Green Party vote down motion to decriminalize polygamy

Recently, members of Canada’s Green Party attended a polygamy workshop and brought a motion to decriminalize polygamy that was voted down.

Polygamy is a marriage between multiple consenting adult spouses. Polygamy is not be confused with the various polygamist sects or religious cults such as the one in Bountiful, B.C., where there were accusations of domestic abuse, forced marriage and children being married to adults. This distinction was made very clear at the workshop, according to the Toronto Sun.

According to poly-advocate and Edmonton East Green Party candidate Trey Capnerhurst, issues like those seen in British Columbia should be met with criminal charges, but, “we should not be charging people with polygamy,” she said. According to Canadian criminal law, polygamy can result in up to five years in jail but polygamy itself has not been prosecuted for six decades. 

Many Green Party members have stated that polygamy is a human-rights issue, similar to same-sex marriage. A history of polygamy or a polygamist relationship is still on occasion used to deny custody of children in divorce cases.

While geared more towards surrogate parents and sperm donors, British Columbia’s new family law changes that would allow children to have more than two legal parents may leave room for polygamist relationships and increase the rights of polygamist parents, some of which are not biologically related to the child but have strong parent-child bonds and raise the children along with the biological parents.

Email This Post Email This Post


By heather - Last updated: Sunday, August 29, 2010
Filed in Divorce, Polygamy, Same Sex Marriage, child custody •


BC continues to improve its family law rules, will Ontario be next?

British Columbia recently announced that the province is set to propose additional rights for common-law couples, and is also continuing to announce different amendments it plans to enact pursuant to its Family Relations Act.

Property and asset division rules for common-law couples were part of the major changes in B.C. These changes are necessary as there have been a growing number of couples that are choosing not to marry but to remain common-law relationships and, upon separation, if not on title, may not have any rights to the family property.

Other changes to the Act include the introduction of “parenting co-ordinators” during heated child custody cases. In addition, it will now be possible for a child to have more than two legal parents, which will be the first change of its kind in the whole country. This would be the case, for example, when a same-sex male couple has used a surrogate female to have a child and all three would be legal parents if they’re in agreement. The same could be said for a same-sex female couple and a male sperm donor, if all three are active parents of a child.

Spousal support will be able to continue after a paying ex-spouse’s death, if applicable.

Restraining orders available through the court would now be protection orders that are enforceable under the Criminal Code.

As well, parties intending to go to court over property and child custody disputes will need to first show an attempt to negotiate a settlement through the use of out-of-court methods such as mediation.

It’s been 30 years since British Columbia has made any changes to its Family Relations Act.  The recent changes will update the Act to deal with the evolving family structure to include common-law couples, same-sex couples as well as surrogacy and sperm donors.

 

Email This Post Email This Post


By heather - Last updated: Sunday, August 15, 2010
Filed in Child Support, Child Visitation, Common Law Marriage, Divorce, Family Property Division, Mediation, Same Sex Marriage, Separation Agreements, Support Orders •


Same Sex Couples May have Difficulty Divorcing in the United States

Same Sex Divorce in USA DifficultA same-sex couple who obtained a legal marriage license in Canada has been unable to obtain a divorce in the United States. Currently residing in the state of Oklahoma, Cait O’Darling sought a divorce from her wife, and was unable to do so because their marriage was not seen as valid by state law. In Oklahoma, the law defines marriage as “the union of one man and one woman”. O’Darling took her appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals under the Supreme Court, but the decision was upheld.

Each state differs regarding their laws on how long you need to be a resident of that state before you can divorce, and you can as long as the marriage is legal and valid. Unfortunately, if the marriage is deemed invalid by the new country’s laws, (in this case the United States), it may not be recognized within the country at all and therefore a divorce cannot be granted.

Similarly, citizens of the United States may come to Canada and divorce as long as they have resided anywhere within the country for a period of one year, regardless of whether or not they are a Canadian citizen and as long as their marriage was legal and valid at the time.

This situation made the news previously in 2009, when many other same-sex couples who had flocked to Canada to legally marry were finding it difficult to be granted divorces in the United States. Because of each country’s residency requirements, it also poses a difficulty for United States citizens to come to Canada for their divorce.

Canada’s first same-sex divorce was granted in 2004 after a change was made to the Divorce Act to change the definition of “spouse” to include same-sex partners. While the United States is slow to recognize same-sex marriage, it seems a similar change in the wording of their divorce laws might be warranted to ease the process.

Email This Post Email This Post


By michael - Last updated: Thursday, March 18, 2010
Filed in Divorce, Same Sex Marriage • Tags: