Regardless of whether some, most, or all polygynous Mormons are abusive, though, it remains the abuse that's the harmful behavior, not the polygyny. They were claiming a right to plural marriage, not a right to abuse wives and children.
This ruling is roughly the equivalent of a judge noting that lesbian relationships have a greater than average correlation with partner abuse*, and upholding a ban on lesbianism on the grounds that the specific lesbian challenging the ban has in fact abused a partner. The character of the claimant, and whether the claimant is guilty of another crime, wasn't the question before the Court.
By the judge's logic, would it also be appropriate to uphold a total ban on all religious practice, so long as the person in front of the bench was a fundamentalist Mormon? After all, his specific religious beliefs are arguably a more central part of his abusive behavior than his polygyny. It's easy to have a plural marriage without abusing anybody; it's much harder to unabusively follow a fundamentalist religion that teaches all women should be submissive to their husbands.
I'm not familiar enough with Canadian law to know whether secular polyamorists will have standing to file a similar suit, but I hope they do. I'd be very interested to see if the results are different.
[* - This is probably not true. It's a for-the-sake-of-argument.]
Re: flames.... at the side of my face.... red.... burning.....
Date: 2011-11-23 09:55 pm (UTC)This ruling is roughly the equivalent of a judge noting that lesbian relationships have a greater than average correlation with partner abuse*, and upholding a ban on lesbianism on the grounds that the specific lesbian challenging the ban has in fact abused a partner. The character of the claimant, and whether the claimant is guilty of another crime, wasn't the question before the Court.
By the judge's logic, would it also be appropriate to uphold a total ban on all religious practice, so long as the person in front of the bench was a fundamentalist Mormon? After all, his specific religious beliefs are arguably a more central part of his abusive behavior than his polygyny. It's easy to have a plural marriage without abusing anybody; it's much harder to unabusively follow a fundamentalist religion that teaches all women should be submissive to their husbands.
I'm not familiar enough with Canadian law to know whether secular polyamorists will have standing to file a similar suit, but I hope they do. I'd be very interested to see if the results are different.
[* - This is probably not true. It's a for-the-sake-of-argument.]