Polygamy in Canada Should Remain Illegal
Polygamy is illegal in Canada but to date no one has been arrested or faced the consequences for being in a polygamist relationship. This inaction has led to no enforcement of the law. Such policies allow polygamist families to legally enter Canada by declaring the first wife as the legal wife and the second, third and fourth “wives” as dependents along with their children. Young girls are pushed into polygamy relationships by the leaders of their parents’ religion. A wave of women involved in polygamy fled from Bountiful (BC) and presented their case publicly. Books and articles were written by these brave women. They discussed the effects of polygamy on their lives and their children, they talked about women’s oppression, sexual abuse and of men’s aggression towards young girls. They described child sexual abuse masquerading as a marriage and child trafficking for the purpose of marriage. Some courageous women went even further and discussed the effects of polygamy in society at large. Sadly no law enforcement was involved in any of these cases, even though Act 293 was present on the law books.
Now after all the reports by these women bringing attention to the plight of being caught in a polygamy relationship, and after all the evidence of injustice, discrimination and abuse, something is actually happening. But not for women and children who have suffered in polygamy relationships, not for the ones who put their lives in danger by presenting their cases to media. Instead the situation allows for further victimization of women and compromising women’s right for the sake of religious rights. This is a disgrace to humanity.
Today there was a challenge over Section 293 of the Criminal Code in the British Columbia Supreme Court. The attempt was to de-criminalize polygamy. The distressing part is that the attempt was said to be beneficial for women! The following are some statements that have been put forward under the name of women’s rights !
- Polygamy laws actually helped enable abuse in closed, religious communities such as the one in Bountiful. – Beverley Baines
- Women in legal polygamous marriage will not be able to immigrate to Canada. – Beverley Baines
- The door is legally closed for women in Canada who want to terminate their polygamous relationship. – Beverley Baines
- Because Canada has adopted a policy of multiculturalism, it follows that Canada needs to adapt laws to accommodate the diversity of the population. – Beverley Baines
The reality is the law in Canada needs to be more progressive which means a move more towards gender equality that is not based on an assumption of gender equality as we are far behind it. Some residents involved in polygamy in Canada still follow the 7th century tradition of Sharia law, and some remain hundred years behind the civilized world. The authorities need to enforce progressive laws and regulations or else women will never be able to gain full and unconditional equality. Only by putting in place laws and progressive measures women will be able to gain complete equality in Canada. I am for repealing of any law and regulation that restricts the rights of women and puts them in position as second class citizens.
It should be known to everyone by now that women in Islamic communities are pressured by their family, members of the community and religion to become involved in a degrading relationship such as polygamy. In these communities, men are considered as “head of the family”. He is in charge of the family’s finance, choice of residence, up–bringing of the children, and control of the social interaction of his wife and children. Can anyone see gender equality in this picture? That is not all, men have right to marry more than one wife and many seegheh (temporary wives). Women in these sects, cults or Islamic communities would never, ever have the right to have two or three husbands at the same time. The consequences of getting emotionally involved with another man is harsh, sometimes as harsh as losing their life or being disowned by all members of their community. Women are forbidden to see their own children. All these injustices are happening in all provinces of Canada.
I am perplexed how someone can call oneself a concerned global citizen but close her or his eyes to the inhuman treatment of women and children.
After 100 years of having a law that makes polygamy illegal in Canada, polygamy still goes on. It is not the fault of Act 293. It is because although the Act is on the law books, it has never been enforced by the police and the court system. I believe for the past seventy years only one case went through the court system in this regard.
Polygamy needs to remain illegal but Act 293 needs to be amended. Right now the assumption of this Act is that women and men have gained gender equality and women willingly enter into these relationships. The truth is because of the adopted policy of multiculturalism, some sects and cults who have been living in this country for past century never had chance to live according to today’s progressive ways of living. The policy of multiculturalism has put thick invisible walls between communities. Each community lives according to their home country culture, traditions and religion. They are encouraged to do so. In some cases these communities receive financial support and validation from the Canadian government in order to keep their way of living instead of integrating in Canadian society.
In all these equations, there is no consideration for women’s rights. It should not come to our surprise if we hear or witness women are set on fire and are burnt for losing their virginity, young girls and women face honour killings for not being obedient or for having a boyfriend in Canada. Child trafficking for the sake of marriage is another down side of multiculturalism.
