How constitutional is Canada’s anti-polygamy law?
Should polygamy be legal in Canada?
It was our first prime minister Sir John A. Macdonald who told Mormon settlers that their polygamous lifestyle would not be welcome in this country. In fact, until the 1950’s Mormons were mentioned specifically in Canada’s anti-polygamy law. Today a much more generalized version can be found in Section 293 of the criminal code. For the last 60 years or so not a single prosecution had been made but suddenly members of a polygamist Mormon sect in Bountiful, B.C. are being targeted and brought before the court. British Columbia’s attorney general, Wally Oppal, decided that perhaps, before prosecuting these two gentlemen, we should ask the supreme court whether Section 293 (from now on referred to as the anti-polygamy law) is even constitutional.
Now, I did a little research and from what I can tell the anti-polygamy law pretty clearly violates section’s 2. ( a ) and 2. ( d ) of the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms.( a ) Being the freedom of conscience and religion and ( d ) being the freedom of association. Why ( d ) you might ask. Well, under section 293 it states that if you celebrate a polygamous marriage ceremony you’re a criminal.
There are of course issues to consider here beyond the mere constitutionality of the law. Canada is largely a country of immigrants and the diversity of culture and religion is one of the things that makes Canada such a wonderful place. In Canada, however, an immigrant with multiple wives is forbidden to sponsor more then one of them for a Permanent Residence as a member of the family class.
In both the Bible and the Qur’an polygamy is mentioned a number of times in a positive and affirmative light. Not to mention the fact that Canada’s criminal code has nothing to say about polyamorist relationships, open marriages, adultery or same-sex marriages.
Many people have stated as an argument for the preservation of Sec. 293 that polygamist relationships are harmful and abusive to the women and children involved. It is certainly true that abuse is often associated with polygamous marriages but polygamy is not the cause of this abuse and criminalizing it is not the solution. Queen’s University law professor Beverley Baines suggest that these laws in fact further enable the abuse to go on behind closed doors in religious communities that practice in secret to avoid prosecution.
In my opinion any allegation of abuse, coercion, rape or assault should be aggressively investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the law however polygamy as the perceived cause should be let off the hook. These things should be treated as a serious and deplorable but separate offense and polygamy not as an offense at all except perhaps to some people’s delicate and narrow social palette.
In the manner of Voltaire, I may not agree with groups who practice polygamy as a cultural tradition or religious rite but with this post I will defend their right to do so.
Bibliography (please, don’t sue me):
CBC News, The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, The Canadian Criminal Code, Canada.com
Related posts:
- First Canadian To Be Sentenced Under Canada's Anti-terrorism Laws Since its inception in 2001 after the 9/11 terrorist attacks...
Tags: constitution, poligamy
Loading ...
October 24th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
I too am not opposed to polygamy per se but there is a stronger constitutional argument against it, than there is for it. This starts with s. 91 in what is referred to often as the Peace Order and Good Government Clause (POGG). s.91(27) of the Constitution Act of 1867 in particular grants the power for the house of commons to pass criminal laws that it sees fit to fulfill the mandate of POGG. Provinces have no authority, as you can see by the epilogue to that section to interfere. Indeed no one can. Now you have made a case, somewhat, for the reasons why polygamy is not a POGG concern. I agree that it is not, provided coercion and a culture of brainwashing are not included in the whole transaction. Now you must understand that the charter falls with in (actually is Schedule B) of the Constitution Act of 1867, as such the mechanics of the Charter must be seen within the context whole of the Constitution Act. It will always fall to parliament to make criminal laws for the purposes of POGG so long as those purposes can be made demonstrably justified to the courts (note section 1 of the Charter) otherwise they are struck down. Current thinking on polygamy suggests that it may in fact survive a Criminal law challenge on the basis that restricting the number of one’s spouses is not demonstrably justified as a reasonable limit to certain individuals in society. The term reasonable limit, in this matter is entirely what is up for interpretation by the courts.
