope and strut through the fields once a week or so to harvest the bounty of the land. When flower boy found out that dirt farming was a 12/14 hour a day job in the spring and fall, the FBs jumped in their psychadelic vans and split for somewhere where they could could get less pussy for less work. The flower girls gathered up their babies and returned to SF, so that they could get welfare/aid to dependent children on the old farts who weren't hip enough to fuck and run.

Multiple marriage is an interesting idea, but it doesn't work on a practical level.

 

[3113]

The Johnny Forcedouts would then have to be trained, at monagamous taxpayer expense to get job skills.

But if he is trained at least he's in a job, making money, and being taxed. So he gives back.

The entire thing was tried in the San Francisco area of the 1960s. Communes were set up in the land to the East of SF and the flower children settled in to smoke dope and strut through the fields once a week or so to harvest the bounty of the land. When flower boy found out that dirt farming was a 12/14 hour a day job in the spring and fall, the FBs jumped in their psychadelic vans and split for somewhere where they could could get less pussy for less work. The flower girls gathered up their babies and returned to SF, so that they could get welfare/aid to dependent children on the old farts who weren't hip enough to fuck and run.

Hm. Where did you hear these stories? As I know many parents who were commune hippies and it didn't turn out that way at all for them. I know some who made the commune work and live on it still. I also know many where the commune didn't work and they just went back to earning a living, being tax payers and raising the usual family (maybe you've heard of them? They were called Yuppies and amazingly successful at the capitalism game). And some went off to live with one partner and kids while retaining their communal values in a self-sustaining alternative lifestyle.

I don't know if any of the single mothers went on welfare for a while or not, but all those I know are hard working women with grown children that they raised on their own or with new husbands (or partners), and none, that I know of, have ever asked for anything from anyone. They're incredibly independent and make their own way in the world and provide for their own children. I rather think they'd be insulted by your assumptions of them. Just because they tried communal life and left it with a child doesn't mean that they were lazy fucks who never wanted to work or raise their kids. They may have been surprised at what they had to do, ultimately, as they were young and idealistic, but none of the women I know shirked their responsibility.

So, your portrayal of communal life among the hippies sounds, well, a little bias and a lot wrong to me. But maybe I don't have the statistics and facts you do, as I'll admit these are just folks I know personally. Where did these fact come from and who did the research?

 

[bflagsst]

The problem seen with current polygamy is that the adult men who control the community accumulate several wives. Among the many wives are underage girls. The boys and young men of the community are put in a situation where they mostly can't marry, because there are no girls left for them to marry. As you might imagine, the community doesn't want to spend a lot of time educating boys who will be forced out of the community, since they have no place, and girls who are to be used as breeding stock only. Worse yet, is that even the elder men of the community can't really support multiple families, so the women are mostly on welfare/aid to dependent children. Thus, the monagamous taxpayer supports Joe Polygamist and his families. Plus, the monagamous taxpayer also supports Johnny Forcedout, who is abandoned somewhere with no money and no job skills.

Polyandry would likely ease the problem somewhat, since it's probably that the queen bee would want her husbands to be able to earn a living, so that they could support her. However, the most likely source for multiple husbands would be the Johnny Forcedouts from the polygyny communities. The Johnny Forcedouts would then have to be trained, at monagamous taxpayer expense to get job skills. Then, JF would start to wonder why he gets one fuck a week from the QB, when he could maybe raid a polygyny community and get some exclusive hot young pussy, instead of the older QB.

The entire thing was tried in the San Francisco area of the 1960s. Communes were set up in the land to the East of SF and the flower children settled in to smoke dope and strut through the fields once a week or so to harvest the bounty of the land. When flower boy found out that dirt farming was a 12/14 hour a day job in the spring and fall, the FBs jumped in their psychadelic vans and split for somewhere where they could could get less pussy for less work. The flower girls gathered up their babies and returned to SF, so that they could get welfare/aid to dependent children on the old farts who weren't hip enough to fuck and run.

Multiple marriage is an interesting idea, but it doesn't work on a practical level.

Multiple marriage works best outside of poly communes and poly societies, as a unique, non-religious event in a town or city. The problem with communes definitely isn't marriage between three people, it's the lack of individuality and personal space that comes along with communal living.

On a practical level, if you're a man or woman seeking two spouses of the opposite sex, most likely they're going to be pushovers with very low self-esteem. A usual case of mff is where one man is married and has a kid then he cheats on his wife and gets another woman pregnant, she moves in and the wife eventually accepts her presence and even friendship. Maybe that's what some people dream of, but I'd rather have a handful of a female instead of two I can just tell what to do because I made them both pregnant or something.

 

[bflagsst]

But if he is trained at least he's in a job, making money, and being taxed. So he gives back.


