(continued from another thread that was probably contentious enough)
Please list how marriage currently works
You realize thats the subject for entire law books right?
Which parent makes medical decisions for a child? It depends, but can be worked out pretty easily.
The complexity would exponentially increase with the number of people involved. Do you go with majority rules? First spouse picks?
How is wealth divided up after death?
Evenly? Or possibly however their will states, if they have one. I'm...not quite sure what you're even asking here.
I'm not asking anything really, just pointing out the myriad of unanswered questions that would have to be worked out
Indeed. As messy as any other divorce, maybe messier. They get an appropriate proportion of the jointly held stuff, one presumes.
Especially if you have something like 1 person of 3 leaving.
From an equality perspective, everyone else is allowed to marry one person and that's it. So there's no legal imperative to require the legalization of polyamory.
I'm unclear how this is materially different from the statement that "Anyone can already get married, as long as it's to the opposite gender." It's true, but doesn't keep the statement from restricting who people are allowed to marry and have recognized as legitimate lovers.
Unlike the previous argument, mine is equally unfair to all people regardless of sex, gender, or orientation.
Why should a group of three people who truly love each other and want to spend their lives together have to pick one of them to not be part of their legal relationship? One who can't visit their lover in the hospital?
Well how far out does this go? 3?4?5?
I'll stick to polyamory. All of the fun, none of the paperwork.
Just wait until the fun results in offspring ;P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
we've got issues like the government magically printing up 700 million dollars to bail out private companies, who then turned around and gave their upper management bonuses for the year.
If you're so great at bringing up and solving a moral issue, why don't you lend that genius to, oh say, why 23% of my money goes to federal funding, but not a dime of it goes towards national debt.
It's about time everyone in this world butt's out of other people's business and applies some common sense to their current material environment. Standing on your box isn't going to do you any good if you're in a police state, with no claim to anything of your own.
we've got issues like the government magically printing up 700 million dollars to bail out private companies, who then turned around and gave their upper management bonuses for the year.
If you're so great at bringing up and solving a moral issue, why don't you lend that genius to, oh say, why 23% of my money goes to federal funding, but not a dime of it goes towards national debt.
It's about time everyone in this world butt's out of other people's business and applies some common sense to their current material environment. Standing on your box isn't going to do you any good if you're in a police state, with no claim to anything of your own.
*headscratch*
I think the answer would be over on the occupy wallstreet thread.
|
(continued from another thread that was probably contentious enough)
Yeah, probably. :)
You realize thats the subject for entire law books right?
That was basically my point, actually. :)
Marriage is already complicated. Only lawyers get all the details, once you're at that point of complexity, a little more isn't realy that big a deal.
The complexity would exponentially increase with the number of people involved. Do you go with majority rules? First spouse picks?
Well, like any contractual agreement, the person making it picks. So if Joe, Steve, and Beth are all getting married, Joe picks which of the other two has precedence in such decisions regarding him, and so each do Steve and Beth. Maybe both Joe and Beth pick Steve, because he's a doctor, and Steve picks Beth because she's more responsible than Joe. Or if they're gamers maybe they roll dice for who's got that responsibility for who.
This isn't that hard.
I'm not asking anything really, just pointing out the myriad of unanswered questions that would have to be worked out
Sure. There were a lot of issues (some handled badly) involved in ending slavery and what to do with all these newly freed people, too. Didn't make ending slavery any less the right thing to do.
Especially if you have something like 1 person of 3 leaving.
Uh...they get 1/3 the stuff? This is pretty basic.
Unlike the previous argument, mine is equally unfair to all people regardless of sex, gender, or orientation.
No, it's not. Many people are to some degree naturally monogamous. Others are polyamorous. This is clearly less fair to that second group.
Well how far out does this go? 3?4?5?
As high as the people involved want? I mean, there aren't any actual limits to the number of people you sign contracts with, why should this be any different?
Maybe you get this whole group of 18-20 people all married to each other as a kind of tribe. Who knows. None of anyone's business but theirs, really.
|
|
There is a difference between allow and recognize. Its not binary.
