In Bountiful, B.C., discussions concerning the activities of a particular Mormon sect have resurrected a unique debate about a practice which today is considered by society to be so outlandish and reprehensible that a law prohibiting it was passed in 1890 under John A. Macdonald’s Government: that practice is polygamy. Polygamy, a custom which is traditionally associated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints—or Mormons—is commonly understood to be religious-based marital practice which involves one man and multiple women (wives). While polygamy is often depicted by the media as a practice prevalent in small Mormon cults native to especially southern or “hick” states in the United States, is not an American phenomenon; rather, it is also practiced in Canada, the Middle East and Africa (only a few examples).
Although Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada explicitly bans polygamy (Section 290 also prohibits ‘bigamy’) and carries a sentence of five years in prison, there has not been a successful prosecution of polygamy in over 60 years, and there remains no statistics pertaining to how many polygamous unions exist in Canada: yet, the law still exists. This made me wonder: Is a law banning men (or women) from entering into a consensual relationship where other partners are involved really fair? If a person isn’t forced into such a relation, what harm is there in polygamy? Shouldn’t individuals decide and shape their relationships, rather than the government?
Many claim there is an inherent “danger” associated with polygamy (secretive communes forcing underage girls to marry old men, child abuse, sexual slavery, etc.), but wouldn’t de-criminalizing such a law actually help to stop the possibility of such dangers occurring? By decriminalizing such a law, abused women and children might feel more comfortable turning to police, shelters and friends, no longer having to fear discrimination or legal ramifications, and actual hazardous relations would likely become more easily identifiable.
Though I would never consider entering into a polygamous relationship myself, I think the public and government should learn more about polygamy and try to gain an understanding of the practice before prematurely deciding its illegality. Using the argument that “men and women are equal, and therefore polygamy disadvantages women” is a hypocritical one, for stripping a woman who desires a polygamous marriage of such a choice is also disadvantaging her (ex: the rights of a woman desiring a polygamous marriage are not equally respected to the rights of a woman desiring a monogamous marriage). Who are we to decide how women or men (with a choice) should shape their relationships? If gay marriage is tolerable in Canada, why is polygamy not? Are they not both examples of non-traditional unions involving consenting adults? (Remember: Some Canadian citizens today still do not support gay marriage, yet the law was passed.)
Arguments fashioned through the lenses of the majority (Western perspectives) tend to always disadvantage or diminish minority opinions. I think this fact should be kept in mind when the Superior Court of B.C. determines the constitutionality of Canada’s polygamy laws. It doesn’t seem right to punish those individuals peacefully or happily living in polygamous relationships (or those desiring too) for the wrongdoings of particular Mormon groups (stories are often sensationalized in the media), and it certainly doesn’t seem ‘Canadian’ to take away individual choice.
Whatever happened to Trudeau’s statement about the government having no business in the bedrooms of the nation?
To read more on polygamy law in Canada, go to: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2009/01/21/f-polygamy.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is where I accessed my information about polygamy!
I really enjoyed your unbiased look at polygamy. It's a hard thing for many individuals to discuss without personal opinions on the matter entering the debate. I find it hard to imagine such a union myself and how it would play out, but like you said: if people enter willingly into a polygamous union is that so bad? And polygamy doesn't allow for underage marriage or abuse...that is not part of the definition.
ReplyDeleteWhat I do think should enter into the conversation is the reason that polygamy resulted in terms of evolution. There are two subsets of polygamy: polyandry (one man, many women) and polygany (one woman, many men). In terms of history polyandry was found in civilizations where the population needed to be expanded. With one father and many women the amount of births increases. In polygany, it was found in civilizations where population needed to be controlled. Having one woman with many men, the birth rate declines. How does this fit into our current population??
I do wholeheartedly agree with you in your comment on how decriminilization increases control and can in fact prevent abuse and allow for those who are being hurt in these unions to come forward without legal and social implications.
It still remains to me a very hard subject to wrap my head around...but as I believe with everything knowledge and understanding is the key. If we familiarize ourselves with the true facts and meat of the situation we can then begin to construct a fair approach to sensitive situations.
I'm glad you agree! When I first posted this blog, I thought I'd only come against people who vehemently disagreed with me, so it's nice to know there are other open-minded people out there! :)
ReplyDeleteWhy does it matter if a man or woman decides to have two, three or even ten spouses as long as they are all willing? To me, it does seem unnatural for there to be more than two people in a relationship, its just not something I personally would do. However, if other people choose to have more than one spouse, or marry somebody of the same sex, that’s just fine by me, as long as it is not forced upon the participants. It really boggles my mind when people make laws based on religious views. Not being fully informed on the basis behind laws in Canada, I had to ask Kate to confirm my suspicions that the laws are based on Catholic beliefs. But last time I checked, Mormons don’t follow the same set of beliefs as Catholics, at least not fully. As a technically Roman Catholic citizen, who happens to disagree with pretty much everything about the religion that I was raised in, I know what it is like having other people’s views forced on me. As Ringo Starr said as he was being covered in red paint and prepared for sacrifice in Help! (the movie, not the song) “I don't subscribe to your religion.” Why should Catholics force their beliefs on Mormons, if the Mormons don’t force their beliefs on us?
ReplyDeleteGreat points, Cammie! Couldn't agree more!
ReplyDeleteOne potential roadblock towards legalizing true polygamy in Canada is that marriage does have legal implications besides the obvious. Tax laws, next of kin, and power of attorney situations (as well as others) are all affected by the presence of a legal spouse. For example, if a person is severely injured and can not make medical decisions for themselves (i.e. in a coma) that power is transferred to their spouse (if one exists). How is this handled if there is more than one spouse and those spouses have conflicting views? Obviously, there are issues that would need to be considered if a person were to be allowed to have two legal spouses.
ReplyDeleteThese issues surely have solutions, but they will certainly not be trivial to implement. I am not suggesting that it would simply be too much effort to adapt those portions of the law to allow for the multiple spouse case, and thus we should just forget the idea entirely, but those issues do exist and can not be ignored. It may simply just not be a priority to spend that many hours finding a solution to all these conflicts in this special case, especially when it affects only a very small minority of the Canadian population.
Of course, polygamy might be more widespread if it were not illegal to begin with, but simply removing the prohibitions against a person marrying multiple partners simultaneously and calling it a day is not a legitimate solution, and, unfortunately, it may just not be worth the effort when much more pressing concerns that affect many more Canadians exist.
Posted on behalf of my friend Chloe, whose comment is not showing up properly on the blog (same issue Ally had).
ReplyDeleteChloe says...
Great post Kate, your take on polygamy laws in Canada is very interesting. Though I agree with the points raised by others that it is not right to force our norms upon others I do think that in this case it is the right thing to do.
I just feel that there needs to be a level of protection for the young girls who live in these communities. I don't believe that at the age that many of them enter these unions they are able to fully comprehend what they are getting into, nor do I think they really took a look at the alternatives. They just assume that the polygamous relationship is the natural one because it is what their church and family have taught them. Banning polygamy and toughening up on sentences would show these communities that in Canada we believe in equality of the sexes and if they want to practice those behaviours they should do so elsewhere.