CTV reported in late February 2005 on the original call for proposals that resulted in last week’s disclosure that a recommendation had been made to the Justice Department in favour of decriminalizing polygamy;
Tory Leader Stephen Harper, who opposes same-sex marriage legislation now being debated in the House of Commons, referred to the project in criticizing the governing Liberals. He was pilloried by Liberal politicians and others for making any link to polygamy.
The official call for research proposals posted on the Status of Women website makes no reference to the same-sex debate or other issues, such as pressure from some Muslim communities where polygamy is accepted.
But in justifying the need for research, Radulovic’s original proposal said that “although the current focus for the debate is in B.C., the fact that 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.”
A spokesperson for Cotler said the minister had not seen the document, and dismissed it as merely a warning that some Canadians might erroneously link the study to the same-sex debate.
“It’s certainly the job of public servants to flag issues, even though they’ve got nothing to do with what we’re looking at here,” said Denise Rudnicki.
An official with Status of Women Canada said the link to same-sex was made in a draft of the original research proposal, but was later deleted.
“It was in a draft in terms of when we were developing a research proposal, but it was not in the (final) research proposal,” said Nanci-Jean Waugh.
“We made the decision … there was not a connection.”
Somebody tell the good folks at Bountiful, BC.
It’s being reported that the polygamous community has begun marrying teenage girls to each other – after which the patriarchs join their “relationship”.
Is it just me, or have the “no slippery slope” people been rather quiet these days?
Via John Gormley Live
Fred at Gay and Right has offered up the explanation that SSM has nothing to do with the “new” polygamy thrust.
But as I said in his comments, the item wouldn’t even be getting media attention were it not for the precedent set by SSM.
And you can bet your bottom dollar if this report had made it to front pages during the “debates” on SSM, SSM wouldn’t have passed. Or at least it would have been much, much closer.
Nothing shocking here …
Either marriage is a unique and special relationship that is to be protected or it isn’t …
Same-Sex marriage isn’t what killed it either; for the past 50 years (or so) there has been a massive movement towards reducing the commitment through divorce, swinging and open marriages; there has also been a disassociation with marriages and child raising because of divorce. Is it any surprise that marriage has so little meaning anymore that same-sex marriage and multiple-marriage now are becoming acceptable unions?
What I can’t figure out, though, is why Martin and Stronach keep bringing up abortion and SSM on the campaign trail. I really think this will backfire on them.
They think that it is a vote getter, but the truth is that while almost every Canadian has an opinion on these things, only a few groups consider them make-it-or-break-it issues. On the one side, you have the homosexual and feminist lobby, who are at most 10% of the population, and likely far less. The Liberals have had this group locked up for years.
On the other side are Christians, both Protestant and Catholics. Until the 2004 election, these groups split their votes roughly evenly between Liberals and Conservatives. With Martin constantly pounding “we are the party of SSM” and “Liberals believe in a woman’s right to choose” he is literally chasing those Christians out.
We may soon see a realignment, similar to what happened in the U.S. about twenty years ago. Now the Democrats can’t get anywhere in the south because they have completely lost the religious vote. I really don’t think the Liberals realize how important that religious vote is. It may only be 11 or 12% of the population (though I think it’s quite higher when you include strong Catholics), that does make a difference. I wrote more about this here (Hip at Home!: Abortion Issue May Backfire on Liberals
).
I’ve come to the conclusion that Liberalism is indeed an insidious disease that rots from the inside out. It manifests itself by systematically attacking and destroying any semblance of decency an indivindual may possess, then ultimately destroys ones capaicty to think logically.
Is it any surprise? NO. However, that makes it no less disturbing.
We all knew with the legalization of SSM, that this issue would arise at some point.
To say that it is in no way related to the SSM legislation is ridiculous.
This country has become more concerned with economics than values and morals.
That being said, I do belive in SSCU, the British got it right, too bad we didn’t.
�I don’t believe that Canada was built on American conservative values,� said the Prime Minister.”
It’s becoming more obvious to even more Canadians every day.
Agreed, JM, but do Canadians care to do anything about it? E.g. vote Conservative?
Once we get past the moral issues and all that, polygamy has a number of advantages, not the least of which is that it would tend to make succession duties obsolete. And anything that leads to lower taxes is OK by me.
SSM opening the moral degeneracy doors…
Now, the Supreme Court of Canada says homosexuals have the right to be married. They also say groups of consenting adults can have orgies at private, for-pay private “clubs”. (A variant of brothels, IMO. It’s just that the customers supply their own merchandise.)