Furthermore, Wally was afraid of a counter suit under s. 24(1) and 27 of the Charter. s. 27 is the most problematic as it outlines that the charter ought to be interpreted to fit the multicultural nature of Canada. So while it looks like the act of polygamy can be saved under the Charter it is not clear whether it can be saved under the Constitution and the POGG clause. Traditionally, the powers of POGG (which are unbelievably powerful) have not been mitigated by our Charter. POGG is, undoubtedly, subjective – it was written to be and was intended to be a fast-action clause to muster the nation in the event of national threat. Now it is being used against a group of backwater farming Mormons in Creston. There are serious problems, don’t get me wrong with the Bountiful colony (allegations of child rape, the abandonment of male children e.t.c.) but to me, that is entirely separate from polygamy. Still this case will be too close to call and if Winston Blackmore does go down for it, it will be for all the wrong reasons and will set a dangerous cultural precedent.
October 25th, 2009 at 9:07 am
Have to agree completely. Prosecute the crimes. Polygamy is hardly a heinous act compared to the others listed.
October 26th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
As stated by the author A. R. Colton, “the anti-polygamy law pretty clearly violates section’s 2. ( a ) and 2. ( d ) of the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms.( a ) Being the freedom of conscience and religion and ( d ) being the freedom of association.”
Dec. 22, 1967: Justice Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau proposed amendments to the Canadian Criminal Code which, among other things, would relax the laws against homosexuality. Trudeau stated “I think the view we take here is that there’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation. I think that what’s done in private between adults doesn’t concern the Criminal Code. When it becomes public this is a different matter, or when it relates to minors this is a different matter.” *1.(CBC News) I agree with the ethics and priorities of our past Prime Minister and fully support the Canadian Charter and Rights and Freedoms in that Canadians are and should be “free to have their own beliefs and opinions, are free to practice religion or refrain, and are free to establish media organizations with or without religious content.” (*2.Constitutional rights) These are our constitutional rights!
Sources:
*1. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/samesexrights/timeline_canada.html#)
*2. (www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Canada)
November 10th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Saskatchewan Canada has already legalized polygamy using section 51 of their family property act.. so its moot whether its legal in canada.. polygamy is legal in Canada.
November 28th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
While it may be legal in Saskatchewan it unfortunarely remains a criminal offence in the other provinces including B.C. where the court proceedings will take place.
November 29th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
BC litigants will use the Saskatchewan case law to argue religeous prosecution and unequal treatment under the laws of Canada. Since Polygamy is legal in Saskatchewan (one province) it is likely religeous prsecution to prosecutre in BC.
Polygamy is a federal criminal offence and to legally encourage it in Saskatchewan but prosecute and enforce the same criminal law in BC is unequal treatment under federal law. These types of arguments are sure to succeed with the supreme court of canada (and BC )
December 21st, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Moot,
The way I read Section 293 of the criminal code, someone in Saskatchewan justice department that wrote the statutes should be going to jail for assisting with the creation of polygamy.
December 29th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Rights of new spouse
51 Where a person becomes the spouse of a person who has a spouse, the rights
pursuant to this Act of the subsequent spouse are subject to the rights pursuant to
this Act of the prior spouse.
The above DOES allow polygamy in Saskatchewan Canada!
December 30th, 2009 at 9:23 am
Sam, Having looked at the act you mention I conclude it is an illegal act.
When a person becomes the spouse of a person who has a spouse they commit polygamy and should be charged. The second “marriage” would be null and void. Whether its common law and married or two common law it is the same thing in Canada. A conjugal union only broken by divorce or in the case of common law marriage, a seperation of a specific duration. A married person does not become eligable for the time countdown (2 years in Saskatchewan) until after a divorce. So if a married person lived with another person they would not be spouses until divorced and living together for two years (after divorce). If Saskatchewan wants to declare they are spouses while still legally married to others then Saskatchewan is guilty of polygamy becaue they ( as justice officials) are party to a contract or consent that allows multiple conmjugal unions at the same time. If Saskatchewan justice wishes to break the law then they should pay the price that all other polygamists pay (up to 5 yrs in the slammer). There would be no diffferrence between Winston Blackmore having multiple sametime conjugal unions or the cases in Saskatchewan where you claim the government allows this.
CHAPTER F-6.3
An Act respecting the Possession and Distribution of
Property between Spouses
PART I
Short Title and Interpretation
Short title
1 This Act may be cited as The Family Property Act.
2001, c.51, s.11.
293. (1) Every one who (a) practices or enters into or in any manner agrees or consents to practice or enter into (i) any form of polygamy, or (ii) any conjugal union with more than one person at the same time, whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage, or (b) celebrates, assists, or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or consent that purports to sanction a marriage mentioned in subparagraph (a)(i) and (ii), is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
January 9th, 2010 at 8:02 am
So, if you look at the Saskatchewan law and laws regarding commonlaw marriage….if a woman who is estranged from her 1st husband, enters into a commonlaw relationship with a 2nd husband …until legally divorced from husband 1, she would be a polygamist.
Our commonlaw laws only states you have to enter into a dependant relationship to be consider commonlaw…which is therefore recognized by our social systems, medical systems and revenue canada as a common law marriage…no where does it state you must be first divorce only seperated …I guess there is alot of polygamy going on everywhere…..
January 12th, 2010 at 10:22 am
Arch,
No there isn’t alot of Polygamy going on. ONLY if a married person claims in a family court to be the spouse of another person silultaneous to their marriage is it polygamy. Persons who simply live together do not claim in family court that they are spouses or they would be charged with polygamy. If they did, huge property laws would be affected and the legal system would be crazier than it alreay is.. one “spouse” would not settle aa divorce with another until other “spousesal relationships” settled first..on and on.
Revenue Canada, social systems, insurance etc have their own statutes and laws that revolve around persons living together, but the married persons property laws of canada such as are available via provincial family court statute are a differrent animal. They actually make/break real live “marriages”..common law or civil. You just can’t have two “family court legally accepted conjugal relationships ” at a time according to Canada’s polygamy laws. You are not a polygamist if you just live with a married person (because you do not CLAIM to be spouses. This is still quite legal and always was) One must divorce first before being eligable to take a subsequent legal spouse. One does not need to divorce first before taking a subsequent “live-in” for taxation purposes, or for some insurance matters… there the word spouse means something entirely different than under family court statutes. Revenue canada and others do not use the words “conjugal unions”..they just say living in the same household. They are not legal spouses unless a provincial Family court says they are. Divorces of married persons make them eligable again to take subsequent spouses. This protects property laws which was an original intent of the polygamy laws in the first place.
January 29th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
Who are you people kidding??? Read about polygamy and what females are taught before claiming that Canada was based on open freedom to chose and practice the religion of our choice. To “keep sweet and obey your head” (head meaning husband by the way) is not a free way to live! Yes we are Canadians and our population is greatly numbered by immigrants, some of which leave their country to avoid religious prosecution, but Canada should stand up for EQUAL RIGHTS. The moment sexual equal rights are slightly tampered with due to religion, that religion should NOT be allowed, therefor being illegal in our country. The fact that we even allow the manipulative leader to go into court to bully the scared woman standing in the witness box is disgusting. I for one thought that in 2010 we would know better!!
February 1st, 2010 at 3:46 pm
This ISN’T about religeon. Jennifer is simply saying its’ legal in Saskatchewan to have multiple same time spouses. (conjugal unions) No religeon, no scared women, no equal rights..blah… involved.
February 4th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
Although equal rights and freedom are a part of the issue that cannot be ignored the issue under the microscope is whether or not the anti-polygamy law is constitutional.
One person’s opinion about right and wrong has nothing to do with how the laws should or do work. If those opinions did effect the laws they would be grossly unfair. And justice is the main aim of the constitution not pleasing all of Canada’s citizens or proving that it’s inline with new-age thought.
It is obvious that in many cases of polygamy the women and children involved are in negative and harmful situations but as I stated above, that is not the issue at hand. Those problems, and in some cases those crimes, need to be dealt with as an issue seperate of polygamy.
February 10th, 2010 at 8:05 am
If the criminal code of Canada laws against polygamy are unconstitutional, then it would likely be so on the grounds of freedom of religion. The case in point here is that Saskatchewan has already declared that persons can have multiple sametime spouses, no freedom of religion in question at all. If one province can ignore federal criminal code, then do all provinces retain that right with respect to any or all laws contained in the Criminal code of Canada?
April 1st, 2010 at 10:02 am
Thomas,
I read Saskatchewans family law act.