Therefore as long as the policy of multiculturalism maintains in Canada, gender equality is out of picture, so to prosecute women who are involved in polygamy relationships is a joke. I believe Act 293 prosecutes women and men equally for being in polygamist relationship. As I said it before, the assumption is that men and women have an equal say in their marriage. Most women involved in polygamy relationship have no control over their body and mind. The right of choice has been taken from them right from birth by their parents, culture, and religion.
It is justified to say the Act 293 must get amended in such a way that all men or anyone who performs or assists in polygamy marriages must be arrested and prosecuted for the crime against women and children.
We need to get a lot tougher with polygamists and start prosecuting men and religious leaders who perform such a marriages. Polygamy is a disgrace to gender equality.
It has been said that to criminalize polygamy is against the Charter of Rights of Freedom of religion. Women’s rights and children’s rights must not be compromised under any circumstances and that includes religion. As everyone is aware, in Islam and some other restricted religions, child brides is an on going practice even in Canada, behind the closed doors by laws such as Sharia laws. But because it is an ongoing practice, we did not drop the Act for Universal Rights of the Child to suite Sharia law or of any other religion, for the sake of freedom of religion. Instead child brides are considered a crime and men caught in this matter would face charges for sexual assault. The same should go towards polygamy. Religions should be declared as private affair of the individuals and not allowed to interfere with any law in Canada. The civilization in 21st century should not tolerate interference of religion in laws and regulation.
I have been aware that a woman with two male common–law partners is challenging the polygamy law in Canada.
In response to this case I must say in this particular situation gender equality exists, all three parties have control over their own bodies and minds. They are all adults and there is no form of coercion to push them into this relationship. They all have equal rights in their family setting. They all equally make decisions concerning the family’s property and finances and all matters concerning cohabitation. They all participate in caring for children in their family. In this case free and consensual sexual relationship is undeniable right. They are completely free in deciding over their sexual relationship. Voluntary relationships of adults with each other are their private affair and no person or authority has the right to scrutinize it, interfere with it or make it public. I consider this relationship modern and progressive. This revolutionary relationship does not need any permission (marriage license) from the government or any religious leaders. This case is not comparable with adult women living in sects or cults or in Islamic communities in Canada. They can not be put in the same category. One belongs to today’s modern world while the other belongs to an ancient time. How else can one describe it, when adult women practically have no choice to choose their own partners? They are never able to live with two male partners, not even in their dreams.
In these closed communities women have no control over their sexuality and have to accept the husband her parents or the elder of her community chooses for her. And if she disagrees, she will face harsh consequences. No free women ever will agree to be in a relationship with someone she has no feeling for.
Polygamy in Canada should remain illegal and enforced by police in order to empower women and eliminate discrimination against women; in order to abolition of man’s privileges as the so-called “head of the household”; in order to prevent degradation and violent treatment of women and girls in the family. In order to eliminate any form of degrading, male-chauvinistic, patriarchal and unequal treatment of women in family, community and public institutions.
416-737-9500
Freedom of religion should mean that no laws are specifically passed to damage a particular religion; in other words as a secular humanist and an atheist I agree that no law should say “We don’t want Muslims here, nor Mormons.”
That being said, there is no way that laws should allow religion to justify breaking laws that other people have to adhere to. I had no idea that polygamy laws are not enforced in Canada, which we in the U.S. think of as being a more progressive country than we have.
Aaargh! Reading this story makes me wonder if Canada is indifferent to women.
Ophelia, please explain how you propose that the law should distinguish between exploitative polygyny as practiced in places like Bountiful, and secular-egalitarian polyamory. My understanding is that in these plural marriages, only one of the wives is officially registered as such — by what criterion do we legally deem the additional “marriages” to be something other than consensual fornication, and therefore none of the law’s business.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Skeptic South Africa, Debi Levine. Debi Levine said: RR's Love Update Polygamy in Canada Should Remain Illegal – Butterflies and Wheels http://bit.ly/ef3yUx #relationship #love […]
I’d be curious to have some kind of idea of how many of these plural marriages exist in Canada today. Is it 100? Is it 1,000? Is it 10,000 etc? None is forthcoming from this article.
Also, I’m curious how the author would propose to make a legal distinction between the different types of polygamy (assuming everyone is an adult).
Sounds like a great argument for banning pushy religion. Not a very good argument for banning polygamy, though.