Hm. Where did you hear these stories? As I know many parents who were commune hippies and it didn't turn out that way at all for them. I know some who made the commune work and live on it still. I also know many where the commune didn't work and they just went back to earning a living, being tax payers and raising the usual family (maybe you've heard of them? They were called Yuppies and amazingly successful at the capitalism game). And some went off to live with one partner and kids while retaining their communal values in a self-sustaining alternative lifestyle.

I don't know if any of the single mothers went on welfare for a while or not, but all those I know are hard working women with grown children that they raised on their own or with new husbands (or partners), and none, that I know of, have ever asked for anything from anyone. They're incredibly independent and make their own way in the world and provide for their own children. I rather think they'd be insulted by your assumptions of them. Just because they tried communal life and left it with a child doesn't mean that they were lazy fucks who never wanted to work or raise their kids. They may have been surprised at what they had to do, ultimately, as they were young and idealistic, but none of the women I know shirked their responsibility.

So, your portrayal of communal life among the hippies sounds, well, a little bias and a lot wrong to me. But maybe I don't have the statistics and facts you do, as I'll admit these are just folks I know personally. Where did these fact come from and who did the research?

I know that the Jeffs plan from Rulon on had been to get the teen mothers on welfare to help fund the community.

Generally speaking, communes don't exist anymore, there are new planned or intentional communities that resemble the old style of commune, but they're made up of professionals. My buddy is part of a planned community, he collectively owns multiple houses in a neighborhood and a store. They eat together, live in the same houses, take turns running the store, but it's nothing like the old commune. They're all professionals and go about making their real incomes, most are single and have their own room. It's actually a little monastic. The cooperative and the gated community are really the ideas of 60's communal living that have stuck.

Curl, John (2009) For All The People: Uncovering the Hidden History of Cooperation, Cooperative Movements, and Communalism in America, PM Press. ISBN 978-1-60486-072-6.

 

[stephen55]

She's got a ticket to ride.............

If one man has fifty kids, that's fine, but I don't want my tax dollars paying for those kids to be schooled, housed, clothed. He pays taxes ahead of time per child.

In Canada single parents are eligible for various government benefits. Because the polygamists in Bountiful have only one legal wife, the rest are considered single moms and they can collect welfare checks based on the number of children they have. So, despite my concerns about why they are in the situation they are in, I also object to my taxes going to feed, clothe, shelter and school all of those Celestial Tickets to Heaven.

 

[3113]

In Canada single parents are eligible for various government benefits. Because the polygamists in Bountiful have only one legal wife, the rest are considered single moms and they can collect welfare checks based on the number of children they have. So, despite my concerns about why they are in the situation they are in, I also object to my taxes going to feed, clothe, shelter and school all of those Celestial Tickets to Heaven.

Well, in that regard, it sounds like making polygamy legal would be a good thing. Then all those women would be legal wives and not eligible for welfare checks. If dad and mom wants them, they're gonna have to pay for them. It might make them reconsider their lifestyle. Understand, I'm not objecting to welfare itself. People find themselves in trouble. And my view of welfare is to help them through those times. They get back on their feet and now they get taxed and their money goes to help someone else.

That's the ideal. It doesn't work out always. And in instances where mom doesn't get back on her feet, I--honestly--would rather the kid was taken care of instead of starving on the street and turning to crime and being a burden on society that way (I'd rather pay for him as a kid, then pay for him behind bars in jail). But, if that's the case, if welfare is raising the kid, then it's my dime and I get to say how the kid gets raised. Not the religious fanatics who are raising the kid just to marry her off to a husband (or kick him out to be a criminal) and have more welfare kids.

One way or another, the kid should be able to become an adult who can do their part to pay society back for the help society gave them. But then, I'm not real sympathetic or flexible when it comes to religious fanaticism that insists that kids can be raised anyway the fanatic wishes.

 

[stephen55]

Only the beginning.....

The upcoming trial in British Columbia is supposed to focus on the legal issue as to whether polygamy is protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as an expression of freedom of religion. This has never been tested in a Canadian court. That said, various interests are applying for intervener status in order to have their two bits worth added to the discussion.

The situation in Bountiful BC and in the USA is that polygamy is for the most part, a practice of one breakaway faction of the Mormon church. Yes, I know that there are tens of thousands of various types of polyamorous relationships outside this faction, involving consenting adults. And yes, I believe that what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business alone.

The Crown in BC has expressed concern about young girls being "married" off to older men as only one of many of that man's "wives". The Crown's issue is one of protecting the rights of these young girls and also of their children.

That said, the legal battle lines are being drawn. Polyarmorists (women and men) are going to present their case for the freedom of consenting adults to have several spouses. Blackmore and Oler might try to do the same, but I suspect that they will simply go with freedom of religion. Children's and women's advocacy groups are going to argue that, as it stands, the "wives" and their children of polygamist males do not have equal rights. So, how does the law balance various interests?

If something does change in Canada's laws as a result of this trial, there are going to be those who are happier and those who are not. But then laws are put on the books, challenged, modified, reinterpreted and the law (societies rules about how we conduct ourselves) evolves.

