Religion in Canada

Wives galore

Just part of being free?

See article

Readers' comments



I might add:

In most of these polygamous relationships, it is almost ALWAYS young girls that are married off at very young ages. That is not polygamy people! If these men really wanted to be polygamous, then let them go ahead, with people old enough to drive, vote, etc. Taking advantage of young girls is illegal, and should be punishible by law.


"The government of Canada should not make laws to regulate or try to define the institution of marriage (being a cultural construct, anyway), but instead should focus the civil rights and PROTECTIONS of its citizens."

I have to agree with many different opinions except for this assertion. The Canandian government would not be protecting the rights of children who are on a daily basis being forced into marriage, as young as 15. Again, it is not so much polygamy, in my opinion, that is the problem. I think it is much more just not protecting the rights, nor the welfare of these children. That, any way you see it, should be illegal. At this point it has nothing to do with protecting religious views of Mormons, nor any sect, it is protecting the welfare of a child.


jamesyar you write:" I agree with the unmarried multiple partners issue, but this is about the legal definition of marriage (both law and marriage are social constructs). And if polygamy is widespread (we are talking about national law)"

My point is not that marriage should legally be allowed for more than one partner: my point is if someone marries a second time in a religous ceremony, they aren't legally married a second time, it is null and void, so how can this religious ceremony be considered a crime?
how can you prosecute someone for this?

So if I'm married, and I invent a religion, and have a second ceremony, where one of my friends declares me "married", what part of this is a crime?

When he says "I now pronounce you man and wife".
Doesn't that infringe on freedom of speech.

Again, your argument has nothing to do with morals, you simply say"if every man was to have lots of wives, there would be loads of single men".

You seem to forget that not every woman would be willing to share a husband, and not every man would want the finincial (and emotional) burden of having multiple wives.

There would be plenty for everyone.


Most Provinces of Canada have laws limiting the capacity of minors to marry. They also have laws to protect children from abuse and neglect. The real problem posed by the Bountiful community's polygamy practices is that children there are, arguably, being exploited in an abusive and neglectful way by their parents and that the current marriage capacity and abuse and neglect laws are thwarted by the complicity of these parents. This is quite another matter than the questions of whether Canadians generally favour polygamy,whether polygamy entered into by consenting adults should be restricted by law and the probable role of the Charter in settling such questions.

The real solution, in my view, is to appropriately broaden the child consent to marriage and the child protection against abuse and neglect laws to better protect children from being married off by adults while allowing consenting adults to enter into the broadest spectrum of official and unofficial conjugul unions provided third parties are not thereby abandoned or abused. This would both reflect the complexity of society and avoid Charter problems.


Wives galore article is misleading a bit.It infers that Polygamy in Canada is illegal. In the province of Saskatchewan Polygamy is very legal and it is sanctioned by the state government legislation, Attorney Generals and the family court judges.Polygamy is not a criminal act in that area of Canada. The Married Persons Property Act of Saskatchewan has a section 51 that allows multiple conjugal unions at the same time. This subject is not a matter of freedom of worship because it is already approved in one Canadian state that the Federal criminal law is meaningless so Polygamists will just move to that state.


I'm amenable to the argument that polygamy should be decriminalized, because I think that getting the state involved may well do more harm than good. I don't believe that throwing a few fanatical Mormon or Muslim polygamists in jail will actually stop these guys from taking multiple wives; it will just cause them to be more discreet about it. However, for those who want to legalize polygamy, let me ask you this: do you think polyandry (women marrying multiple men) should be recognized by our law as well as polygyny (men marrying multiple women)?If your answer is yes, then that would result in complicated and interlocking webs of multiple partners. If I could marry 10 women, and they could each marry 10 men, and so on, really, what's the point of marriage anymore?If your answer is no, that's blatantly sexist. I think this is what jamesyar has been getting at with his comments that polygyny would lead to an abundance of single men. The posters here that dismiss that argument are missing the broader point that legally sanctioned gender inequality is always wrong.

James Yarwood

Jet Screamer - First - Of course there is near parity, within less than 1% in a normal human population. The Canadian government is making law for all citizens, not just Mormons, unless you think law should be religion specific? Second - same as first. Why are you assuming an abundance of women?Third - serial monogamy is not polygamy, its monogamy. A formal system of polygamy is one way of providing a support mechanism for single women and children, but it also creates a mechanism for creating young disenfranchised men - do you agree? If no, do you assume then that most men would be happy to be permanently unmarried, or that most people would be monogamous by choice? If yes, does this not lead to being socially destabilising? If not, why not? I think I have made my point, so I am signing off this comment thread after this, but I be intrigued to see why you think religious freedom, whilst important, should trump real or perceived concerns about society. If you think that polygamous societies are stable, fine, but I disagree.leftwinger87 - I agree with the unmarried multiple partners issue, but this is about the legal definition of marriage (both law and marriage are social constructs). And if polygamy is widespread (we are talking about national law) then how is moving elsewhere going to help? There will always be far more single men than women. My point is that that is not good for any society, so formalising it in law just to match a religious belief is a bad idea - without even mentioning forced marriage, child abuse and rape that always seem to occur with polygamy. I also don't think it is 'silly'.

Jet Screamer

@ jamesyar - I never heard a sillier argument. First, you're assuming there is some parity in the numbers of women to men in a population, which is just wrong. Second, Polygamous systems usually develop among societies with traditional gender roles when for one reason or another there becomes an abundance of women who are otherwise unsupported. Third, call it what you like, polygamy, in the form of serial monogamy is alive and well in all western societies, only the formality of marriage of often not a part of the deal... and as a result, there are plenty of single mothers and unsupported children about. In the very least, a fomal polygamous system provides a mechanism of suport for women and children. In the case of this Mormon society, however, any potential benefit of a polygamous system is outweighed by accusations of forced marriage and an inability for people to leave the society if they wish. The government of Canad should not make laws to regulate or try to define the institution of marriage (being a cultural construct, anyway), but instead should focus the civil rights and protections of its citizens. There is a way to allow Mormons to practice their faith and culture, while at the same time ensuring basic protections and freedoms for their members.


right, so because a man marries two women, he "steals" a wife from another man. And these grown up men are unable to go to some other part of a country and find a wife?
Fair enough, your may argue "why should he have to leave his home in order to marry, when someone else can have two wives".
If they're so "disenfranchised", then what's to stop them moving elsewhere?

This in no way restricts the right of someone else to get married, as you say: it doesn't restrict their right to move elsewhere, and they're still allowed to marry.

When you say:"Having children by multiple women outside of marriage is, I think, a separate issue."

It may be, but in a sense they are connected from a legal point of view: how can polygamy be "illegal" when having multiple children outside of marriage is ok?

The only difference is in polygamy, everybody is happy, where as, if a man has children with another woman, he usually loses a wife, has to pay more, and the kids lose out on a father.
At least in polygamy, everybody lives harmoniously together.

My basic point is, how does the law make a distinction between having multiple children and living with multiple women, and having children with another family?

Frankly, I would interpret it as it should be ok under the eyes of the law, teh law seems to contradict itself on this one!

James Yarwood

leftwinger87;Because if a large group of men have two wives, it means that an equally large group of men cannot get married at all (apart from to each other :)I don't think I contradict myself - everyone has the right to marry whomever they want, but not to restrict the right of someone else to get married. Every time a man marries an extra wife, that is what they are doing. I know that sound simplistic, but I read that Mormon communities do have problems with unmarried disenfranchised young men. I think it is fair to say that some Muslim countries also have this problem.Having children by multiple women outside of marriage is, I think, a separate issue.


jamesyar you write:
"but this rights stops when it causes social damage by infringing on the rights of others to get married."

How does having one or more women infringe the rights of others to get married?
I fail to see how this is possible.

You also contradict yourself when you say someone has the right to marry whoever they want, but.....

Again, my point is that the law can't stop you having children with more than one woman, if that was the case, then adultery would be illegal.
All it can do is not to validate a marraige to someone who is already married.


The Supreme Court of Canada has given a very broad scope to freedom of religion under the Charter, so there's every cause to believe that they'll also strike down the anti-polygamy provision of the Criminal Code for that reason.That's exactly why we need the notwithstanding clause (to non-Canadians: this is a provision of the Charter that allows the legislature to override certain Charter rights, although it's rarely used in practice). I'm generally a fan of the Charter, but rights cannot and should not be absolute.