There are many women with more than one man; look at any polyamory website or even at the court evidence. Do you think those women don’t have male counterparts with the same values and approach? There’s a big community of people out there, men and women, who have multiple partners without any problems. Including gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, by the way. They’re not hard to find. Google “polyamory”.
Those people shouldn’t be punished because some other people are backward.
The backwardness goes way beyond polygamy, anyway. It’s not like the “man in charge” idea is exclusive to polygamy. That was expected in monogamy for a long time, too, and still is in lots of places. Women being browbeaten, threatened, or brainwashed into polygamy is a symptom of rotten attitudes toward women. Until you fix the rotten attitudes, women are going to get a raw deal, polygamy or no polygamy.
@Eamon Ophelia didn’t write this, so I’m not sure why you’re invoking her.
I do share a certain bafflement with the above posters, though. Polygamy laws are effectively anti-adultery + anti-cohabitation laws (neither of which I can support). The problem here is not polygamy per se, but non-consensual (and not legally binding) marriage, and domestic/child abuse. Prosecuting based on polygamy will not help the wives of abusive monogamous men.
Frankly, it sounds like the biggest problem is arranged marriages? Am I missing something?
@Eamon Ophelia didn’t write this, so I’m not sure why you’re invoking her.
Oops, overlooked the byline.
But while I’m posting anyway: here’s one of the things I found in a brief Google last night, about the general sloppiness of sec 293:
Situations like Bountiful are horrendous, but it’s not obvious to me (granted, IANAL) what the criminal law can do about it (other than the obvious instances involving under-age girls). Note though that none of my objections rely in any way on religious exceptionalism.
There is abuse in polygamous marriages (just like the abuse in monogamous marriages). There is abuse in gay marriages, too.
The same principles, however that we use in defense of gay marriage (personal choice, just because tradition has it one way does not mean it has to be that way, etc) apply to clear eyed polyamorous relationships.
What we need are protective laws to enable people to walk away from bad situations. That’s all. The very LAST thing we need is the state defining what the relationship should look like. It wasn’t that long ago the state was intensely involved in defining gay relationships as evil. There are still lots of ‘modern’ areas where alternative sexuality relationships are still harrassed.
There is abuse in polygamous marriages (just like the abuse in monogamous marriages). There is abuse in gay marriages, too.
Good gawd.
Ms Arjomand is from a Muslim background, and so understands the dager polygamy represents to the status of women in gender equality.
“There are still lots of ‘modern’ areas where alternative sexuality relationships are still harrassed.”
Look, in many majority-muslim countries polygamy is a religiously mandated arrangement that seeks to control women. It is NOT an “alternate-sexual-relationship, it is a form of slavery.
Then you address the slavery component. You provide a powerful legal remedy for anyone wishing to leave such a relationship. The wrong approach, the absolute wrong approach, is to give the state intrusive power to monitor and supervise your private sex relationships.
No zealot is more dangerous than one acting for a good cause.
In theory, I totally believe that the gov’t should stay out of peoples lives. If people of the same sex want to marry – fine. If 2 men and 1 woman want to marry – fine. Who cares! It should be none of our business as long as they are consenting adults etc.
But what can we as a society do about the crazy cults where the head patriarch has 25 wives and 136 children?! How can we protect these women? All we can do is change the marriage laws to be 18 or 21 or something instead of 16. But that won’t solve it.
If religious groups raise their children in a complete religious environment, then the brainwashing is usually so complete, that these women voluntarily enter into plural marriages. They qualify as consenting adults.
What is the solution?
My opinion on this one:
First, on any potential recognition of polygamous/polyamorous relationships… I’m be strongly inclined against society trying to tackle this at present. It’s a significant legislative and bureaucratic undertaking, it runs the risk of legitimizing these sorts of clearly misogynistic oppressive relationships, and it appears at present that those practicing legitimate consensual polyamorous relationships are not exactly clamoring for recognition at this point.
Second, on the legitimacy of laws against it… I don’t see how one could uniformly enforce it without turning it into some sort of anti-cohabitation law, which is patently absurd in the 21st century. Clearly polyamorous relationships ought not to be illegal (or even dishonest adulterous ones, for that matter — it is a civil matter, not a legal one) and so where do you draw the line? Two (or more!) people can call themselves “married” in their own eyes, as long as they don’t pull any tax return shennanigans or anything. How do we stop them?
Third, more specifically on the cults that practice this sort of horribly oppressive polygyny… Yeah, something needs to be done about that. It’s a problem. I hate to say it, but maybe it does make sense to bring these anti-polygamy laws to bear against them, in the same way that Al Capone was busted for tax evasion. I’m not quite sure.
