Letter-writer Doris Wrench's intolerant argument against polygamy fails to convince.
Polygamy may, but need not, be based on religious rights (which she prejudicially views as an inferior claim). It can just as easily be justified on the basis of freedom of association, or sexual orientation (especially in the case of a bisexual person who wishes to achieve complete fulfillment by marrying a person of each sex), or any other criteria the courts may wish to use. And, if pressed, the courts could just invent a new category of rights to cover polygamy (as they did with homosexuality).
She argues that polygamy transgresses women's equality rights; but Canadian-style polygamy would most certainly include the right of a woman to multiple husbands. Besides, call me old fashioned, but whatever happened to a woman's "right to choose"? If a woman wants to embrace a polygamous arrangement who are we to stop her? Doesn't she have the right to control her body, and hasn't the state said it wants to keep out of the bedrooms of the nation?
And what about the children? Proponents of same-sex marriage argue we must acknowledge same-sex marriage so that the children involved are not made to feel their family is inferior. Surely, the same argument applies to polygamy.
Finally, if the purpose of the Charter is to protect minorities, even those whose morals clash with the majority, what group could be more deserving than polygamists? Does not the Prime Minister have the obligation to be PM for all Canadians, and not just those he personally approves of? And has the present Prime Minister "Mr. Rights" not said that we cannot have two classes of Canadians?
Extending the definition to include polygamy would be entirely in keeping with the new spirit of inclusion and generosity sweeping the Courts and Canada.
It would also help to finally quash the once-Christian character of Canada.
And that should have the Liberals and the NDP cheering.