My Links

Syndication

 
Listed on BlogsCanada
Posted by eleanor

The polygamy panic, part 114

Tom Wappel is a lawyer, Canadian politician, and long-standing opponent of gay rights. He once said that sexual orientation shouldn't be a prohibited ground of discrimination because it would be the first step on a slippery slope: first gays, then paedophiles, he warned.

Wappel (a back bench federal Liberal repping Scarborough Southwest in Ontario) now says that same-sex marriage would expand the problem: Marriage discriminates against age (there are minimum requirements), against family status (you can't marry a sibling), and against religion (polygamy is banned).

I too, see the polygamy ban as one that discriminates based on religious belief -- that's in a post dating back to January. Unlike Wappel, I welcome an end to the ban. And I would hope that judges would agree with me (although the Constitution in fact has a loophole allowing discrimination if it's in the best interests of society: Canadians find absolutes disquieting). Now comes news that the feds are concerned, too: "The Canadian government ordered urgent research on polygamy last month, partly to allay concerns about any potential adverse impact of federal same-sex legislation, a newly released document shows."

And from the report itself, ordered supposedly because a British Columbia poly religious cult may end up in court once a police investigation is complete: "The question of polygamy has also arisen lately in connection with the current public debate on civil marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions." It's a three-page doc from Status of Women Canada, a government agency, and obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.

"Concerns have been raised by some that in changing one aspect of the legal capacity to marry to allow equal access to civil marriage for same-sex couples, all of the other aspects of legal capacity may also be vulnerable to attack under the Charter [of Rights and Freedoms], including the ban on the practice of polygamy.

"The government will likely be called upon to reassure Canadians that it is possible to hold the line on civil marriage.... the issue has arisen as well in the context of the Canadian Muslim community, and in the public debate on same-sex marriage shows that the issue has a national relevance."

Comments

# Freedom From Marriage, Part II
March 5, 2005 7:19 PM
John McMullen of OutQ Radio interviewed Robyn Trask of www.lovemore.com a few weeks ago. I was surprised at what I thought was John's reservations about Robyn's politics. Especially since he's usually one to voice support for all sorts of gay and straight diversity. For example, his interview with the gay mayor of Big Water, Utah, a tiny town known for its polygamous enclave.

But when it comes to "serious" discussions of marriage rights, polygamy gets swept under the rug. Even gay men who don't have a problem with selective non-monogamy ("we play together", or "we don't ask, don't tell", etc.), the idea of honest, intentional polyamory is beyond someone's social norms.

Their reactions are typically "oh, you want LOTS of sex" or "I think relationships should be about commitment", or even "I want a marriage just like my parent's". Each one missing the point.

Ms. Trask never said polyamory was for everyone, or that it was easy.

Serious OutQ Radio:
http://www.sirius.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Sirius/CachedPage&c=Channel&cid=1104779631490">OutQ Radio

LoveMore Magazine:
http://www.lovemore.com



# Freedom From Marriage
March 5, 2005 6:34 PM
Thanks for the great column expressing your support for polygamy. As bad as the institution of marriage has been in the past, there is still I believe a baby in the bath water. Plenty of folks since before Emma Goldman have called for the demise of marriage with the intent of liberating relationships. Even viewed as government sanctioned social contract, marriage is a procrustean solution. Add the fact that in the U.S. the rules change for merely crossing a state line. So it needs an easy plug and play contingency prenup mechanism that is portable and lawyer proof. I know. Fat chance.



But just as corporations can now choose to declare which state they are incorporated under (usually for favorable tax benefits), perhaps in the future people will be able to declare which State’s laws they are married under regardless of their place of residence to provide a consistant interpretation of their marriage contract.



And while you were writing about polygamy, you should have mentioned some of the other popular permutations, i.e. polyamory, polyfidelity, intimate-networks, et al. I find it amazing that I usually have to explain these terms to most gay men. You’d think with all the quirky, kinky stuff gay people are into, multiple partners wouldn’t raise eyebrows. But I find that gay men – inspite of taking infidelity nearly for granted – rarely think outside the box of the two party long term relationship. That heterosexuals have well developed nation wide communities exploring these relationship choices just shows how far gay men have to go.



So, Eleanor, with same sex marriage perceived as the first step on a slippery slope, the more grease you can provide, I say the better!

-
Copyright 2005-2008 © Eleanor Brown, All Rights Reserved.