tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1133916536511836970.post146709279283322042..comments2023-12-10T08:21:16.075+00:00Comments on Religion Law Blog: Is Polygamy a "Human Right" ? - Part 2Neil Addisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00489922704972084561noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1133916536511836970.post-40330891124380661582011-11-29T18:44:53.365+00:002011-11-29T18:44:53.365+00:00In one sense you are correct I disagree with the j...In one sense you are correct I disagree with the judgment but not for the reasons you state. The judgment is based on the concept of monogamous marriage being the historic societal norm of the west. The point I make is that that it is monogamous heterosexual marriage which is the historic societal norm of the west. Once the Canadian Courts dismissed the heterosexual aspect of marriage I fail to understand the logic of them suddenly relying on historical societal norms as the basis for a decision re Polygamy. <br /><br />Re the alleged condemnation of Polygamy throughout history whilst I am no fan of Polygamy it has a longer and more established history than same sex relationships. I could just as easily state that same sex relationships have been condemned throughout history.Neil Addisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00489922704972084561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1133916536511836970.post-89541355766243880542011-11-29T18:12:44.288+00:002011-11-29T18:12:44.288+00:00from Chris Morley
Neil, you complain:
"I ut...from Chris Morley<br /><br />Neil, you complain: <br />"I utterly fail to understand the logic of saying that same sex marriage is a Human Right but Polygamous Marriage is unlawful and harmful to society."<br /><br />You have created your own logical failure but are choosing instead to blame the Canadian Courts for its creation. <br /><br />Both the paragraphs from the judgement [1332] and [1350] which you quote refer explicitly to <i> monogamous </i> marriage (= between two people only).<br /><br />The two 'gay marriage' endorsing judgements you refer to (Barbeau v. British Columbia, 2003 and Halpern v Canada 2003) ruled that limiting monogamous marriage to heterosexual couples to the exclusion of gay couples was "discriminatory". <br />I understand you disagree with both these judgements for religious reasons and you apparently wish to see the Catholic Church's teachings about marriage imposed on the whole of Canadian / British society.<br />Your logical problem stems from your own rejection of those two rulings. <br /><br />The Supreme Court judgement is clear that polygamy (= a person with more than one partner) is different from monogamy : [1262] "As I have discussed at length, polygamy has been condemned throughout history because of the harms consistently associated with its practice." "Any differential treatment that flows from s. 293 is not based on stereotypes with respect to particular marital forms" (viz gay v heterosexual marriage). <br /><br />The Supreme Court ruled therefore that polygamous relationships are validly illegal under the Canadian Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.<br /><br /><br /><br />You only "utterly fail to understand the logic" because this is self-induced by two things: <br />- your refusal to accept the validity of the Canadian Courts' rulings in the two gay marriage cases, Barbeau v. British Columbia, 2003 and Halpern v Canada 2003, because you believe homosexuality 'has been condemned throughout history because of the harms consistently associated with its practice' and <br />- secondly your ignoring the category difference between monogamy and polygamy, between the state legitimising relationships between two people and expecting the state to legitimise relationships between more than two people. <br /><br />You are blaming the Canadian Courts for a logic problem you have created for yourself. <br />That doesn't seem very logical for a barrister.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com