Roughly: Polygamy can be
1) Outlawed
2) Allowed but not recognized
3) Allowed and recognized (that is given the full legal sanctions, rights, and responsibilities as marriage)Allowed I would be for in a heartbeat. Its recognition I'm hung up on, because there doesn't appear to be any concrete definition of what that would entail.
1)It seems like a lot of work for legislators who have better things to do
2) Would provide a benefit to a very small number of people
3) Would be nice but is not legally required.
How, precisely, aside from some legislators needing to put in some work, is this a different situation than Gay Marriage?
I mean, points 2 and 3 apply equally to Gay Marriage and situation 2 (which you advocate) is already the norm for gay relationships.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another simple solution: remove all the privileges of marriage.
Instead everyone can appoint one or more people as their "close ones" that have the right to see them at hospital and decide about their medical treatment or other vital issues when the person is incapacitated.
No shared possession unless a contract between interested parties is written.
Inheritance is separate matter - if you want anyone to inherit, write the will. Underaged children should be only recipients of statutory inheritance.
And the legal complications are solved - as the existing ones are artificially overcomplicated by lawyers who have financial interest in unnecessary complexity of law.
That was basically my point, actually. :)
Aaaand you want to rewrite entire lawbooks for what.. .01% of the population?
Marriage is already complicated. Only lawyers get all the details, once you're at that point of complexity, a little more isn't realy that big a deal.
Once you're at that point a little bit more is a huge deal. I think our legislators have better things to do. (not that they ARE doing them but this is pretty far down the burner)
Well, like any contractual agreement, the person making it picks. So if Joe, Steve, and Beth are all getting married, Joe picks which of the other two has precedence in such decisions regarding him, and so each do Steve and Beth. Maybe both Joe and Beth pick Steve, because he's a doctor, and Steve picks Beth because she's more responsible than Joe. Or if they're gamers maybe they roll dice for who's got that responsibility for who.
This isn't that hard.
Its legislature. Everything's hard.
Sure. There were a lot of issues (some handled badly) involved in ending slavery and what to do with all these newly freed people, too. Didn't make ending slavery any less the right thing to do.
The two are really not comparable. Is this really worth a godwins?
Polygamy has a dodgy past and some pretty questionable uses in the present.I'm all for the government leaving people alone, but the government hunting you down with dogs and shooting you because you leave a farm where you were whipped daily and the government not giving you a line on your 401k are NOT remotely comperable.
If the oppression is severe its worth moving heaven and earth to fix. This....? no.
Uh...they get 1/3 the stuff? This is pretty basic.
Even if you have a Rockstar a Doctor and a house cleaner?
No, it's not. Many people are to some degree naturally monogamous. Others are polyamorous. This is clearly less fair to that second group.
Not every proclivity is going to be treated the same. Laws against theft are rough on cleptomaniacs. Child care credits are rough on the celibate. "Everybody gets 1" is about as equal as a law can be.
As high as the people involved want? I mean, there aren't any actual limits to the number of people you sign contracts with, why should this be...
Because I don't think society has to rewrite entire tomes of laws for 10,000 people.
How, precisely, aside from some legislators needing to put in some work, is this a different situation than Gay Marriage?
It has a known result. We know exactly what we're going to get, what the exploits are, what the loopholes are, what the rights are, what the responsibilities are. Insurance for example, would HAVE to take my sick wife. Would they have to take my 16 communistic pre agrarian commune partners?
Or in short
I'm fairly certain all issues can be solved relatively quickly. Certainly by any competent lawmaker.
If we had those I'd be much less reluctant.
I'll stick to polyamory. All of the fun, none of the paperwork.
HD, you madcap. :-)
That said, the question on birth control is a valid one. Still, you do not strike me as a careless lover. Condoms are plentiful.
|
Where I live, being a common law spouse (live with someone in a marriage like relationship for a period of time) and being married have the same legal consequences - except one. The only difference is that you can legally be common law with more than one person. Same property division, same life insurance stuff, same stuff happens when you die. Even the income tax act is set up to allow more than one spouse.
