Canadian court upholds laws against polygamy

If you think my post on monogamy and polygamy was irrelevant or philosophical, look no further than our friendly neighbors to the north.  Just last month, the Supreme Court of British Columbia upheld Canada's laws against polygamy.

Says Chief Justice Robert Bauman:

“I have concluded that this case is essentially about harm,” Bauman wrote in the decision that was handed down Wednesday morning in Vancouver.

“More specifically, Parliament’s reasoned apprehension of harm arising out of the practice of polygamy. This includes harm to women, to children, to society and to the institution of monogamous marriage.” 

So, if you remember my prior post, I identified consequentialist arguments (outcomes) vs. rights-based arguments (rights, natural law, religious morals).  When the Chief Justice talks about harm, he's saying that this case boiled down to consequentialist arguments against polygamy trumping an appeal to rights-based arguments (individual freedom, religious freedom, etc.).

I feel compelled to point out a glaring omission in the Chief Justice's statement of who gets harmed: men.  According to his own 335-page decision, there's quite a bit of evidence on how polygyny (one male, multiple females) creates "lost boys" who get driven out of polygynous societies because they can't find a wife and thus are a source of social instability.  So the Chief Justice really should have said: "This includes harm to women, to children, to men, to society, and to the institution of monogamous marriage."

By the way, the 335-page decision is fascinating, and I'll be posting on it over the next few days.