(no subject)

[theweaselking]

Mormons: once again, ruining things for everyone.

(Short version: Plural marriage remains illegal among consenting-adults-as-equals because Mormons insist that trafficking children for sexual purposes is a religious obligation *and* that it's the same as plural marriage, and the Mormons themselves were the test case before the court.)

Comments

[elmo-iscariot.livejournal.com]

Booo!

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

OFFS

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Not that Blackmore's marriages are in any way legally certified.

(Fun fact: Two of his "wives" got married to each other legally. He was informed of this in a television interview. Awkward!)

flames.... at the side of my face.... red.... burning.....

[aeduna.livejournal.com]

Also, in related idiotic news, we've found that in many thefts, DVDs are taken, so we're making DVDs illegal.

Fail Canadia.

[sucrelefey.livejournal.com]

I'm poly and I'm good with this.
The state is still treating everyone the same; every adult gets one legal marriage. There is no discrimination in that.
The atheist in me is all for rulings that sum up as "No, you can not use god as an excuse to be a selfish dick. No, you can not claim a special privilege in the name of god."

[maelorin]

"marriage" in the legal sense is a property relationship, not a relationship relationship.

marriage involves two people for several reasons:

1 marriage is an assertion of paternity
2 marriage is an assumption of interests over property as between the couple
3 marriage affects the distribution of property as a consequence of 2

poly-party marriage would not be impossible, but it would require a significant restructure of a great many common law and statutory interests.

common law *assumes* marriage is between two natural persons.

it is entirely possible to make legal arrangements between more than two people: contract law and equity provide some starting materials.

but the *social* implications of the institution of marriage are deeply embedded in common law cultures, and *those* are probably the harder matters to change when all is said and done. [certainly, it's hard enough to get some folks to contemplate de jure marriage between non-boy-girl couples: adding extras into the mix breaks even more brains.]

[nb. i am not amerkin, i iz aussie. but i iz law-talking guy. and happy to be (a) wrong, (b) right, (c) learning more about amerkin lawings. aus has a single national marriage law, and sate-by-state de facto laws. some places also recognise 'civil unions'.]

[maelorin]

flds polygamy bears only superficial likeness to polyamourous polygamy.

the degree of social coercion and community enforcement of man must have many wives must bear many children is horrendous.

but it is very difficult to establish adequate evidence of such coercion so as to mount a successful prosecution. this is so for many reasons. (it has been pursued many times in many places. witnesses find themselves expelled from their homes and families by the ruling males. that threat alone prevents many from speaking up).

in the kind of community that flds fosters, the polygamy is itself a harm. might not be in different contexts, but i doubt a judge will rule in favour of legally-recognised poly marriage until (a) parliament provides for such an institution, and (b) there are better means to ascertain whether coercion is involved.

coercion within existing binary hetero marriages has been recognised and accepted as a significant harm in many (most? all?) common law jurisdictions. but it's one that's fraught with difficulties, and few walk away from an investigation into accusations (whether true or not) without having been harmed further by the process.

in light of the prevalence of harmful behaviours within existing recognised binary marriages (at least those brought into courts), it does not surprise me that judges would tend to be sceptical that multi-partner relationships could be anything but more problematic. especially when it is a social convention, fostered by a long history of socio-religious emphasis, that binary-is-normal. legally-recognised marriage has been constructed as a man and a woman as parents of their children, and viewed by law as a single entity.

this judgement is a solid piece of common-law criminal law reasoning.

the common law (and common law lawyers) is (are) good at ascribing interests to parties to a dispute, and adjudicating between them according to rules set out in law. but less good at dealing with 'vague' social norms, focussing instead on rules and the adjudication of them.

[equity exists because of this flaw. but very few lawyers in common law courts have much grasp of equity - many consider it an elusive, slippery, value-laden, wishy-washy mess. but equity has little room to speak when interpreting statutes.]