The only thing that keeps it from being 'polygamy' is the lack of a marriage certificate.
The technical legal difficulties are not overwhelming. You see a lot of this sort of thing (accidental polygamy :P ) with older couples, who seperate, don't get a formal divorce (or are trying out a 2 year seperation period etc..), live with another old person for a time and then die or someone gets sick and starts looking for support.
What you need is a robust set of general rules and principles and then competent judges to handle the wacky corner cases. Most divorces (in BC) don't end up in court, only the high conflict ones do.
Removed some posts and their responses. Try to play nice and discuss this civilly please.
I honestly don't see why this is a contentious issue. Not saying this to be troll, just seems to me that if you want to be married to more than one person it should be fine. In the States at least, it used to be legal, law was passed to make it illegal, so just repeal the law and let the divorce lawyers have a field day, or weep in despair.
@Robert Hawkshaw By BC do you mean British Columbia? If so, my Albertan friends complain(?) that when the wind blows east they get the munchies.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly don't see why this is a contentious issue. Not saying this to be troll, just seems to me that if you want to be married to more than one person it should be fine. In the States at least, it used to be legal, law was passed to make it illegal, so just repeal the law and let the divorce lawyers have a field day, or weep in despair.
Indeed. :)
|
|
I honestly don't see why this is a contentious issue. Not saying this to be troll, just seems to me that if you want to be married to more than one person it should be fine. In the States at least, it used to be legal, law was passed to make it illegal, so just repeal the law and let the divorce lawyers have a field day, or weep in despair.
@Robert Hawkshaw By BC do you mean British Columbia? If so, my Albertan friends complain(?) that when the wind blows east they get the munchies.
:P
Back to polygamy...
We had a big case involving polygamy recently - http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/23/b-c-supreme-court-rules-polygamy-la w-is-constitutional/. Lots of research arguments etc...
I'll go dig up the actual judgment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll stick to polyamory. All of the fun, none of the paperwork.Just wait until the fun results in offspring ;P
In order to properly solve this potential issue may I recommend the homosexual lifestyle. It really is a great time saver too! ;-)
|
|
Boom, everything you wanted to know about polygamy, with a table of contents:
http://canlii.ca/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2011/2011bcsc1588/2011bcsc1588.html
This is a constitutional reference, where the government asks the court whether or not a particular law violates the constitution or the charter of rights. I don't believe you folks have this constitutional mechanism down south, you have to wait for an actual case to work its way up.
In addition to the judgment, the polyamory society and the attorney general worked together to digitize almost all of the court records, expert reports, arguments and testimony. I believe the court put together the largest collection / library of research on polygamy in the world.
https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0B-URIT52yhx4MDVkMDU5MDctZDM0Zi00ODQ4LWJkN WEtMWVjNmRjMGE2ZjQ0/edit
Hmm and I think a bunch of it was webcast somewhere as well...
I honestly don't see why this is a contentious issue. Not saying this to be troll, just seems to me that if you want to be married to more than one person it should be fine.
Its not the ethics of it that get me its the technicalities.
No spouse: you need to specify who makes your medical decisions
One spouse: they're making your medical decisions.
Multiple spouses: you need to specify who makes your medical decisions
... again.
You have a mob.. sorry, group of legitimate business men. Everyone marries each other. Now they can't be made to testify against each other.
How does a 15 person marriage file a tax return?
How do you divide up military spouse benefits?
Employers need to let someone go to look after their wife and kids. Is it fair to ask an employer to let someone go look after 1 of 15 wives?
How many people do employers have to cover?
I don't see a great travesty of justice here. You're talking about making a new and potentially VERY exploitable system to solve what problem exactly? The solution looks more complicated than the problem.
|
|
Its not the ethics of it that get me its the technicalities.
You, uh, did catch the references to it being effectively legal in Canada, and the link to the relevant legal code, right?
Clearly, this is a doable thing. Probably a bit more complicated insurance-wise (socialized health care in Canada) but still doable.
I don't see a great travesty of justice here. You're talking about making a new and potentially VERY exploitable system to solve what problem exactly? The solution looks more complicated than the problem.
