grimmwire: (Burn08 kaboom)
[personal profile] grimmwire
Well, crap:

Canada's polygamy laws upheld by B.C.'s top court.

Not unexpected crap -- this is BC, after all -- but still outrageous crap.

No time at the moment to fully express my outrage or deconstruct this particular pile of crap. For now: I'm just frickin' outraged.

Date: 2011-11-23 06:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] zenten.livejournal.com
Fuck.

I guess we'll see what happens after this goes Federal?

Date: 2011-11-23 07:05 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] grimmwire.livejournal.com
Yep.

It's particularly galling that *my* rights and freedoms are being represented in this case by a gaggle of patriarchal fundamentalist loons. But of course rights and freedoms apply to all of us or to none of us.

Date: 2011-11-23 07:07 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] zenten.livejournal.com
Well, polyamory groups were in there as well. It just looks like the judge ignored them.

Date: 2011-11-23 07:21 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] grimmwire.livejournal.com
Indeed, I now several poly activists who sent briefs or even flew out to testify, and I'm grateful to them for it. But of course since the case itself is brought by a polygamist group, the court is mainly focussed on their arguments, not ours :p

Date: 2011-11-23 07:22 pm (UTC)
sovay: (Psholtii: in a bad mood)
From: [personal profile] sovay
It's particularly galling that *my* rights and freedoms are being represented in this case by a gaggle of patriarchal fundamentalist loons.

That really burns.

Keep on being awesome . . .

Date: 2011-11-24 02:58 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] photogeek-mtl.livejournal.com
It's actually not as bad as it sounds on the surface... One of the factors in the decision is that the judge indicated that the law should be interpreted to cover 'formalized' marriages --- not to people who are just living together.

There may be a subset of poly people who really want to have a formally recognized marriage, but this means that for most people it's not a big deal, and frankly, even if you do feel the need for some kind of formalization --- as long as you are relatively careful, it'll be very hard for them to *prove* you have a formalized marriage...

Date: 2011-11-24 03:07 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] photogeek-mtl.livejournal.com
to be somewhat more specific --- to quote from the reference:

[1036] From all of this, I conclude that properly interpreted, s. 293(1)(a) prohibits practicing or entering into a “marriage” with more than one person at the same time, whether sanctioned by civil, religious or other means, and whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage.

[1037] The offence is not directed at multi-party, unmarried relationships or common law cohabitation, but is directed at both polygyny and polyandry. It is also directed at multi-party same sex marriages.

Date: 2011-11-24 03:25 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] grimmwire.livejournal.com
Ah, interesting! Thanks for this.

Date: 2011-11-25 09:41 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] zenten.livejournal.com
A lot of people who live in multi-party cohabitative relationships that I know have had some sort of ceremony. Heck, I know a number of people who have *performed* them.

Date: 2011-11-26 04:09 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] grimmwire.livejournal.com
The operative word is "sanctioned". See the comment to more positive take on the story. (Link courtesy [livejournal.com profile] iangurudata on Facebook.)

Date: 2011-11-26 04:14 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] photogeek-mtl.livejournal.com
It's true --- there's still a sizable portion of the community impacted by this --- but it's a step in the right direction. It's most likely going to go to a higher court, and maybe we can get an even better result there.

And it's a personal relief not to be a criminal any more, and to know that this shouldn't impact the immigration of our OSO.

Date: 2011-11-24 03:35 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] foms.livejournal.com
From the CA District Court ruling from Perry, et al, vs. Schwarzenneger, et al (http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374475/Perry-v-Schwarzenegger-Proposition-8-Unconstitutional):

"Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs’ objective as 'the right to same-sex marriage' would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy —— namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages."

Date: 2011-11-24 04:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] foms.livejournal.com
On reflection, I may have been too oblique.

Only formalized marriages grant some of the rights that formalized marriages grant with reference to such things as medical oversight and such. Other rights of this sort are greatly simplified by formalized marriage. The whole point is that marriage is a philosophical and legal construct. I would prefer that society concern itself with legislation and jurisprudence that are on target rather than on easier targets that happen to be close by.

Date: 2011-11-24 01:08 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] slobberpuppy.livejournal.com
They aren't discussing polyAMOURY here, they are discussing polyGAMY.

I agree that that is wrong - so men should have the right to marry more than one woman, but women are not extended the same right?

(juts as reference, polyANDRY is the right of a woman to marry more than one man - and I don't see that - nor polyamoury - being discussed here.)

Seems back-asswards to me. Maybe we can take away women's right to vote while we're at it. Oh, and those folks with different skin tones should sit at the back of the bus.

Date: 2011-11-24 04:34 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] foms.livejournal.com
In my opinion, the legal question is explicitly about the right (or not) of any given person to be married to (or to represent himself or herself as being married to) more than one other person at the same time. The law does not address the question of the sex or gender of the individuals involved. The court tried to examine actual effects on Canadian society as a means of deciding about conflict of rights.

Date: 2011-11-24 06:21 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] slobberpuppy.livejournal.com
I would agree with you, but in this particular instance they are discussing the issue of polygamy - I did not see polyamoury or polyandry mentioned in terms of this ruling (granted, I skimmed towards the end of the article, feel free to cite something for me if I have missed it and am mistaken.) I think that alone makes it a sticky point, and one that those who wish to pursue the right for polyamourous marriages to be legal should move away from because the andry and gamy sides of the three-sided poly die are two entirely different beasts compared to polyamoury.

Whenever a ruling favours one gender having a freedom that the other does not, it would be my hope that it would result in the manner that this has and be denied.

(Just to be clear, as someone who is married and has been in polyamourous relationships, I'm neither for nor against it, I'm just interested in the discussion as to why one would side with polygamous marriage rights when really pursuing the right for polyamourous marriages.)

Date: 2011-11-24 07:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] foms.livejournal.com
I think that you've stated it better in your most recent response, in this thread. Polyamory does not require marriage (or any form of marriage) to be polyamory. Please see my reference to the California Proposition 8 decision for my opinion on what I think is an overarching question, related to this.

I continue to believe that the words used in the CBC article notwithstanding, the court action about which it is reporting does not differentiate directly about the sex or gender of the individuals doing the marrying. I think that there is no attempt by the court to grant any rights to or to establish any limits on men that are not similarly applied to women.

There may be people who do "side with polygamous marriage rights when really pursuing the right for polyamourous marriages". I am, generally, in the camp that says that the harm is there but is not from multiple marriage (of any stripe) but in other factors.

The Criminal Code of Canada: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/FullText.html (sections 290-293)

The decision: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/11/15/2011BCSC1588.htm (of particular relevance, from what I've read, so far:
- II.A.[16] "The Reference Questions"
- V.A.section [135] at least through section [137], probably better through section [145], under the umbrella of "Terminology"

I haven't read the whole thing but I think that these get at the point.

Date: 2011-11-24 08:21 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] grimmwire.livejournal.com
Oh, I don't side with the polygamists as such. I agree with all your points. It's just that the law doesn't differentiate between polyamourous and polygamous marriage -- they're both forms of plural marriage, and they're all illegal. (See the quotes from the decision posted by [livejournal.com profile] photogeek_mtl.)

Like it or not, if one argues that polyamourous marriages should be legelly recognized, one must also of necessity argue that polygamous marriages should be recognized.

And I agree with [livejournal.com profile] foms, the harm in polygamy does not result from multiple marriage itself.

Profile

grimmwire: Science at Burning Man '08 (Default)
grimmwire

June 2017

S M T W T F S
    123
456789 10
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930 

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 21st, 2017 12:38 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios