(Untitled)

[suitablyemoname]

So this happened. Not only does polygamy remain illegal, but the court found that polygamy is so actively harmful to the well-being of women and children that it should not be granted charter protection. There will be an appeal to the Supreme Court, but the findings of fact appear to be unimpeachable. Polygamy is officially harmful, film at 11.

Comments

[sourdick]

Polygamy is officially harmful, film at 11.

This comment kind of sounds like a brush off. I think the fact the court finally ruled on this is an important milestone. I don't think glibness is appropriate when it comes to discussing the subversion of human beings.

[suitablyemoname]

I'm not trying to be flippant, I'm trying to be final. There is now judicial precedent to the effect that polygamy is actively harmful to women and children. Not only is it illegal, there is no longer judicial recourse: no prospect of a charter challenge, no prospect of a simple challenge, no prospect of a provincial HRC challenge. The goose is cooked. The only way it'll ever be legalized is if a government does it, and even then you might see a charter challenge to overturn the initiative on the grounds that it endangers women and children, etc.

[sourdick]

I was just busting your chops since theres not much else to debate about it here.

[kali_kali]

*sigh* Polygamy is not harmful to women and children. This is another case of going after the mobster for tax evasion because you can't nail them for murder, trafficking or fraud. Why they can't go after the guys in Bountiful for forced marriage, child trafficking or statutory rape, I don't know, but that's where they should be focusing their efforts

[northern_dirt]

Agreed..

[northern_dirt]

This is even more troubling when couples are automatically deemed common-law after living together for 6? months.. Even when the parties might not want or view their relationship as serious or want a title put on it..

[kali_kali]

I've also heard that if you have a child with someone, if you live together you're automatically considered common-law, regardless of time. But what happens if you're living together, but that other person is married to someone else? Does your relationship now become something illegal as well, since the government sees fit to "solemnize" your relationship for you by making it common-law status?

[jawnbc]

This decision is a piece of crap. Solemnizing is the key difference? So some fuckwit "prophet" can live with 5 "roommates" and it's legal, but if he's does a partnership ritual with more than one it's abusive?

This decision won't stand. And shouldn't.

How about a law that prohibits ALL marriage under 18? THAT would help women and girls in a place like Bountiful more than this stoopid decision.

[northern_dirt]

Maybe 16, as its the age of consent

[jawnbc]

It's a matter of contract law I think.

Besides age of consent for anal sex is 18. Thanks homophobic Cons.

[northern_dirt]

Actually AOC was 14, 18 for anal (or where one party was in a position of power) The Cons removed the sodomy stip and made it 16 across the board..