Canada has recognized same-sex “marriages” since 2005, and now apparently is preparing to take the next step in the “progressive” movement, with arguments scheduled in coming days before the equivalent of a state Supreme Court on a plan to repeal laws against polygamy and bigamy.
The CBC has told the story of Zoe Duff, a director of the Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association, who has two male common-law partners and believes Canada’s polygamy laws need to be stricken because they don’t permit her to live her chosen lifestyle.
The situation involving the Vancouver Island woman is expected to be the subject of hearings planned before the British Columbia Supreme Court over the coming weeks.
If the advocates for multiple partners are successful in the provincial court, their next hurdle would be the Canadian Charter, where Section 293 of the Criminal Code at this point still bans polygamy and threatens offenders with a five-year prison term. Section 290 makes a similarly serious crime of bigamy.
Observers note that American values appear to be following Canada’s down the slippery slope of lifestyle choices.
The arguments for same-sex marriage have been white-hot in several campaigns recently in the U.S., including the 2008 vote in California where voters approved Proposition 8, a constitutional definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman only.
The results overturned a state Supreme Court decision there that had created same-sex “marriage” only months before, and were, in turn, overturned by a federal judge, a homosexual who concluded that such “rights” were embedded in the U.S. Constitution.
The vote followed a campaign that saw supporters spend $39.9 million on their position and opponents $43.3 million, for a spending total of $83 million for a new record nationally for a social policy initiative.
It was in September when U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker, an open homosexual, overruled more than seven million voters to banish Proposition 8, setting up an appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
His 136-page ruling said, “Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.”
Walker also wrote:
- “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”
- “Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.”
- “The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment.”
- “The evidence shows beyond any doubt that parents’ genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes.”
- “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.”
- “Many of the purported interests identified by proponents are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples.”
Walker’s decision also had disregarded the terse warning contained in California Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter’s dissenting opinion in a 2008 case on same-sex “marriage.” That case saw same-sex “marriage” imposed by judicial fiat on the state, a result that was reversed by the Prop 8 vote.
Baxter had warned of the “legal jujitsu” required to establish same-sex “marriage” by court order.
“The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deeprooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations of social policy,” Baxter warned in his dissent. “Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous. Yet here, the majority overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deeprooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to marry that contravenes express statutory law.
“Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?” Baxter wrote.
Jim Campbell, a lawyer supporting Proposition 8’s ban on same-sex “marriage, said, “In America, we should uphold and respect the right of people to make policy changes through the democratic process, especially changes that do nothing more than uphold the definition of marriage that has existed since the founding of this country and beyond.”
Canada’s legalization of same-sex “marriage” has sparked a collision course between law and religion and observers say adding polygamy to the argument will only exacerbate the problem..
They say the arguments the Canadian provincial Supreme Court will consider in whether or not to ban laws against polygamy are identical to those in favor of same-sex “marriage.”
Those include medical and psychiatric arguments that denying same-sex couples legal access to “marriage” and all of its attendant benefits represents discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Another argument in support of same-sex marriage is the assertion that financial, psychological and physical well-being are enhanced by marriage (of any kind), and that children of same-sex couples benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally recognized union supported by society’s institutions.
James Cohen, vice president of The International Free Press Society Canada, regarding the possibility of Canada repealing its polygamy laws said, “Even though I am a libertarian (more or less) the elimination of monogamy and legalization of polygamy is fast tracking the end of Western civilization.”
Cohen said the elimination of a ban on polygamy actually would speed the Islamization of Western culture.
“For those who feel there is a cultural and other divides between the rich and the poor, just wait until the wealthy and the powerful have a disproportionate number of wives and the poor have none. It is a recipe for if not Muslim, a Muslim-like hierarchy,” he said.
“It will be in truth, a giant leap forward for the Islamification of Canada, which is what it is meant to be, and will create a system within which non-Muslims will be at a distinct disadvantage in many ways. Already many Muslims in Toronto have multiple wives, all of whom get large welfare benefits based on number of children they have and in violation not only of our polygamy laws, but also the laws determining how many people may collect welfare within one household,” Cohen said.
Duff says she would like the court to strike down the laws so that she doesn’t have to live in the shadows.
David Harris, a Canadian barrister and solicitor and a panelist at a Washington International Legal Conference last year, said he expects polygamy ultimately to be established in Canada.
“Canada, a country of 34 million, has the greatest per capita immigration intake in the world. And that’s based on the official figure of 260,000 a year; the actual figure – taking into account foreign students and ‘temporary’ workers – is estimated by experts to be at least double that. The refugee numbers are also the biggest per capita in the world. This is socially and economically disastrous, and is explained almost exclusively by politicians’ wishing to ingratiate themselves to religio-ethno-cultural voting blocs,” he said.
Both Canadians Harris and Cohen, independently of one another, emphasized the strong probability of Canada quickly becoming overrun with Muslims if Canada’s polygamy and bigamy laws are overturned.
“I’d invite you to imagine the magnet Canada would become for radical-Muslim immigrants and refugees, if, on top of all this, Canada’s Supreme Court were to confer legitimacy upon polygamy and other Shariah-friendly arrangements,” he said.
The hearings are expected to run into January. Some three dozen witnesses are expected to testify.
In America, some half a dozen states “recognize” same-sex “marriage,” including several where it has been imposed on residents by judicial fiat.
In one such state, Iowa, voters responded earlier this month by voting to fire three of the seven state Supreme Court justices who imposed homosexual marriage. The remaining justices were not up for a vote at this time.
Now those who campaigned for voters to reject Marsha Ternus, David Baker and Michael Streit say they are hoping that the message will reverberate across the country and other judges will begin reining in their activism.
“The people have spoken. Time for the elitist judges to understand there is a constitution and that government is owned by the people,” wrote Dennis S. in a forum at the Topix.com website.
Pastor Cary Gordon of Cornerstorne World Outreach in Sioux City was one of the pastors who coordinated a letter to churches asking them to speak out against homosexual “marriage.”
He told WND that the letter reminded pastors of their moral obligation to cry out against evil and address arrogance and injustice in the courts.
If you would like to sound off on this issue, participate in today’s WND Poll.