The problem of inequality. And I'm not arguing it's not a bit more complicated, but I think fairness trumps that. It's a matter of principle.
And could stop with the hyperbole, please? :(
I'm not saying it's the worst thing ever, just that it's wrong, and should thus be fixed. Like lots of other things.
|
|
Its not the ethics of it that get me its the technicalities.You, uh, did catch the references to it being effectively legal in Canada, and the link to the relevant legal code, right?
Clearly, this is a doable thing. Probably a bit more complicated insurance-wise (socialized health care in Canada) but still doable.
Another thing that makes a difference is that alimony in Canada is rare, and when awarded is time limited. We have case law that says marriage is not supposed to be a lifetime pension or insurance policy. Someone who is self-sufficient, or capable of becoming self-sufficient, at the end of a relationship will not usually be entitled to receive spousal support.
You break up, you get property division, and then you are on your own.
Child support though... you are on the hook for life, and you can`t prenup your way out of it.
Its not the ethics of it that get me its the technicalities.You, uh, did catch the references to it being effectively legal in Canada, and the link to the relevant legal code, right?
No. I saw this
Nov. 23, 2011 — Justice Bauman, after hearing 42 days of legal arguments with opposing parties arguing the right to religious freedom and the risk of harm polygamy poses to women and children, rules to uphold Canada’s polygamy laws as constitutional, but says they cannot be used to prosecute children aged 12 to 17.
That last part is the flaw.
I'm not saying it's the worst thing ever, just that it's wrong, and should thus be fixed. Like lots of other things.
I can't see how a number that applies equally to everyone is discrimination as long as the government stays out of whatever unofficial arrangements consenting adults want to make.
I don't think its remotely the same as homosexual marriage. Homosexual is something you are, polygamy is something you do.
|
|
No. I saw this
Nov. 23, 2011 — Justice Bauman, after hearing 42 days of legal arguments with opposing parties arguing the right to religious freedom and the risk of harm polygamy poses to women and children, rules to uphold Canada’s polygamy laws as constitutional, but says they cannot be used to prosecute children aged 12 to 17.
That last part is the flaw.
The law in question is just whether or not you can have a marriage certificate.
If you live together for 2 years in a marriage like relationship you are considered 'spouses' and get treated identically to people who are married. If you live with 7 people for 2 years in a marriage like relationship you get treated identically.
No. I saw this
Nov. 23, 2011 — Justice Bauman, after hearing 42 days of legal arguments with opposing parties arguing the right to religious freedom and the risk of harm polygamy poses to women and children, rules to uphold Canada’s polygamy laws as constitutional, but says they cannot be used to prosecute children aged 12 to 17.
That last part is the flaw.
The law in question is just whether or not you can have a marriage certificate.
If you live together for 2 years in a marriage like relationship you are considered 'spouses' and get treated identically to people who are married. If you live with 7 people for 2 years in a marriage like relationship you get treated identically.
Can you quote something from the article to that effect? The article and the brief don't come close to polygamy being defacto legal. They're in fact quite anti polygamy.
I would answer the essential question before me: while s. 293 offends the freedom of religion of identifiable groups guaranteed by s. 2(a) of the Charter and the s. 7 liberty interests of children between 12 and 17 married into polygamy, the provision, save in its application to the latter group, is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. My reasons for that conclusion and the specific answers to the questions on the reference follow.
|
|
Sure.
BC Family Relations Act - Definition Section:
http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_96128_0 1#section1
"spouse" means a person who(a) is married to another person,
(b) except under Parts 5 and 6, lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship for a period of at least 2 years if the application under this Act is made within one year after they ceased to live together and, for the purposes of this Act, the marriage-like relationship may be between persons of the same gender,
Our income tax law lowers the bar to 1 year:
"common-law partner""common-law partner", with respect to a taxpayer at any time, means a person who cohabits at that time in a conjugal relationship with the taxpayer and
(a) has so cohabited with the taxpayer for a continuous period of at least one year
You'll find this or similar definitions all over Canadian statutes.
