Saskatchewan says no to polygamy
You know, I really like the new HBO show Big Love, but Saskatchewan is absolutely right to stand firm against a polygamist sect, The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, that may be trying to set up a new community in the province.
For those who think otherwise, polygamy is not the same as same-sex marriage and should not be tolerated. The leader of this sect, which is based on the Utah-Arizona border, is under investigation and is being sought by Utah officials. The sect itself “has been under close scrutiny amid allegations of welfare fraud, sexual abuse and forced marriages”. Polygamy is against the law, but so, too, are child abuse and sexual exploitation.
We should have none of it in Canada. Which means that we should crack down on polygamy in Bountiful, B.C., and prevent this sect from settling in Saskatchewan. We are a tolerant society, but tolerance ought only go so far.
11 Responses to “Saskatchewan says no to polygamy”
Michael Stickings,
So let me get this straight, because your past and current posts…well.. are a little confusing.
Killing baby seals….bad. Killing unborn infants…okay
Polygamy…..bad Same Sex Marriage…EXCELLENT.
Why don’t you keep your profane and corrupt ideas between your own borders pal!
I have to agree with what was said above. How is same sex marraige okay and multi-spouse marraiges wrong. I don’t quite understand. If those people want to live in that enviroment who are you to say its wrong. Thier are far more countries in this world that practice polygamy then are that permit homosexuality. By the way how do you get the authority to say what’s moral and whats not? You say to tolerate one thing and to not tolerate another, honestly you sound kinda confused.
I don’t agree with your assertion. Yes, polygamy as practiced by that sect is deeply, deeply questionable, as it involves control of uneducated women and frequent sexual interaction between adults and children. So to that end, the province is justified at attempting to keep this particular LDS offshoot out, as they invite with them lots of trouble.
Let’s keep the particular practice of this movement separate from “general” polygamy, though. If a guy wants to live with four women, fine with me; if seven gay guys want to shack up, perfect. If a 65 year old man wants to marry the 13 year old daughter of his third wife, though, that’s kinda uncool.
How do I get the authority? Hmmm. I didn’t realize I needed any special authority to claim that child abuse and sexual exploitation are wrong (and, oh, illegal). What do you think goes on in these communities? I also don’t tolerate murder? Do I need special authority for that, too? Well, if you must, why not John Locke? As a liberal, I think we need to protect the concept of individual autonomy, Locke’s natural laws. And America, in this sense, is the liberal society par excellence. It’s not clear to me how polygamy is in any way liberal. Does it truly allow for choice? Don’t be so naive.
You call me confused, BereanWorkman, but there is nothing confusing about the value of individual autonomy and rights.
David, your vision of “general” polygamy is rather utopian, is it not? If people want to live together and do whatever they want together, fine. But opening up marriage beyond two people seems to pose problems. I just wonder how “natural” polygamy is. See William Saletan’s recent piece in Slate.
Canadians seem to be unaware that on October 18, 2002, Canada ratified the Protocol on the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which condemns polygamy as a contravention of women’s equality rights that also harms their children. Canada is legally obligated to uphold the provisions of this document, which means that polygamy will never be legalized in Canada. That the attorneys-general of BC have chosen to turn a blind eye to Bountiful appears to be based on economics, nothing else.They certainly couldn’t care less about women’s equality rights or what is happening to the child-mothers. A court case will cost millions because polygamist elders will challenge Section 293 CC, which proscribes polygamy.Legal opinion has already stated that the polygamists would lose because of CEDAW and the Charter, which states women are equal to men. There is a big difference between groups of adults shacking up together, and the law stating that it is acceptable for men to collect women as concubines into harems, which is what polygamy is. Countries that still practise polgyamy treat their women as inferiors, which is contemptible. Thousands of third-world women are petitioning their governments to stop the practice, stating it harms them and plunges them and their children into poverty. Check the Internet. Nature has made the sexes almost equal in number. There are not even two women for one man. “Polygamy maths” means that if some (rich) men hog 5, 6 or more women for themselves, then 4, 5 and more men are going to have to do without a sexual partner, and the chance to form a family of their own. That would be a very dangerous and unstable social situation. Let’s kick polygamy into the garbage can of history, where it belongs.
Michael Stickings,
Are you purposefully trying to be that humerous or are you willfully that ignorant?
Come on, all that college educuation you have had to give you something, didn’t it?
Any 5 year old child understands that things different are things not the same. You are going to sit there and talk about values, and yet condone the killing of infants but say killing baby seals is a bad thing? You talk about the values of individual “autonomy” so you do not support polygamy, since it does not support your values, but you fully and openly praise same sex marriage? And this isn’t confusing?? Are you kidding me?
You say “But opening up marriage beyond two people seems to pose problems. I just wonder how “natural” polygamy is.”
Is same sex marriage “natural”? The last I checked a woman and a man had specific organs for the specific purpose of the physical act of consummation. I know you don’t believe what God says..but he mentions something about marriage and the sanctity of it.
Just a couple of questions:
Suppose a man chooses to live with four girlfriends, but not marry them? (Therefore, he is not a polygamist) Is that also illegal Jancis Andrews? Should it be illegal Michael Stillings? Is it acceptable behavior, or not? Anyone?
Just wondering.
“But opening up marriage beyond two people seems to pose problems.” Sure it does, just like opening up marriage to same sex couples. The main problem with both is how to deal with children – the vast majority of children will still be raised by parents of the opposite sex, and the children raised by gay parents or more than 2 will be taunted and isolated by their peers. That means another grand tolerance (nee acceptance) curriculum introduced into the schools, which will inevitably draw criticism from parents who don’t want their children being taught that any lifestyle is morally acceptable. I happen to support federalism on gay unions, but I know I’m (for the moment) a minority on the right. But let’s not pretend that non-traditional marital arrangements come without a hill of problems that are certain to create more culture wars, because they’ll inevitably require some sort of government approval.
We can’t legislate morality…..but we can legislate bad behavior. When it comes to gross sexual promiscuity, policy makers have an obligation.
As Colin Powell said…
“Skin color is a benign, nonbehavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.”
We as a people and a nation have a conscience, but that conscience as in lined with the world system: the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life…becomes more and more dark. In the end there are those who become slaves to their own corrupt emotions and vain imaginations. The line between what is good and just, and that which is bad and evil becomes blurred.
God gives light to those who seek it.
Berean are you Canadian?
BereanWorkman, I’m not quite sure I’m following the logic of your initial post. You criticize Mr. Stickings for opinions you disagree with, I think. Which makes me wonder, since you are criticizing him for saying Polygamy is bad, are you therefore pro-polygamy? And all the social ills and costs that come w/it?
And be careful w/ the whole Godly quotes, especially:
“In the end there are those who become slaves to their own corrupt emotions and vain imaginations.”
If I recall correctly, recently we’ve seen a number of moral Republicans do some rather immoral things, don’t you think? (please see Cunningham, Delay, Reed, Abramoff, Ney)