I do know that there seems to be a serious association between polygamy and oppression of women, and I’ve heard some interesting arguments that this correlation might be inherent. I do not know. As I say, I’m inclined to say society is not quite ready to tackle that one head-on.
<i>No zealot is more dangerous than one acting for a good cause.</i>
When misogynist practices such as polygamy are institutionalised under the guise of religion, then I thnk that battling it hardly amounts to zealotry.
Would you take the same attitude towards pedophiles. How many ‘women’ in religiuosly mandated polygamous marriages we married as underage girls?
Is battling pedophilia also zealotry? The question needs to be asked because we’ve imported cultures where the two issues often overlap.
The under age issue IS one you can approach legally inasmuch as the law defines an age below which a person is presumed not able to understandingly consent to. This is also consistent because it applies to heteros, monogamists, polygamists, gays etc. There is no problem with enforcing it consistently.
But that’s NOT what you are arguing. You are saying that ADULT individuals should be denied the right to engage in a sexual relationship because you disapprove of the behaviors of SOME people who engage in a similar arrangement.
That is the problem. Your obsession with stamping out oppression (even among people who may not view it as oppression) makes you more than willing to trash basic fundamental personal choices so that no oppressive stone is unturned (of course, the state becomes the new oppressor).
Not every problem in the world can be solved with laws and police. Nor can people be rescued who do not want to be rescued (certainly not in a free society).
Again I emphaisize: do not restrict consenting adults’ sexual choices. Do not decide for people what lifestyle is or is not good for them. Instead, provide legal protection for those who wish to leave. No more, no less. It is up to the ‘victims’ to at least take some step for themselves.
I must note in passing that these are exactly the same issues that come up in the context of burka-ban proposals. For both polygyny and veiling, we all agree it’s oppressive, medieval and misogynistic as hell (though even some of the practitioners disagree); we’d love to see it disappear — but there seems to be no coherent way to formulate a law that doesn’t also impinge on situations we find innocuous, and that should be a matter of individual freedom.
I have a lot of problems with this. For a start, she never tells us what section 293 actually says or how, if it at all, it has been interpreted judicially. She expresses approval of the M-M-F polyamorous relationship that she discusses in the thirs last paragraph, but she doesn’t give us the information that we need to understand whether the people are involved in it are currently breaking the law. If they are, then it’s pretty obvious that the section needs to be repealed or amended.
But how do you draft a law that bans “bad” or “nasty” polygamous arrangements, while allowing “good” or “nice” modern-style polyamorous? It’s going to be a difficult drafting task, and I’m not sure it can be done. The author certainly doesn’t tell us. You can try addressing all the particular problems associated with traditional polygamy via a raft of policies, but if you single out the poly bit itself as something to be banned you’re probably going to capture the “nice” poly relationships as well.
It’s possible, of course, that the number of “bad” polygamist relationships is so much larger than the number of the “nice” relationships that the latter should just get thrown under the bus. That might be the utilitarian calculation. But I’d be very resistant to such an unfair outcome and in any event no figures are provided on the relative or absolute numbers of either kind of relationship. Without those figures, we’re in the dark when it comes to doing the utilitarian calculus. I’ve encountered a lot of poly relationships of the “nice” kind and absolutely none of the “nasty” kind, which perhaps just shows that I hang around with arty-literary people who tend to be accepting of poly relationships, whereas I don’t hang around in a Muslim community. But I don’t think it should be assumed that the number of these “nice” relationships is small and that we can just sacrifice the people involved with no significant loss of happiness.
The problem with a lot of this is that the law is a blunt instrument, especially when it takes the form of sweeping criminal bans. It’s tempting to cry, “Ban it!” whenever we see something we don’t like, but we need to make sure that any bans are tailored to the actions that we really do disapprove of, not some boader proxy, and we also need to understand that not every action that we disapprove of is readily dealt with through the criminal law at all.
Canada doubtless needs some kind of policy that addresses the abuses covererd in the article, but I’m not at all convinced that a ban on “polygamist relationships” is going to be part of it. Even if it is, the wording of the section is clearly going to need to be looked at. Since the section equally criminalises women and men, I suspect that its real purpose is to enforce Christian morality rather than to protect women. If so, it should be set aside, preferably legislatively rather than through the courts, and preferably at the same time as some sort of legislative package is put forward to give protections to women and children without banning all forms of cohabitation involving more than two people.