The polygamy reference was a question about a single provision of the Criminal Code. The section doesn't ever get used, its like the provision that bans fake witch craft. In living memory only that Blackmore guy has been charged with polygamy - its a trumped up charge because actually getting him on child abuse or spouse abuse or underage marriage is so difficult. It's an offence to be polygamous, and if you get convicted of it, you can get up to 5 years. Your second (third, fourth etc) marriage will be void.
However, for the tax man, your employer, your will, access to children, support payments etc...you still count as being a spouse, or common law, or in a marriage like relationship.
Here's our law against witchcraft:
Section 365 of the Canadian Criminal Code, R.S. 1985,c.C-46 is one of a group of five offenses which deal with false pretenses. It states:"Every one who fraudulently
(a) pretends to exercise or to use any kind of witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment or conjuration,
(b) undertakes, for a consideration, to tell fortunes, or
(c) pretends from his skill in or knowledge of an occult or crafty science to discover where or in what manner anything that is supposed to have been stolen or lost may be found,
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction." 1
But we still have phone line psychics and palm readers and stuff.
|
|
The defacto legal thing is a result of what each act is trying to do.
BC's family laws and its succession laws are trying to make people to take responsibility for their families and people they have long term relationships with. It also wants to ensure that children see their parents and get support etc... And it wants to keep people off welfare by having the spouse with money pay, instead of the state.
Our tax statute is trying to prevent people from colluding to avoid tax - being considered a spouse has a lot of negative consequences when it comes to property transfers. There are a few benefits as well (mostly if you have a higher income).
So each act adopts a very broad definition of spouse, to cast as wide a net as possible, and catch as many people as possible. They don't really interact with, or care about the anti polygamy provision in the criminal code.
You see the same thing happen with the proceeds of crime. Being a drug dealer is illegal, but the taxman doesn't care - when you get caught they will estimate how much money you made and force you to pay income tax on it. A court will take your estimated income and force you to pay back dated child support out of it.
|
|
And back to the decision, in and around paragraph 1000 the Chief Justice starts talking about what the section applies to:
His conclusion
[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.
[1038] The emphasis on some form of sanctioning led to much concern in the submissions of the Amicus and a number of the Interested Persons.
[1039] These were based on the alleged absurdity of such a distinction - the possibility of avoiding prosecution by the simple expedient of not undergoing a sanctioning event.
[1040] It is the case that I have found Parliament engaging in “line drawing” here, but that is the stuff of many statutory prohibitions. Why .08 and not .07? Drinkers can carefully monitor their consumption to avoid the offence. So be it. At least it is a bright line. Why do we prohibit bigamy, but not adulterous relationships, polygamy but not so-called serial monogamy (marriage, divorce, marriage, divorce, and so on)? Because, absent a division of powers or a Charter argument, Parliament can draw such bright lines and, subject to those considerations, it is not for the Court to say that it cannot.
As long as you don't have a ceremony (a sanctioning event) and / or don't call it capital M Marriage, you are safe from prosecution and can have as many spouses as you like.
A gap is opened up between marriage and marriage-like by the extremely narrow reading he gives conjugal union and marriage. You can be 'married' in every way that matters except for the certificate - it just takes a year or two to kick in instead of instantly The way a wedding does.
Here's our law against witchcraft:
Section 365 of the Canadian Criminal Code, R.S. 1985,c.C-46 is one of a group of five offenses which deal with false pretenses. It states:
"Every one who fraudulently
(a) pretends to exercise or to use any kind of witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment or conjuration,
(b) undertakes, for a consideration, to tell fortunes, or
(c) pretends from his skill in or knowledge of an occult or crafty science to discover where or in what manner anything that is supposed to have been stolen or lost may be found,
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction." 1
What about the authentic practice of "witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment or conjuration"? If someone could demonstrate real magical powers, would this law still apply?
The law in question is just whether or not you can have a marriage certificate.
