Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

Polygamists and polyamorists unlikely bedfellows against antiquated Canadian law

O really, Canada?
O really, Canada?
Ian Muttoo

Comments

  • JB 4 years ago

    A minor gripe about an otherwise interesting and well-written article:
    >It also punishes any celebrants involved in such a union
    > (did you bring a dish to your friends’ poly potluck wedding?)

    "Celebrant" in this context has nothing to do with 'friend who comes to celebrate a happy event', but rather, to quote Wikipedia's disambiguation page:
    Celebrant may refer to:

    * Celebrant or Officiant, the leader of a liturgy or ceremony who is empowered to perform it
    o In the Catholic and Anglican churches, the celebrant is the person who celebrates a sacrament, e.g., the priest who celebrates the Eucharist or the bishop who ordains a priest
    * Celebrant (Australia), a legally authorised conductor of weddings

    This attempted way of criminalizing abusive polygamous relationships is bad, but don't go making it worse than it is.

  • Profile picture of Kamela Dolinova
    Kamela Dolinova 4 years ago

    Thanks for your comment. My error here was not, I think, in interpretation of the law but in the use of the word "celebrant" without further comment. The statute actually reads, in pertinent part:

    "Every one who...celebrates, assists or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or consent that purports to sanction a relationship mentioned in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii)...is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years."

    "Assists or is a party to" strongly indicates to me inclusion of any wedding party members, organizers, and even guests who gather to uphold the union in question. And the law doesn't use the word "celebrant" but rather the vaguer verb "celebrates," which could be anyone from the person performing the rite to distant Aunt Gertrude who attends the reception.

  • Profile picture of Kamela Dolinova
    Kamela Dolinova 4 years ago

    Also, edited to read "celebrants or parties to."

  • sina muscarina 4 years ago

    as much as i do not condone the practices of polygamy simply because its patriarchal and because it might have negative side effects i do find it highly ridiculous to prohibit something like that.
    Its not like anyone ever would prohibit monogamy, just because the vast majority of monogamous people are hypocrites, and rather serial monogamists than "true one and only monogamists" or because people cheat or pretend to be something they are not. Or prohibit monogamous marriages because some of them rape their own kids (put them in cellars etc.), men abuse their wives and wives extort men financially and emotionally, right? I think prohibition rarely works on anything especially if its consensual. It is just stigmatizing people who are responsible. As far to sects and churches and everything that has anything to do with childhood. Everyone of us has made the process of growing up and having to deal with some bad shit that happened in childhood. And as long as GROWN UP women and GROWN UP men do such things because they thing they are "forced" it shows that people are not really capable of using a brain. Women that condone men taking advantage of them are the worst enemies of feminism. So, my point: why does the article portray that women in these church are more pitiful than the men (article two)? And yes, i am all against monogamous hypocrisy. Ever anyone wants to put that in court i am all testifying. !!!!

Report this ad