Thu Jan 20/05
Study break

Just when I hoped to be through talking about it, the government announces that it's commissioning a study on polygamy. I've said all I'm going to say about the slippery slope thing: in my opinion, if legalized polygamy is a threat, is has nothing to do with gay marriage. Irwin Cotler is of the same opinion, and puts it quite nicely I think: "Any attempt to make that kind of connection is simply a way of confusing distinguishable issues in every regard."  

That said, I think it's a very wise idea that the government have its ducks in a row should polygamy ever actually come up. How the hell a seemingly biased 15-week study is going to help them do that is beyond me, but here it is.

One more thing: I withdrew from my argument with Norman Spector over whether the law against polygamy is an obstacle to any aspiring Canadian polygamists. I couldn't see why it wouldn't be, but I'm not a lawyer and I know when I'm over my head. This guy, Peter Hogg, is a lawyer, of the constitutional type. According to the National Post, Hogg is of the opinion that "the fact that bigamy is a crime in Canada is… a huge obstacle for a polygamist launching a Charter of Rights challenge." The Post then quotes him directly:

I don't think you can say there are any inexorable steps. What has sparked the concern over same-sex marriage is a series of Charter decisions holding that opposite-sex marriage discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, and you can't make arguments of that sort with respect to polygamy.

No indeed. Once again: fear polygamy if you must, but know that however the same sex marriage debate turns out, it will always be a possibility. A faint one.

-contact-