Which is really the only aspect I think its problematic. It works off the books just without the certificate doesn't address the problems I'm raising.
|
|
What about the authentic practice of "witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment or conjuration"? If someone could demonstrate real magical powers, would this law still apply?Here's our law against witchcraft:
Section 365 of the Canadian Criminal Code, R.S. 1985,c.C-46 is one of a group of five offenses which deal with false pretenses. It states:
"Every one who fraudulently
(a) pretends to exercise or to use any kind of witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment or conjuration,
(b) undertakes, for a consideration, to tell fortunes, or
(c) pretends from his skill in or knowledge of an occult or crafty science to discover where or in what manner anything that is supposed to have been stolen or lost may be found,
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction." 1
I haven't looked at the case law or at an annotated version of the code but off the top of my head there are two ways to avoid a conviction.
The first would be to have real powers and use them (so it wouldn't be fraudulent). The second would be to announce that you have no powers (which is why the psychic hotlines always say "for entertainment purposes only") again so you aren't defrauding anyone.
A potential third one would be to have an honest and or reasonable belief that you have real powers, that might also knock out the fraudulent or pretend part. I've forgotten what mens rea fraud requires.
|
|
The law in question is just whether or not you can have a marriage certificate.Which is really the only aspect I think its problematic. It works off the books just without the certificate doesn't address the problems I'm raising.
Perhaps I haven't properly understood the issue you are trying to raise?
So since I have a contract with Charter Communications for my cable internet service, I'm not able to enter a second contract with AT&T for my cellphone service?
I think this is a pretty weak argument. Heck, I could have two cellphones, one from AT&T and one from Verizon. If we're trying to make marriage a contract, then that seems a legit analogy.
There are problems, you're right that if we are in a communal living environment I will need your permission to bring someone in, be it a new wife or a roommate or a child. And we already have legal mechanisms in play to prevent one party from unilaterally bringing in a third party. Why could they not be applied to marriage, assuming the contract analogy holds?
I think of marriage as no more than legal recognition of a (ostensibly romantic) committed relationship. Since I know gay couples, I see no reason for them NOT to be married. Since I know poly groups, I see no reason for them NOT to be married.
|
|
So since I have a contract with Charter Communications for my cable internet service, I'm not able to enter a second contract with AT&T for my cellphone service?
If your contract with Charter Communications was for you to share all of your assets equally.
It isn't a side plan, it is a partnership. It would functionally be that you and Charter Communications merged, and then later you merged with AT&T.
|
|
To make this point more clearly, if you married Charter Communications, you get half of Charter Communications, can decided if Charter Communications should be resuscitated (which would be awkward since you are the likely beneficiary of Charter Communications Pension), etc...
That is different than getting a cell phone.
So since I have a contract with Charter Communications for my cable internet service, I'm not able to enter a second contract with AT&T for my cellphone service?
If your contract with Charter Communications was for you to share all of your assets equally.
Nor is marriage. Or are you saying marriages with prenups aren't REAL marriages?
Anybody considering the moral and ethical issues of polygamy really ought to read this
http://www.childbrides.org/boys.html
which raises a serious issue -inherent- to polygamy as an institution in First World countries.
Using abuse in A system as an argument against polygamy is like using the sexual abuse of priests or institutional pederasty as arguments for keeping homosexuality illegal.
|
|
Nor is marriage. Or are you saying marriages with prenups aren't REAL marriages?So since I have a contract with Charter Communications for my cable internet service, I'm not able to enter a second contract with AT&T for my cellphone service?
If your contract with Charter Communications was for you to share all of your assets equally.
I am saying that prenups still presume partnership.
If you become a partner with Charter Communications, you are then charter communications, or whatever you now decide to call yourselves.
If that partnership group decides to join with another group, that is a separate contract, presumably between equals. Which is impossible when you are dealing with people, since you can't make one person equal to two people.
Let us presume marriage gives specific privileges to a person. It is easy to do this, because that is what it does. You marry someone and they legally become the person who is afforded the rights, privileges and advantages of being your spouse.
If multiple people have equal privileges, who adjudicates conflict between the parties?
The whole point of marriage is to say "I choose this person to become a partner with, and I give them all of the rights and privileges of the position."
Much like you can't effectively have two presidents, you can't give two people equal rights over marriage.