(And the Grits previously lowered the age of consent in Canada to 14. That means a parent could legally take their son or daughter to a 14th birthday “present” group-sex session, providing the parent didn’t actually touch the kid him/herself. Just imagine what could be done, legally.)
By logical extension of the Supreme Court’s reasoning that being a consenting adult trumps all other legal concerns, doesn’t that also mean the following can logically be pleaded as “Charter rights”?
1. Group marriages of consenting adults
2. Incestuous marriages of consenting adults
Comments, anyone?
I always think of Ray Romano when I hear something about polygamy. His wife Deborah asks him if he’s having an affair and he says, “Yeah, just what I need… another woman to dissapoint.” I just can’t figure out the appeal of more than one spouse.
Countless loud denials that their gun registry would not lead to a gun ban…what do we see as a new Campaign promise from these same liberals?
Loud denials that legitimizing Gay marriage will not open the law/courts to polygamy….what do we see on the Liberal justice dept agenda.
Just WHO has had the hidden agenda all these years?
Polygamous Child Tax Credits:
If you have 7 wives and 30 kids what type of tax credits and spousal deductions do you get? Also, can you take advantage of farm income allowances, stabilization programs, and capital gains treatment if you house them in some type of barn (since most of us can’t afford 6,000 sq foot homes)?
Finally, if this occurs in the West, are you required to sell your wives through the Wheat Board?
Has anyone in the mainstream media written about how Paul Martin mentioned that fake letter from the Conservative Party president in his interview with Peter Mansbridge on Monday night?
http://www.LifeSiteNews.com has posted a transcript.
Check this out:
“Let, let me just, let me give you a, an example that I, that I have discussed and forgive me for taking the time, but I really think it’s an important question. The, the, there are a number of Conservatives, quite a large number of Conservative members of parliament who have said that they would take away a woman’s right to choose and in fact some of them are among the leaders. Stockwell Day and people who would be in, in, in, in, in cabinet.
The president of the Conservative party has said ah, that he has a roadmap to achieve that. There would be a private members bill brought into parliament. Now that private members bill would not pass today. But, if there were a majority of Conservative members, then that bill might well pass. So let’s assume and now this is a debate we all thought was over.”
Just in case you missed the line buried in the verbiage: “The president of the Conservative party has said ah, that he has a roadmap to achieve that.”
On Duffy’s Countdown last night, the Montreal Gazette columnist mentioned that the Swingers’ decision and polygamy were probably having a big effect on voters, even though these issues are off to the side in the public agenda.
I think he’s right. People want a change from radical change under the present government’s capitulation to the courts and the social engineering of Canada into something they don’t recognize.
Trotting out Morgentaler will probably send a few more Catholics out of the Liberal camp.
Legalized polygamy would be a lawyer’s bonaza! Imagine, now there are 3 or more parties involved in every divorce. Assuming you have 1 lawyer for each party, in a 3 party “marriage”, you’d have 3 lawyers minimum, fighting two cases each (with two separate trials).
More lawyers, more judges. No wonder the Liberals and Supreme court like it. Where do the kids fit in with this I wonder though. I’m usually in enough trouble with one wife. I can’t imagine getting hen pecked by two or more!
Frankly, I could care a less whether or not someone wants to marry a dog/gay or 5 times over as long as the children aren’t hurt. Nobody has convinced me however that the kids will come out alright in the balance and that’s why I’d vote against SSM.
These are the issues which are driving Canadians to the CPC. I’m personally against SSM but it has some merit insofar as promoting monogamy in the gay community. The frequency and types of sexual acts they engage in with mutiple partners spreads disease. If they took marriage seriously it may make Canada a healthier and weathier nation. However, with the courts in Quebec opening the doors for swinging clubs it seems they are promoting promiscuity. As for polgomy, this goes totally against the laws of nature. It is no fluke that the population of the earth is 50% men and 50% women. I think Canadians are getting sick of this country morphing into a modern day Sodom and Gommorah.
Hmmm. . . Denise Rudnicki? Isn’t she. . .? >Google.
Yep, yet another ex-CBCer landing in comfy fur.
Sheila G
http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo30a.htm?sdi=christian
Try
12,936,905 catholic
8,654,850 protestant
479,620 Orthodox
780,450 other christian
ie 22,851,825 Million out of a population of 29,639,035 in the last census. And many secular types or Muslims are not enamoured to the idea of homosexual marriage either.
