John Ivison: Polygamy makes for strange political bedfellows

National Post ^ | March 5, 2009 | John Ivison

[Loyalist]

Polygamy came to Parliament Hill on Wednesday, as opponents of decriminalization opened a political front in their campaign to ensure that marriage remains a union limited to two people.

Immediately apparent at the news conference on Wednesday were the strange alliances that form around this issue. Charles McVety of the Institute for Family Values is an outspoken evangelical leader from the Christian right, who was vocal in his oppositon to same-sex marriage. Farzana Hassan, president of the Muslim Canadian Congress, an organization that represents secular and progressive Muslims, supported gay marriage but opposes polygamy.

Dr. McVety believes the two are related and pointed out that he argued the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex unions would lead to polygamy. Ms. Hassan said that there is a fundamental difference between the two — same-sex relations are consensual, while polygamy is about power and the domination of women. “As a Muslim woman from Pakistan, I have seen the negative effects of polygamy. Women are always short-changed when polygamy is allowed to flourish,” she said.

....

But a change to the current law, imperfectly worded as it is, would not just vindicate the harried family man with three wives, such as Bill Hendrickson, the hero at the heart of Big Love, the HBO series about a polygamist. It would also condone what Ms. Hassan called the dark side of polygamy in the Muslim world, where women are treated as “sub-humans” and children end up traumatized. “I would oppose it tooth and nail if I were in that situation. Islam allows men to take up to four wives — I would end up with a quarter of a husband. That’s a huge iniquity in society.”

[Loyalist]

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is as sacred to our judiciary--perhaps more so--than the Qu'ran to Muslims, both considered the perfect, inerrant, unchanging word of Allah (or the State).

Even if judges or imams issue contradictory rulings, they need only refer to the authority of the Charter, or the Qu'ran, and all arguement is expected to cease forever.

So naturally Canada's judges will strike down the polygamy law. It offends against the Charter. Why? How? That's not for the laity to understand. It is the State's ineffable will.

[wombtotomb]

slippery slope, same as allowing artificial contraception was a slippery slope.

[rom]

Watching the gay-rights crowd twist themselves into contortions to suppress polygamous marriages is going to be awesome.

I thought, as long as its consensual, “its okay?” was the mantra.

Now they judge?

BWAHAHAHAHA!