I think that this one trial is only the beginning.

 

[R. Richard]

But if he is trained at least he's in a job, making money, and being taxed. So he gives back.

The kid who neds to be trained, at taxpayer expense, has already, at least in theory, been trained in a taxpayer supported public school. However, the kind of training given usully leads to minimum wage jobs and little or no taxes being paid.

Hm. Where did you hear these stories? As I know many parents who were commune hippies and it didn't turn out that way at all for them. I know some who made the commune work and live on it still. I also know many where the commune didn't work and they just went back to earning a living, being tax payers and raising the usual family (maybe you've heard of them? They were called Yuppies and amazingly successful at the capitalism game). And some went off to live with one partner and kids while retaining their communal values in a self-sustaining alternative lifestyle.

I don't know if any of the single mothers went on welfare for a while or not, but all those I know are hard working women with grown children that they raised on their own or with new husbands (or partners), and none, that I know of, have ever asked for anything from anyone. They're incredibly independent and make their own way in the world and provide for their own children. I rather think they'd be insulted by your assumptions of them. Just because they tried communal life and left it with a child doesn't mean that they were lazy fucks who never wanted to work or raise their kids. They may have been surprised at what they had to do, ultimately, as they were young and idealistic, but none of the women I know shirked their responsibility.

So, your portrayal of communal life among the hippies sounds, well, a little bias and a lot wrong to me. But maybe I don't have the statistics and facts you do, as I'll admit these are just folks I know personally. Where did these fact come from and who did the research?

From Wiki:
Summer of Love (1967)

Homemade tie-dyed T-shirts added a psychedelic flavor to hippie dress. \On January 14, 1967, the outdoor Human Be-In organized by Michael Bowen helped to popularize hippie culture across the United States, with 20,000 hippies gathering in San Francisco's Golden Gate Park. On March 26, Lou Reed, Edie Sedgwick and 10,000 hippies came together in Manhattan for the Central Park Be-In on Easter Sunday. The Monterey Pop Festival from June 16 to June 18 introduced the rock music of the counterculture to a wide audience and marked the start of the "Summer of Love." Scott McKenzie's rendition of John Phillips' song, "San Francisco", became a hit in the United States and Europe. The lyrics, "If you're going to San Francisco, be sure to wear some flowers in your hair", inspired thousands of young people from all over the world to travel to San Francisco, sometimes wearing flowers in their hair and distributing flowers to passersby, earning them the name, "Flower Children." Bands like the Grateful Dead, Big Brother and the Holding Company (with Janis Joplin), and Jefferson Airplane lived in the Haight.

In June 1967, Herb Caen was approached by "a distinguished magazine" to write about why hippies were attracted to San Francisco. He declined the assignment but interviewed hippies in the Haight for his own newspaper column in the San Francisco Chronicle. Caen determined that, "Except in their music, they couldn't care less about the approval of the straight world." Caen himself felt that the city of San Francisco was so straight that it provided a visible contrast with hippie culture. On July 7, Time magazine featured a cover story entitled, "The Hippies: The Philosophy of a Subculture." The article described the guidelines of the hippie code: "Do your own thing, wherever you have to do it and whenever you want. Drop out. Leave society as you have known it. Leave it utterly. Blow the mind of every straight person you can reach. Turn them on, if not to drugs, then to beauty, love, honesty, fun." It is estimated that around 100,000 people traveled to San Francisco in the summer of 1967. The media was right behind them, casting a spotlight on the Haight-Ashbury district and popularizing the "hippie" label. With this increased attention, hippies found support for their ideals of love and peace but were also criticized for their anti-work, pro-drug, and permissive ethos.

By the end of the summer, the Haight-Ashbury scene had deteriorated. The incessant media coverage led the Diggers to declare the "death" of the hippie with a parade. According to the late poet Susan 'Stormi' Chambless, the hippies buried an effigy of a hippie in the Panhandle to demonstrate the end of his/her reign. Haight-Ashbury could not accommodate the influx of crowds (mostly naive youngsters) with no place to live. Many took to living on the street, panhandling and drug-dealing. There were problems with malnourishment, disease, and drug addiction. Crime and violence skyrocketed. By the end of 1967, many of the hippies and musicians who initiated the Summer of Love had moved on. Misgivings about the hippie culture, particularly with regard to drug abuse and lenient morality, fueled the moral panics of the late 1960s

Of course the ones that you know are independent, hard working and making their way in the world. That''s why you know them. The other side of the coin is the destroyed person who collapsed when the communes collapsed and/or the 'fairweather friend' who exited stage left when he found out that he had to work to support the girls he was fucking.

If you want to learn about communes, read the histories of he Oneida and Amana communes. Each of the communes had a philosophical basis and each finally collapsed. The histories tend to treat the communes rather kindly. However, the desire for independence finally destroyed each of the communes.