Noone you are bang on it came in because marriages are meaningless these days.
thank you trudeaudeaupia
Plato II – I think that there would fundamentally have to be a two-tiered system. Clearly, lower and middle class people could never afford more than one spouse, if that. So we are really only talking about 34,000 individuals, which means that there would only be a handfull of family units in the richer provinces. Alberta would certainly never go for it, so clearly, we’re only talking about Ontario here, or possibly one or two areas in BC.
Clearly, however, if the Conservatives get in, they and the Bloc intend to legislate some type of means test.
So why are no parties discussing the polygamy report? The media discussed it, a little, for one day. Will this become a right that cannot be cherry-picked?
Dave:
1) Nit-pick: The age of consent in Canada has never been higher than 14. It was raised from 12 in 1890. CANADA’S LEGAL AGE OF CONSENT
2) I agree with the ramifications but you forgot to mention marriage to animals. I’m not kidding.
3) PMPM’s desire to dump the NWC comes just after our Chief Justice said: Judges should feel “emboldened” to trump the written word of the Constitution when protecting fundamental, unwritten principles and rights…..
Put rights before Constitution
WLMR – It’s occurred to me over the past years that liberals often accuse others of that for which they’re guilty. ie. the Liberal’s hidden agenda accusations have precisely hidden their own agenda.
Polygamy becomes law in this country as soon as a threesome of gay activists demand that as a right. Which court would deny it?
‘…Clearly, lower and middle class people could never afford more than one spouse, if that….’
You would have to marry smart. You would want to make sure that your spouses’ other spouses marry rich so they could be the main breadwinners in your ‘extended’ family.
All I can say for now about this is, and pardon my French, please: “Oh, for fuck’s sake! See? Look at what’s happening under the Liberals!”
Greenmambo, Tx for the info. 🙂
I actually read that linked legal document. Interesting history and thought-provoking.
I still think a higher age of consent is a good idea. Fourteen-year-olds have no business having sex. But I guess it does go back to parents being good, responsible parents.
Dave: the implications of the law as it stands and is enforced is that your 14 year old daughter can have an affair or even move in, with a 50 year old and you have no say in the matter.
Furthermore, owing to the way our judges have been interpreting things, anal sex is fine too. It’s technically against the law under 18 but there have been judgments allowing it.
We’re just rolling downhill on all of this. The government, lawyers, judges have all taken leave of their senses. So have segments of the police. In the U.K. they’re frighteningly politically correct. Check this.
‘Gay’ police horse case dropped
The CPC is Canada’s only hope in restoring even a shred of decency to this once proud nation. Forget about “root causes” and other touchy-feely slogans the sissy left likes to spew when moral decay issues are raised. The left has once again proved to be on the wrong side of history. A generation of “big tent”, “everyone get a turn” “no one will judge you” cowardice thanks to the limp wristed epiphany Trudeau declared decades ago has all but ruined this country.
Sorry Kate, I’m somewhat off topic, but I’ve never been more fired up in my life. (Election ’06)
Paul Martin once claimed to be a “devout Catholic” BULL F-CKING $HIT! I have two aunts who are definately devout Catholics. Difference between them and Martin, they actually ARE devout. What also sets them apart from Martin is they’d never make that claim. A humble, strong Christian doesn’t need to go out and show everyone how pious he/she is. If Paulie claims to be a devout follower of the teachings of Jesus and the Bible, his religion should therefore define him, not his political party policy. It should form the core of his being, not a sound bite/photo-op.
Now he’s willing to wipe his ass with the Canadian Constitution because he feels it’s politically expedient to use this stunt to paint Harper as anti-fill in the blank with your choice of minority group du jour. What a hypocrite.
Mr. Martin spews radical left wing pap for the masses, yet it was the (American style) capitalist system that made him his tidy fortune. That and handsome government money and well connected “associates”.
Where is the outrage for his connection to Maurice Strong/UN/Oil for Fraud? The tainted blood scandal? Income trusts?
Yes, many of us here ARE outraged, but by and large, we’re all preaching to the converted. I pray the Liberals are handed thier asses on the 23rd. How I’d love to see the dismay on Peter Mansbridge’s face when election coverage starts up here in Alberta Monday evening. I’d love to see Ontario painted Tory blue and pockets of this colour adorning Qubec and the Maritimes on the map of Canada. For too many years we in the west have tuned in on election night to see a jubilant Mansbridge/Robertson announce “Canada has returned the Liberals to power”. (note: Robertson, however, appears to be “comming around”)
What was with this “Canadians don’t want a winter election” horse$hit we had to endure? It’s not like we have to decend from the hills by pack mule and trudge through Antarctic blizzards to get to the cardboard polling stations at your kid’s elementary school. Give me a break. When the Christmas decorations are half price at Canadian Tire, it doesn’t matter how cold it is outside to load the family into the SUV and head down to the mall, and in the words of Stompin’ Tom, save alot of money spending money we ain’t got.