According to some links I found, the law originally referred specifically to Mormons, ie. you’re right, it was obviously intended to enforce the dominant Christian morality of the day. That got taken out at some point (IANAL, but I’m pretty sure the original version would get quashed on freedom of religion grounds PDQ — and properly so, IMHO), leaving us with this generic mess. Since apparently no one has even attempted to enforce this turkey in 60 years, no one knows how to interpret it, and I suspect a half-decent lawyer could find half-a-dozen grounds to dismiss the case.
Polygamy is not a misogynistic practice. Polygamy refers to multiple spouses of undefined gender. Polygyny is having multiple wives. Even that is not inherently misogynistic, any more than polyandry (multiple husbands) is misandronistic. I’m also concerned about the abuse of women in “religiuosly mandated polygamous marriages”, but I think “polygamous” is the least important adjective in that phrase.
I agree with Sean. What is wrong with polygamy is that it facilitates and enables domestic abuse, coerced marriage, sexual abuse.
As for banning the “bad” polygamy- is it not clear that the acts themselves the polygamy facilitates are to be targeted? Surely legislation could be drafted that made the necessary effort to describe what acts are wrong and prohibit them (though there are one thousand little life-destroying inhumanities that make up a repressed life to every large inhumanity, and they may be difficult to capture. Still I think it is possible to put some legal mechanism in place to prevent it and to recognize it when complaints are brought forward).
Roi des Faux,
in practice polygamy, where objectionable does seem to be objectionable at least in part because of its being misogynistic.
The concept of segregation does not necessarily entail inequality. But in practice it facilitated inequality.
I have a personal take on this which I think would work in practice, but likely would never get enacted, because it wouldn’t satisfy any of the partisans. I think the law should allow marriages to be plural, but require that they be composed of equal numbers of each gender (or of one gender alone, a separate issue really). It there are two wives, there would have to be two husbands, etc.
This would certainly discourage outright sexists from accumulating harems, and it would help maintain the balance of power in all such marriages. But it would also prevent the distortion of sex ratios in available partners that occurs in communities like the fundamentalist Mormon ones. Men with more power, generally older men, accumulate women, leaving younger men with no available partners. This is a big factor in driving those communities to marrying off girls at younger and younger ages, because there is such a demand for them.
So the law allows polyamorous relationships but not polygamous ones?
The obvious problem is that the law/state is involved in marriage. Remove the state from marriage and then you can treat the ills of domestic abuse, ‘slavery’, child trafficking, child abuse etc. etc.
Of course, if you ban marriage altogether that’s fine with me too.
This is again placing an artificial constraint (a quota system) on people’s relationships. Other than a perceived balance there is no actual reason why this restriction should be applied. This is every bit as wrong as saying a marriage should be one male and one female.
And it still leaves the problem that (like the current world where only one pair is legally married) the state would be involved in second guessing who in the household is involved in the sexual union. This is absolutely unacceptable
The thing about much of this discussion is is that it all seems to come about in the context of protecting women from abuse, but that can occur (indeed it does occur) in monogamous relationships just as easy. So it’s time to just get this obsession with polygamy off the radar and address the actual issue.
The nonsense herre apologisiing for polygamy is unbbelievable. The vast majority of polygamist marriage are NOT merely “an alternative lifestyle”. To see it as such amonts to npthing but a bunch of fashionable nonsense
Polygamy is a disgusting practice that demeans and ultimately enslaves women to a patriarchal systeme from which most are unable to escape.
Forget the tune ‘Fiddldy-Diddldy-Dee’ of Cabaraet.. Polygamy is not cool and it’s not trendy, and it’s not at all hip despite T.V. shows on the TLC network.
I think the view that polygamy “facilitates and enables domestic abuse, coerced marriage, sexual abuse” is false, and the idea that preventing polygamy will help women is flawed at its core. We have a situation where some religious sects teach that women are inferior to men, they should be completely subservient to men, men are allowed an abusive level of control over their wives, etc., and also men are allowed to marry multiple women. Why would we think that targeting that last point is going to have a significant impact in how women are treated? We have a wealth of examples of sects teaching that women are inferior to men, they should be completely subservient to men, men are allowed an abusive level of control over their wives, etc., and also men are only allowed a single wife. It seems like the only real effect would be that now each man would only be able to abuse one woman.