Mike Rudd

Hi jamesyar, i am not sure just what you think is untrue, But if it is the case of the''Preachers of hate'' I refered to, try to recearch the hook handed one, you will find that he has had multi wives, and Kids who the tax payer is giving huge payments to while he preached our destruction, And what about that one that Preacher whose daughter is a pole dancer in a night club, He is banned from returning to the UK but while here also milked the public purse, caliming multi wives and other dependants.and as th where this was reported, try the FT, And I remember the Economist also reported on them but I cant remember if they refered to they multi wives


I think that it is easy to take the polemic route and either: villify polygamy on ethical grounds (as unclear and ambiguous as they are) -or- turn a blind eye (or strike down polygamy laws), but there seems to be a lack of reliable information about what is actually going on within the sect's day-to-day life - and what will happen if we take either severe action. The big-picture is too fuzzy and ill-formed - and it takes a sophisticated and compassionate eye to determine the actual 'quality' of the lives within this situation.What of the health, welfare, and rights of the inhabitants? Is there a mechanism in place to protect those that are unable to make decisions for themselves (due to age or other issue)? What of the education and living standards? It is a point of pride in living in a rich nation that we are given the education, protections, and transparency (in some degree or another) that empowers each of us to make the decisions on how to run our lives (for better or worse). Are these minimum standards of self-awareness and self-determination (for lack of better terms) in place? As this drama unfolds in the courts and on television (and the internet) throughout, we need to try and find the underlying 'humanity' of the situation. Separate the passions from the succinct observations and analyses. This news item brings up several issues, not at least of which: is that of how a young person decides what is in their best interest; how a community ensures fairness and basic rights for those that want to exercise them; whether the standards as they exist are indeed healthy for all individuals; the rights of parents to dictate the living conditions of their children; etc. Unfortunately, many of the subtleties of these issues may be beyond most people. At the end of the day, let us hope that rationality prevails.

Jet Screamer

People should be able to live the way they want, as long as it doesn't interfere with anothers ability to do the same. The Mormons should be allowed to practice their faith, including whatever concept of marriage they may have, as long as the participants of that faith are participating voluntarily. Hence, the governments role should be to ensure the ability for people who want to opt out of the Mormom lifestyle to express their desire to do so anonymously, and then to do so with the protection of the government, and with ease.

In this way, free practice of religion is maintained, and the concerns of the state- i.e. exploitation, are addressed and managed. True adherants of the faith will benefit, the state will benefit, and the girls who want to leave the lifestyle will benefit. The only people that won't benefit are slimy, lecherous, old men who think it's ok to compell girls and women to live a life they do not wish to live...


"We are reaping what we have sown, and we either retract all of our past permissiveness, or else we are logically lead to accept all future permissiveness, including polygamy."

Or the state could get out of the business of sanctioning personal relationships entirely...


It seems that the most valid argument ever being voiced against polygamy is when it is being foisted upon under-aged girls. Although the FLDS indeed do so, I can’t help but wonder that if all of the FLDS girls married only after turning 18 would we still be having this debate?

I sense that there are many who find polygamy disagreeable, period, but who can’t articulate a rational argument against it and thus are more than happy to rally around the point that a significant fraction of the FLDS girls entering polygamy are underage, and thus the whole debate is founded on hidden agendas.

Perhaps what should be made universally illegal is under-aged marriage, period, whether it is monogamous or not. But if such a law is enacted and obeyed, what then becomes the argument against polygamy, especially in a society that seems perfectly at ease permitting one unmarried man to go about sleeping with as many unmarried legal-aged women as he pleases?

We have trod this path of permissiveness so long and so far that it is hard to argue against anything anymore. We are reaping what we have sown, and we either retract all of our past permissiveness, or else we are logically lead to accept all future permissiveness, including polygamy.

James Yarwood

leftwinger87:I see your point, but (from own POV) the rights that would be restricted would be only those that, in the case of that person, cause damage to society (e.g. everyone else). In your example, someone has the right to drive a car only if they have passed their test. If they speed a red light, their rights to drive are removed. if that is not sufficient to stop them running red lights, then their rights of freedom are removed (e.g. they are jailed). Similarly, a person has the right to marry whomever they want (male or female), but this rights stops when it causes social damage by infringing on the rights of others to get married.

Lassegurra Aktersnurra

it is amazing that this specific belief and similar muslim beliefs does not have more male followers than it does, after all a heterosexual man is designed to participate in as many child creation activities as possible, is it minds victory over body, sense over desire?



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

