Polygamy effectively decriminalized in Utah

What's religion got to do with it. Somebody wants to shack up with more than one person, who cares? Just don't call it marriage, bigamy is still illegal

IMHO the legalization of gay marriage ended the social reason to limit marriage to one man and one woman and now all bets are off. Whatever combination of people who want to marry at this point should be 100% legal.

I say that because if five gay guys wanted to marry each other I have not one doubt that the courts would rule in their favor.

I doubt it. Seems all other 49 states don't prohibit cohabitation, only Utah. So it's already an accepted practice. The state just shouldn't give its sanction to it via marriage. Another good reason to separate marriage and civil union. Let any church decide what it wants to call marriage, the state decides who can be civilly united and receive the benefits of such. Maybe we should only have civil unions if children are part of the family, ie only confer special benefits of civil union to unions with children.

A (wealthy)man having more than one wife was fairly common throughout history. It's not some sort of recent or deviant behavior. What makes it truly unappealing is that you have more than one set of in laws.

I'm against it, I think it's bad for society. But I can't see it being constitutional to prevent people from shacking up together if they want to. Let's hope our society has advanced far enough that most people won't want to. Keep going with the income inequality, and it will probably come back as the !% can afford many wives, those on the bottom none. Best guard against it is having all women able to earn a decent living for themselves.

Andyt,

It's not about cohabitation...it's not even about civil unions...it is about being granted the same rights that the other parties currently enjoy...sound familiar?

If this ever hits a Canadian supreme court, they will be very hard pressed to come up with a legal reason as to why it shouldn't be legal, as long as all parties involved are consenting adults. The current legal defense is that it is detrimental for women and children, but that was made under the assumption that it actually is. But, most experts on the subject claim that the detrimental affect is due to the secretive nature of polygamy (due to it being illegal) and not from the act of polygamy in and of itself, and that if it was made legal, the majority of detrimental affects would no longer exist.

Quite frankly, we are seeing a repeat of the early homosexual movement replayed by the polygamists...I expect the same end result in a decade or two.

Next up will be incestuous relationships.

The difference is in numbers. There's no discrimination based on sexual orientation as with gays, just against more than two people entering into and getting the benefits of a civil union. As I say, there really shouldn't be civil unions, as they discriminate against single people. Reserve civil unions to cases where children are involved, and make the benefits only apply to children, not adults. Today you can deduct your wife as a dependent even if you don't have kids. What's up with that? Not many people can take advantage of this, we're basically giving a benefit to a rich guy who's trophy wife can sit at home and eat bon bons.

I will pose the 'So what?' question. How does it affect you and your daily life whether a guy and two girls, a girl and two guys, three guys or three girls or more want to fuck legal? What's the moral wasteland you fear? Divorce rates increase?

So...it can be changed one way but not another?

I think that you have forgotten that same sex marriage was fought under the argument of consenting adults wanting equal rights, regardless of sexual orientation, not due to sexual orientation.

The argument for polygamy will be the same.

Also, we already have existing laws that allow for multiple guardians over a single child...so that will become a legal non-issue.

We already have existing rules for multiple divorces (just not concurrent multiple divorces) so that will be a minor issue at best.

There is a reason that he BC Supreme Court was forced to use detrimental affects on women and children in 2011. That was all they could come up with, in the legal sense.

But, now that experts are claiming that the detrimental affects are caused by polygamy's illegality, that is going to become a much harder defense to use.

As for dependency, there is no current limit on the number of dependents I can have...if they did, how would they deal with traditional marriages with a large number of children, so that is a non issue.

Don't get me wrong...I am not a huge fan of polygamy, but, it is no different that any other marriage...if it does not involve me, who am I to judge, and who am I to enforce legislation counter to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As long as they adhere to consensual adult legalities...it is none of my business.

Polygamy is not a sexual orientation. It is a choice.

As I say, I object to the benefits that flow from civil unions under current laws. Discrimination based on marital status. Benefits should only come if children are involved.

Andy is likely the first person in the world to be called a 'polyphobe'. Congrats, Andy! You'e a polyphobe!

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=1632653

So what? I imagine your parents still deduct you as a dependent after so many years of your sponging off of them. That's their choice. I'd not be so quick to insist on laws that force people to kick family members into the street where they'd become wards of the state...except that you're a bit of a statist and this likely serves your greater purpose.

They will use the exact same arguments, and get the exact same result.


It needs to be said, Bart called this a couple of years ago, and everyone

pooo poooed him.

This is another case (like Russia seizing the Crimea) where I would've preferred to be wrong.