Last week a non-political family member was over spouting the “it doesn’t make a difference, all the politicians are the same” crap we as Canadians have become accustomed to chant in defeatist unison. I told her that her attitude doesn’t give her the right to vote. Yes, a little heavy handed, but upon carefull interogation, she admitted she knew none of the candidates names in her riding, the party platforms and even what’s been happening in the country, politics wise for the last few years.
Screw the “proportional respresentation” whining from the NDP. Prop. rep. is simply the battle cry of sore losers. Sorry folks, but this election is winner take all. No, the Tories aren’t perfect and rest assure the back benchers and grass roots party members will be a stronger opposition and inspiration to a Harper government to keep their noses clean and fingers out of the till than we’ve ever seen before.
Is it just me or how many of you would also love to see a Liberal MP (or MP’s) led out of the House of Commons in shackles? We’ve been royally screwed by the Liberals and THEY have laughed all the way to the bank.
I wonder if the Staples Office Depot stores in the greater Ottawa area are back ordered on paper shredders. Given the daily scandals the Liberals have been treating us to, this little scenario doesn’t seem to be too far fetched, does it?
Well, that’s enough for now. As a self employed Albertan, I better get back down in the hull and start rowing again.
Once again, my apologies to Kate for the off topic rant.
Eskimo, that’s OK, it’s a good rant!
From an American point of view: the Grits and their MSM propaganda mouthpieces have done a good job. We, and I daresay a lot of Canadians, falsely see moderate and conservative Canadians as a marginalized tiny minority.
At least in Campaign 2006, that’s been proven WRONG! 🙂
In no small part due to the Internet and Blogs, the Grits and their MSM enablers have been somewhat called to account. It’s harder now for the professional liars in the Grits AND their allies in the MSM to get away with it.
While there are some substantive issues on which Canadians and Americans differ, given two honest governments of good will, those issues are surmountable.
I assure you the vast majority of Americans wish you well and hope you get what you want. That’s an honest, accountable government of people for whom Public Service is a Trust and an Honor, not a means to manipulate and steal.
I told you so.
The no-slippery-slope people haven’t been quiet at all, Kate. They’ve been whistling loudly and looking the other way.
Re age of consent. When I went to high school, a common comment re dating a girl-Stay away, she’s jail bait, (under 18) Girls marrying under the age of 18 had to get their parents permission, because of age of consent. At least that was the law in AB in 1954. This permission had to be notorized, with potential bride, groom and parents of the underaged person.
“Is it just me, or have the “no slippery slope” people been rather quiet these days?”
Look, the whole point of having a slippery slope is riding your toboggan down it, which I have been doing. If you haven’t seen me making much noise lately it’s simply because I’m busy having too much fun.
WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!
Purchasing wives in the middle east is about to become big business. And they’re all coming here, soon to be legitimately.
Polyandry would of course also be legal, but that doesn’t make too much difference, any male or female Canadian could go and marry any number of males or females and legitimately bring them back to Canada. Quaint Western notions of love have nothing to do with these relationships.
Spousal benefits regulations would also have to be rewritten in order to support the usual social unfairness and inequalities that are found in backwards societies that condone polygamous relationships – this is the Liberal Canada we’ve chosen for 12 years, yippee….
…I saw this cute goldfish…
dang, no law yet with pets eh?
One advantage of polygamy is maybe at least one wife wouldn’t have a headache. If the first wife or husband gets to pick the next one, could be fun to see the spouse reject the choice. As for marrying an animal. There was a recent item on all the MSM in the US about a woman marrying a WHALE, wedding dress and all, after a 15yr courtship. It ended when she asked the media to leave and give them some private time. I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP. Lets have a referendum on SSM, abortion, polygamy, and liberal values. Can’t wait to see the SEC in the US lay charges against some liberals re Income Trust. Who will they put in ankle bracelets, aka Martha.
…it was a porpoise.
Let there be no doubt in anyone’s mind that Canada will definitely be different if the Liberals are reelected. We don’t recognize Canada today. We won’t recognize it tomorrow either under continued Liberal lefto-extremist rule.