The marital property law they have includes s.51 which does NOT infer that a married person can create subsequent simultaneous spouses. It just states that if a person DID have two spouses at the same time then marital property laws would be used to determine matters at hand. Ontario uses this type of stature IF the union took place in a country that Canada recognizes as allowing polygamy. NO province in Canada is capable in law of creating subsequent SIMULTANEOUS marital unions. Conjugal relationship law in Canada makes simultaneous marital relationships illegal and voids the subsequent one. Individual eligability to become involved in a subsequent marital relationship, governed by federal and provincial statutes, commences only AFTER divorces qualify an individual to pursue another conjugal union. (or single status)
I gather you are saying judicial authorities there have interpreted this statute to justify property settlement in polygamous relationships, not that they have actually used this statute to sanction or create subsequent sametime spousal relationships in law. That, if it occured, would be a criminal act.
June 22nd, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Strickland,
No. I mean Saskatchewan Federally appointed Queens Bench justices have made legal under its Family law act the ability of Family court judges to condone, create, assist with..you name it.. the creation of legally binding multiple conjugal unions. They HAVE used the section 51 to justify their illegal act. Who in Canada will charge the judges with breaking the law.. namely polygamy law.?
September 29th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Christian Wedlock.
QUESTION:
Can a woman have more than two husbands?
ANSWER:
No, a woman cannot have more than two living husbands. A man has no choice, as he must be in wedlock with one living wife. But a woman has three choices. Firstly, no wedlock with a husband. Secondly, wedlock with one husband. Or thirdly, wedlock with two husbands. That’s it, there are no further choices for a woman, and there is no choice at all for a man.
1 Corinthians 7:2 King James 1611.
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
Yr. 1783. 10th George Prince of Wales Own Hussars. (King George III).
Yr. 1898. 19th Alexandra Princess of Wales Own Hussars. (Queen Victoria).
Therefore two women can own a regiment of cavalry, and two men can own a regiment of cavalry.
1 Corinthians 6:16 King James 1611.
What! know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
Therefore in the New Testament a man and woman lying together are one flesh, as follows:
A husband and wife who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.
A fornicator and fornicatress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.
A man and common courtesan or common prostitute who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.
(A common prostitute is a woman who commonly offers her body for acts of lewdness for payment. An act of lewdness can never be an act of carnal copulation, as it is blasphemy to state that the Angel Gabriel and Mary committed a lewd act. The common law of england states that it is impossible for any woman to be a prostitute under any circumstances, but that a woman may continue on to be a common prostitute.).
A fornicator/fornicatress and adulterer/adultress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.
An adulterer and adultress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.
Clearly the New Testament lays down that a man must be in wedlock with his own wife, and a woman must be in wedlock with her own husband. Furthermore the New Testament specifically limits the number of wives that a man can have to only one, but sets no limit to the number of husbands a woman can have. But there must be some limit for a woman, or one woman could be in wedlock with thousands of men. Rationally, if one woman can satisfy the bodily lust of one man every day, and forty men can satisfy the bodily lust of one woman every day, then is one wife for every man and forty husbands for every woman what the New Testament requires? No, because the New Testament is a document of truth, not a document of reason.
Luke 1:28 King James 1611.
Luke 1:31 King James 1611.
Luke 1:28-35 King James 1611.
In the New Testament, the Angel Gabriel came in unto Mary, a virgin woman, and Mary conceived and delivered her firstborn son, Jesus, the son being God the Son. And when Mary’s womb delivered her firstborn son Jesus unto the world, then Mary was like all women delivered of a firstborn son unto the world, as a woman’s firstborn son can never belong to the mother but must belong to the Lord God.
Luke 2:23 King James 1611.
Exodus 13:2&12 King James 1611.
And so like all women delivered of a firstborn son, Mary was no longer a virgin woman, but like all said women, Mary was a holy woman.
Matthew 13:53-56 King James 1611.
Mark 6:1-4 King James 1611.
And husband Joseph Jacob came in unto Mary and husband Joseph Heli came in unto Mary, and Mary conceived and delivered Jesus’ brothers, James, Joses, Simon, Judas, and also Jesus’ sisters.
Matthew 1:6&16 King James 1611.
Luke 3:23&31 King James 1611.
Joseph Jacob was the descendent of King David’s son Solomon, and Joseph Heli was the descendent of King David’s son Nathan.
Genesis 38:16-18 King James 1611.
“Came in unto her” means congress or carnal copulation. In the Old Testament, Judah came in unto Tamar, his daughter-in-law, and Tamar conceived and delivered twin sons. Tamar had lain in wait for Judah on the side of a far away road, and Judah had been unable to recognize Tamar because she was wearing a veil, and only common harlots wore veils. Upon first seeing this strange woman wearing a veil, Judah bargained a future payment of a kid from his flock, and therefore gave as his pledge, his personal signet ring, his personal wrist bangles, and his personal walking staff, for coming in unto her. Tamar had been in wedlock with Judah’s first son, who God had killed for being wicked. Tamar had then been in wedlock with Judah’s second son, who God had then killed when he saw the second son deliberately spill his seed on the ground during carnal copulation with Tamar.
That was because if Tamar was made with child by the second son, and if such child was a baby son born of Tamar, then under the law of the Hebrews that baby son born of Tamar was the first born baby son of the dead first son, and not any baby son of the second son, despite Tamar having conceived that baby son with the second son. This meant that if a dead man had no son, but still had a widow and a brother, then the widow and the brother should ignore consanguinity, and if the brother was already in wedlock, bigamy, in order to give the dead man a first born son.
(The ancient Hebrews were a people of eastern civilization who accordingly rejected the concept of demos, and therefore practiced bigamy by the males. The ancient Greeks were a people of western civilization who accordingly accepted the concept of demos, and therefore practiced either monandry or diandry by the females.).
Upon the death of his second son, Judah had ordered his daughter-in-law Tamar not to marry again, because Judah promised Tamar that she would marry his third son when he became old enough for wedlock. But when his third son became old enough to marry, Judah broke his promise and forbade his third son to marry Tamar. When Tamar was seen in her third month to be heavy with child, Judah was told that Tamar was with child through harlotry. Judah then summoned Tamar to him in order to be burnt to death for harlotry, although it was against the law to put a woman to death for harlotry. Tamar came and produced the signet ring, the wrist bangles, and the walking staff, and said the man who gave me these is the man by whom I am with child. Then Judah confessed to all that he had broken his promise and sinned by going back on his word that Tamar would have wedlock with his third son when his third son became of age, and then denying such wedlock to her.
Six months later Tamar safely gave birth to the twin sons conceived with Judah and the midwife tied a red thread around the son’s hand which first appeared out of the womb. But then the hand was withdrawn into the womb and the second son, Pharez, without the red thread was born first, and the first son, Zarah, with the red thread was born second.
Ruth 4:18-22 King James 1611.
King David of Israel and Judah was descended from Pharez, and the red hand flag of the Ulstans and Scots shows the Red Hand of Zarah. The red hand is often shown on a white six pointed star, but it is not clear whether this star is a Star of Pharez (Star of David) or just a Star of Ulster.
Genesis 1:27-28 King James 1611.
Genesis 2:7&18-19 King James 1611.
Genesis 3:20 King James 1611.
The first man and first woman in this world were Adam and Eve. Adam means “man” in the hebrew tongue, and Eve means “life” in the hebrew tongue. Therefore a man is man, but a woman is life.
Romans 7:4-6 King James 1611.
Old Testament law dead and gives as an example that a woman can have more than one husband.
1 Timothy 3:2 King James 1611.
A bishop can have only one wife, and as he must be an example to other men, a man can have only one wife.
1 Timothy 3:12 King James 1611.
A deacon can have only one wife, and as he must be an example to other men, a man can have only one wife.
Titus 1:6 King James 1611.
An elder can have only one wife.
1 Timothy 5:4&9 King James 1611.
Elders are not to provide for widows under three score years of age who have daughters or sons, as the children must provide for their mother.
The Estate of Marriage. Martin Luther 1522.
Although Martin Luther confirmed that a woman could have two husbands, he nevertheless immediately restricted it to women who were in a marriage which had produced no children and who had then obtained permission from their first husband to take their second husband. Confusingly, Martin Luther did not make it clear as to how long a woman had to wait before taking her second husband.