As for the conflation of polygamy and misogyny, I suspect that there is no significant correlation. I don’t think people are aware of how widespread non-monogamy is:
Most high-profile non-monogamous relationships are in these misogynistic sects, while people don’t realize what their neighbors are doing.
Reading comprehension FAIL.
I think the view that polygamy “facilitates and enables domestic abuse, coerced marriage, sexual abuse” is false,
You ought to look up the word facilitate in the dictionary, then. Bit Torrent isn’t itself copyright infringement, yet it facilitates copyright infringement. Domestic abuse, coerced marriage, sexual abuse aren’t built into the inherent meaning of polygamy yet polygamy does facilitate those activities.
Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes it can “re-assign” women to different men (pg 17). It is easier to reassign women to men with polygamy than without, as it gives a wider pool of men to assign women to. It’s a more efficient way to be repressive.
Many fundamentalist groups rely on Utah marriage laws to determine when a girl can marry.(Pg 25) That is, fundamentalist groups will look to the law so far as they can to justify their practices of repression. Do you really doubt that giving legal sanction to polygamy would further empower these groups?
If you don’t want to believe Utah’s Attorney General or Arizona’s, who seem to believe polygamy facilitates domestic abuse, coerced marriage and sexual abuse, you could at least believe the research.
Roi des Faux, my most recent reply to you appears to have been caught by the spam filters. Below is that same comment, without any links. You can click on my user name to see the full comment with links.
I think the view that polygamy “facilitates and enables domestic abuse, coerced marriage, sexual abuse” is false,
You ought to look up the word facilitate in the dictionary, then. Bit Torrent isn’t itself copyright infringement, yet it facilitates copyright infringement. Domestic abuse, coerced marriage, sexual abuse aren’t built into the inherent meaning of polygamy yet polygamy does facilitate those activities.
Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes it can “re-assign” women to different men (pg 17). It is easier to reassign women to men with polygamy than without, as it gives a wider pool of men to assign women to. It’s a more efficient way to be repressive.
Many fundamentalist groups rely on Utah marriage laws to determine when a girl can marry. (Pg 25) That is, fundamentalist groups will look to the law so far as they can to justify their practices of repression. Do you really doubt that giving legal sanction to polygamy would further empower these groups?
If you don’t want to believe Utah’s Attorney Genera or Arizona’s, who seem to believe polygamy facilitates domestic abuse, coerced marriage and sexual abuse, you could at least believe the research.
josef johann, please explain how the perfectly legal practice of polyamory doesn’t lead to “domestic abuse, coerced marriage, sexual abuse” but when you wrap a legal ribbon round it and call it polygamy, it suddenly does?
Surely we should deal with all abuse, physical and sexual, wherever they occur, regardless of the legal relationship between the people involved?
keddaw,
I don’t know why you would ask me to explain something I don’t believe.
Polygamy, polyamory, and just generic marriage itself may all facilitate domestic abuse, sexual abuse and involve coercion. Those practices are further empowered when you extend some form of legal sanction to them.
That doesn’t mean I support making them illegal.
As for the conflation of polygamy and misogyny,
No conflation exists. If I say X may entail Y I’m not saying X is identical to Y.
This is basically the niqab argument again: the issue isn’t just whether polymamy is bad but whether it is so universally bad that it justifies the State turning into a criminal act.
At least where it is legal the wives have some theoretical rights to divorce. Ban the legal recognition of polygamal marriages and you’ll still have polygamal cohabitation.
Instead of attacking abuse (which can and does occur in monogamous relationships as well), you are obsessed with the polygamy component. And to attack that in cargo-cult fashion you are willing to subvert other peoples’ sexual choices, you are wiling to invite the government into peoples’ private sex relationships (I guarantee you that will come back to bite) in the absurd belief that criminalizing defacto polygamy will somehow stop sex abuse. It is really not the issue if you feel many or most polygamous relationships are negative (just as it makes no difference if lots of Christians believe that many or most gay relationships are negative). Human free choice is human free choice.
Attack abuse. Not peoples’ private sex lives.
Criminal offenses should be confined to actions that harm an individual or their property. How people choose to form and maintain relationships with others is no ones business other than the people involved in the relationship, provided they are all consenting adults. How many spouses a person can have is a matter of opinion. Making a difference of opinion a criminal offense is a terrible misuse of the power of law. To fully understand why, I suggest giving this a read, http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/f01.htm