The Shotgun Blog
« Zell Miller | Main | Press Review »
Thursday, September 02, 2004
Steyn on Polygamy
There've been a number of comments on my posting, some of which miss the point.
I can understand why American opponents of gay marriage frame the argument in slippery slope terms, but in Canada it amounts to no more than a debating point now that the SCC will be dealing with the issue.
I think Canadians would be wise to demand that the government produce a principled justification for treating the "right" to gay marriage and (voluntary) polygamy differently under the law and the constitution.
Here's the concluding paragraph of a column I wrote in the Globe back in February after Ottawa revised its reference question:
"A wise Conservative leader will not rule out affirming the supremacy of our democratically elected Parliament, should judges try to resolve this contradiction based on their personal values, and not on sound constitutional principles."
Posted by Norman Spector on September 2, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83456b2c069e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Steyn on Polygamy:
» Holy Matrimony! from small dead animals
Mark Steyn has accepted Kathy Shaidle's proposal of marriage. Congratulations to the happy triple!... [Read More]
Tracked on 2004-09-02 6:21:44 PM
Comments
Canadians (other than the feted Roy McMurtry) would be wise to demand that the government produce a principled justification (non Michael Leshner based emotional outcry) for treating gay marriage as a "right" before engaging in that step, Norman.
If the laws are to be changed on the grounds of individual rights, specifically based in dignity, let all individuals be heard from. Anything else would be undignified.
Posted by: jonathan | 2004-09-02 8:57:34 AM
Norman I cant think of a principled justification for the SC to treat gay marriage and polygamy differently, however there may well be financial reasons why they would. Example how would you work around a man claiming five wives as dependents on the income tax form,after all if he is only allowed a tax exemption for one isnt that discrimination against the rest?? It would also present lots of problems for insurance, welfare etc. Does that make sense?? I do believe the SC will be scrambling looking for excuses as to why they can allow gay marriage and not polygamy.
Posted by: Mike P | 2004-09-02 10:17:18 AM
Kind of a ridiculous statement by Steyn. What are the constitutional principles that prevent cousins from marrying each other, or justify age-limits, etc.
Posted by: jh | 2004-09-02 10:29:22 AM
Another way to think about this is that the 'slipperly slope' was not created by the inclusion of gay marriage, but by the legal recognition of marriage in the first place. "If you allow a man and a woman to receive tax breaks, etc. for marrying each other, why not a man and a man, or a man and two women, or . . . "
Perhaps it should be all about 'dependents' rather than spouses.
Posted by: hj | 2004-09-02 10:47:24 AM
My offer to volunteer as Mark Steyn's second wife is still on the table.
Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | 2004-09-02 11:22:36 AM
I'd be very happy to take Kathy up on her offer, and not just for Supreme Court test-case purposes. Maybe Norman or Ezra would like to volunteer for spouse #3, just to make it a tougher call for Rosie Abella.
Posted by: Mark Steyn | 2004-09-02 11:36:34 AM
Mark, why not add another species for spouse #4, just to get the animal rights people on board? Maybe a nice Cheviot ewe, or a Percheron mare?
Posted by: The Shamir Worm | 2004-09-02 12:04:33 PM
Full disclosure: I think Mark should know I look more like Patricia Hitchcock than Kim Novak. But I like to think I'd get bonus points for at least knowing who both women are.
Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | 2004-09-02 12:42:44 PM
Brigham Young, call your office. :)
Posted by: Rick Hiebert | 2004-09-02 5:57:50 PM
Brigham Young, call your office. :)
Posted by: Rick Hiebert | 2004-09-02 6:06:46 PM
Hey, Mark - if you should change your mind, I look like Kim Novak.
Posted by: Kate | 2004-09-02 6:21:37 PM
There are blindingly obvious public-health and undue-influence justifications for banning incest, although they are questionable in the case of first-cousin marriage and probably could be challenged on Charter grounds. As a metaphor for excluding polygamy, citing incest doesn't come close to working.
Posted by: Colby Cosh | 2004-09-03 4:46:14 PM
The public health issues surrounding incest aren't blindingly obvious at all. The frequency of genetic defects does rise in consanguous marriages, but not significantly.
There is probably a better argument for banning marriage of persons whose parents suffer from colon or breast cancer, if you wish to make the public health/genetic defect argument.
And NONE of it applies to same sex consanguous marriages....
Posted by: Kate | 2004-09-03 6:32:41 PM
kate actually looks more like leni reifenstahl
Posted by: me | 2004-09-06 7:22:13 AM
aszxzczxczxczxcxczvzxcvasdfwqerwqerweqrwqerwqesdafasdfsadfsadf
Posted by: runescape gold | 2008-04-07 1:23:08 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.