And, yes, that’s totally on-topic for this thread.
I have said this before — just because it is rarely prosecuted, does not make it right.
When Sharia law loomed in Ontario, where were the feminists?
Where are the feminists on the polygamy issue?
However, it is clear that women aren’t as highly rated as multiculturalism in the womyn’s movement.
What’s so GALLING is that at the same time the likes of screecing Annie, Mr. Dithers and not-so bright Brison etc. were sneering at the Conservatives and “REAL” Canadians that this would NEVER happen, they commissioned a study on it.
The Liberals are the ones who can’t work with anyone or be conciliatory much less democratic. I saw Harper on Mike Duffy’s Countdown tonight and he was great! Very Prime Ministerial. I sense he will be the most ‘humane and humble’ Prime Minister this Country has ever seen. He actually said something to the effect that he thinks it will be alot easier to work with Layton because is predictable, whereas the Liberals are all over the place on any given day/issue. Oh so contrary. I don’t know if he said Duceppe is predictable, which he is, but that was the impression I got. He also reminded viewers and Duffy that even if they get a majority, there is still a Liberal dominated senate, and Supreme Court, and we all know where the likes of Beverly McLachlin is determined to go. So nothing will come easy for Harper.
Scooter Brison, Svend, Pierre Petticoat, a chauffeur. Elton and Canadas new Queen the same sex multiples are not quite endless.
as they would say in statistics and math , Six choose five. 6!/5!
or in this case Six choose Sex.
This is a ridiculous debate. Allowing same-sex marriage does in no way lead to the legalizing of polygamy. SSM ensures a charter right that has no harm to society and actually does promote equality for a group that is arguably marginalized because of a trait they have no control over. Being gay is not a choice, no different than the colour of ones skin. On the other hand polygamy has been documented as being very harmful to society and particularly for the women and children involved, if anything it offends equality rights. To link the two together is simply a dishonest scare tactic that stinks of bigotry wrapped in moral rhetoric.
Furthermore, if one looks at what has been said about the polygamy report, they would realize that report advocates legalization in order for the government to better protect the well being of those who are in polygamous situations. It also gives them a way out of such a situation with some government support and the benefit of being able to force some benefits out of the man involved if a wife decides she wants out.
Canada is not ready for polygamy however and it would be very unlikely that the Supreme Court would even hear a polygamy rights case, as it too does take into account general social trends in Canadian society.
Bottom line, don�t link Polygamy to SSM to do so is totally intellectually dishonest.
Come back in a year and say that, McGill. Personally, I thought the sex radicals would lay off polygamy for at least five years, so as not to insult the public’s intelligence too much, but it looks like things are already moving on that front.
And if DNA research keeps rolling along, it’ll eventually be legal to contract not only incestuous marriages, and marriages with animals, but *incestuous* marriages with animals (with chimaeras, anyway!)
I’d have put a smiley after that last one, except inevitably someone would have thought I was delighted the idea.
Intellectual Pariah, you can’t actually believe that it would come to that and SSM has no link what so ever to polygamy or beastiality. If you’ve got something against gays why don’t you just say it as opposed to smearing their effort at equal recognition with radical hypothetical conjectures of what might be next? There is no link between any of those radical things you are talking about and SSM. SSM is about two consenting people wanting societal recognition for their relationship on equal footing as heterosexuals. Their relationships don’t harm society of those involved in anyway. On the other hand as I said in my earlier post, polygamy is harmful and often abusive to those involved and it involves more than two people. While you likely just trying to make lite of the situation beastality has nothing to do with equality rights, it involves no consent and animal cruelty. What you are saying is analogous to some one arguing against giving women the right to vote because it might lead to society being forced to give dogs the vote. Whether you accept or not we are governed by reasonable and fair minded people…Why I decided to bother arguing with you is beyond me, you strike me as the narrow minded sort.. slow day at work I guess
online sports betting sports betting usa http://hochubumer.allsoch.ru/sport_betting/pinnacle_sports_betting.html college degree in sports betting sports betting software http://hochubumer.allsoch.ru/sport_betting/sports_betting_promotions.html and …. sports betting systems betting on sports http://hochubumer.allsoch.ru/sport_betting/arbitrage_sports_betting.html english sports betting beginner sports betting http://hochubumer.allsoch.ru/sport_betting/sports_betting_odd.html sports betting services sports betting hint http://hochubumer.allsoch.ru/sport_betting/round_robin_sports_betting.html .Thanks.