Lawyer in Bountiful polygamy case uses gay marriage defence
POLYGAMY / Laws against polygamy won't stand up against a Charter challenge, he says
Jeremy Hainsworth / National / Thursday, January 22, 2009
Share |

If one man can marry another, why can't a man have 20 wives?

That's something of the gist of the defence to be used as the case against accused BC polygamists Winston Blackmore and James Oler started to move through BC courts Jan 21.

And, says Blackmore's lawyer, Blair Suffredine, if the argument has to go all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, so be it.

The first appearance in Creston, BC Provincial Court lasted less than five minutes.

It was put over to Feb 18 for disclosure of documents.

After that appearance, it could move directly to BC Supreme Court in nearby Cranbrook.

But, Suffredine cautions, that has to wait for the outcome of the pending trial.

The former BC provincial Liberal MLA says he doesn't want to minimize same-sex marriage through the argument.

"If [gays] can marry, what is the reason that public policy says one person can't marry more than one person?" he asks. "How is that going to outlast a Charter challenge?"

He says people need to grasp that society's standards have changed.

"If a man loves a woman and promises to be faithful to them and take care of them, that's a crime?" Suffredine asks. "A gay man [marrying] a gay man isn't a crime anymore."

BC Attorney General Wally Oppal says some legal experts believe polygamy charges won't withstand a constitutional challenge in Canada over the issue of freedom of religion.

Oppal said at the time of the arrest that he believes polygamy is an offence in law.

And, he added, if someone says that's contrary to their religion, then the issue is now up to the courts.

Blackmore and Oler were arrested at their Bountiful, BC commune Jan 7.

Blackmore faces charges of committing polygamy with 20 women, while Oler is accused of committing polygamy with two women.

In a statement issued shortly after his arrest, Blackmore maintains he is the victim of religious persecution.

Oppal, however, holds that the case is about the exploitation of women.

Blackmore was long known as "the Bishop of Bountiful."

He runs an independent group of about 400 people in the hamlet only hundreds of metres from the US border.

He once ran the Canadian wing of the Utah-based Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Latter-day Saints (Mormon) church renounced polygamy in 1890, but several fundamentalist groups left the main church in order to continue the practice.

Michael Vonn of the BC Civil Liberties Association has called the polygamy provisions of the Criminal Code antiquated. She says she wouldn't be surprised if it makes it to the Supreme Court.

Read more:


Share |


Reader Comments


 
Layer in Polygamy Case Used Gay Marriage as Defenc
Thre is no comparison. Gay marriage is still a ONE-TO-ONE relationship of consenting equals and carries the same benefits as heterosexual marriage. Nobody is ordered to "marry" as women and girls are in Bountiful. Moreover, Canada's Supreme Court has already stated that religious rights are not absolute, but must give way when other's rights are contravened. The "celestial wives" (in reality concubines) of Bountiful are rivals for their "husband's" attention, and cannot benefit from his life insurance, health insurance, spousal pension, social assistance, income tax benefits, and on his death have to share his estate with many other women, which impoversishes them. Even Blackmore's estate will not go far among 20-plus "wives" and his 116 children (with more on the way). As well, in 2002 Canada ratified The UN Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women, which states polygamy contravenes women's equality rights and also harms their children. The Charter also guarantees women equality with men, although Blackmore and Oler have chosen to ignore that. These polygamist elders cannot cherry-pick the Charter to suit their own twisted philosophy. Their religion stems from the Old Testament, and treats women as chattels. But it's a new day now. At long last, gays and women are equal to heterosexual males. Polygamy stems from the dark ages when women were property, and should have been kicked into the garbage can of history long ago. The year is 2009 AD, not 2009 BC.
Jancis M. Andrews, Sechelt BC
01/23/09 12:52 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Polygamy in the 21st century
The two concepts are completely different. Obviously these people come from a very male centred perspective where they see one man marrying many women but the Canadian government wouldn't pass such a gender-biased law. Even if we accept people's right to have multiple partners and register these partnerships, in the interest of fairness, we would need to allow any number of men to marry any number of women. This could potentially bring to very intricate networks of people who are all married to each other and can potentially span across hundreds of people. (6 degrees of separation?). To pretend that the laws that regulate marriage between two people can be applied to such a complex system is simplistic at best. You will always need to cap the number of people that can be married at a certain number. Since that limit needs to be there, 2 seems to work quite well.
Valerio, London UK
01/23/09 1:24 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
NAMBLA
I just want to remind everyone my fellow queers, that when you listen to Winston Blackmore's arguments, to think of NAMBLA and their attempts to use our struggle for equal rights as a tool to further an agenda of child sexual abuse and Rape. There is no difference between them. Polygamy leads to the sexual assault of children. Even adult women in these situations are so heavily coerced by perverted rapists like Blackmore that it is ridiculous to call them "consenting adults".
Mike, Small town BC
01/24/09 9:03 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Spare a thought for us.
Guys, while you're stomping these FLDS people, could you please be careful not to stomp me, too? I'm one of two men, married, not legally but in all the important ways, to one woman. Both of us are "Daddy" to a precious daughter, the light of all our lives. I'm not 14 year old. I'm not brainwashed. I'm not trapped. Neither is our wife. None of us is. Please remember that. So, when you find yourselves a way to put this Blackmore guy away, because of whatever he may have done to young girls, could you find a way to care for our little girl, too? She'd miss us in prison. When you worry about women's free choices, could you worry about our wife's choices, too? I'm sure she'd appreciate it. I know I would. When you worry about insurance and income taxes, could you spare a thought for us visiting each other in intensive care? When you worry about estate planning, could you worry, too, about assuring our daughter that she can live with the last parent she's ever known, should something happen to the wrong two? Mike, does any of that sound familiar? Valerio's right. The legal framework of marriage, as it stands, will not stretch to fit just any pattern. Please don't sacrifice us to save a framework. And remember, please: you can abuse people one-on-one. You can brainwash people one-on-one. You can deprive people one-on-one. What is it you really want to stop?
J. R., Big city Quebec
01/25/09 10:26 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Case AGAINST Gay Marriage Better For Polygamy
The polygamists would have a much better case if they appealed to religion and tradition. After all, they have a much longer and much more biblically-rooted history than today's laid-back style of serial heterosexual monogamy. Outside of today's "marriage for love" movement, polygamy stretches back literally thousands of years. We can trace it back to men like Abraham and King David. Oh, and they can definitely appeal on the grounds that polygamy favors procreation. I mean, with only one male and female you get just one or two or three (probably no more than five) babies every nine months. With one male and multiple females, the number of children produced rises exponentially and the population is increased within much less time. All of the arguments that people used AGAINST gay marriage are better suited toward legalizing polygamy, not the arguments people used in arguing for it. The arguments people used for gay marriage actually serve to detract from the case for polygamy, because they depend on the current structure of the law in private contracts and are modeled after the right to heterosexual monogamous marriage. Oh, and if we are are to look toward science and nature, then polygamy is more natural than monogamy, heterosexual or homosexual, and more beneficial to evolution. Very few species are exclusive or monogamous.
Greling, Pomona California, US
01/26/09 10:42 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Doesn't Canadian law override religious law?
Isn't it true that 'you can practise your religious activities as long as they don't contravene the law of the country"? (ie. if your religion condones murder, you still can't do it, because it's against Canada's laws). Isn't polygamy illegal in Canada? So how could the charter uphold the 'religious practice" of polygamy when it's against the law? I don't get it -- it seems rather black and white.
shannon, ottawa ON
01/27/09 2:34 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
polygamy fair poverty future
can polygamy keeps it's family as povertized as could so help them better when came to gods? haw polygamy with 20 wifes and few kids keeps track no to fall in love with one of their kids one day and promot insanity genes?
georgi, nanaimo bc
01/28/09 12:47 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Mind Your Own Business Pls
I agree with the Libertarians, at least when it comes to adults practicing polygamy. I support the right of consenting adults to practice polygamy on the grounds that the State has no place in telling consenting adults what to do in their private romantic lives. The law is there to prevent harm, and I see very little evidence of harm coming out of Bountiful, just a bunch of people happily enjoying their lives. I'd characterize the freedom-of-religion argument as secondary to the libertarian one. Should Atheist adults not have the right to love each other in their own consenting manner? To those who rail against polygamy, I beseech you to please mind your own business. I get so tired of hearing people compensate for their shallow lives by worrying about other peoples' private business. Why would monogamous individuals rail with such vitriolic hate towards responsible polygamists? I'm sorry, I just don't understand it. Does the idea of men/women sharing their love with multiple other men/women really make them that hateful? If they are opposed on religious grounds, too bad, it's a free, secular country. If they're opposed because they fear change to how interpersonal relationships work, too bad, the world evolves. Unless there is some direct, demonstrable harm, it's none of your business. And my sentiments are shared by many fellow young people, who're tired of the contradictions they see in a system that encourages freedom, enlightenment, and rationality in some areas of life but not others. And if the Supreme Court lacks the courage to protect peoples' freedom to live their lives however they see fit so long as they're not hurting others - if the Court wants to uphold grouping polygamists as CRIMINALS along with murders, rapists, and fraudsters - then I say it's time for peaceful civil disobedience against a bad law.
Dave, Calgary AB
02/04/09 6:12 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.