To sum up, the New Testament upholds the example of deacons, elders, and bishops, for men to follow. That example is one wife. The New Testament also lays down that the Old Testament no longer applies to men or women, except for the 10 Commandments, and gives as an example of this that a woman is no longer bound to have only one husband. If men must follow the example of the male Christian leader in marriage, whether bishop, deacon, or elder, then surely women must follow the example of the female Christian leader in marriage. What leader is that? The primary one in the New Testament is Mary, the Mother of Jesus, God the Son.
Luke 1:15&35&41 King James 1611.
Mary had carnal copulation with three men. The Angel Gabriel, Joseph Jacob, and Joseph Heli. However, Mary was only in wedlock with two men, Joseph Jacob, and Joseph Heli. Furthermore, the Angel Gabriel was not a man of this world, and he seems not to have taken a fully visible male form when he had carnal copulation with Mary as ordered by God the Father, for it appears that at some stage God the Holy Ghost came upon or entered Mary. Either this was at the moment Mary conceived or immediately afterwards. After Mary conceived, she immediately went to visit her cousin Elisabeth, who was six months with child, a son, who also had been conceived when Elisabeth had been filled by God the Holy Ghost.
Accordingly it would be fully in accordance with the New Testament for a man to have one wife, and a woman to have two husbands. That the Angel Gabriel had carnal copulation with Mary is both interesting and theologically necessary, but it is not enough of an example for a woman to attempt to take a third husband in wedlock, whilst her first and second husbands still liveth.
Matthew 19:11-12 King James 1611.
1 Corinthians 9:5 King James 1611.
The New Testament does not give man any choice; he must have wedlock with one woman. But do bear in mind that Jesus, God the Son, was never in wedlock with any woman, despite all Jesus’ Twelve Disciples being or having been in wedlock with a woman.
But the New Testament gives a woman three choices.
1st Choice:
Virgin woman without wedlock.
2nd Choice:
Virgin woman with one husband in wedlock without child.
Virgin woman with one husband in wedlock with female child or female children.
Holy woman with one husband in wedlock with firstborn male child.
Holy woman with one husband in wedlock with male child or children together with female child or children.
3rd Choice:
Holy woman with two husbands in wedlock with firstborn male child.
Holy woman with two husbands in wedlock with male child or children together with female child or children.
A number of denominations have a service for wedlock, but so far every one of them has inserted words that clearly say a woman may be in wedlock with only one man at a time. Even the State Lutheran Evangelical Church of Sweden states this, despite Martin Luther himself saying that a wife can be in wedlock with two living husbands.
But what do you expect. After all, Martin Luther stated in writing that under no circumstances was anyone to call himself a “Lutheran” and under no circumstances was any church to call itself a “Lutheran Church”. So what do all northern europeans called themselves? Lutherans! Ask them what church they belong to? The Lutheran Church!
A number of denominations do not have any service for wedlock, on the grounds that wedlock is not a church matter, as it is a state matter. But every such denomination has nevertheless inserted words in that denomination’s discussion of wedlock, that firmly says that a woman can only have one husband in wedlock at a time.
Nowhere do any of the denominations give any explanation for their defiance of the New Testament. Of course that just might be because there is neither any justifiable explanation or excusable explanation for such defiance.
Still, just looking at using only the principle of choice as a guide, all the above denominations are pointing in the right direction, even if they are not pointing down the correct path.
That is, a man has no choice, he must make efforts to be in wedlock with one wife at some stage of his life here in this world.
And a woman still has a choice, in that she may choose not to be in wedlock with a man in this world, or she may choose to be in wedlock with one husband at some stage of her life here in this world. This means that the principle of a woman having a choice remains intact.
The defiance of both the Lord God and the New Testament by the various denominations by the removal of a woman’s option to make efforts to be in wedlock with two husbands at the same time at some stage of her life in this world, still leaves intact the principle of choice for the woman and no choice for the man.
Constitution of The Spartans (Xenophon). 388 B.C.
League of The Iroquois (Lewis Henry Morgan). 1851 A.D.
Only two non-christian groups in the world have been known to practice New Testament wedlock. The Spartans and the Mohawk.
Only monandry and diandry, or New Testament style wedlock, was lawful among the Spartans, citizens of the greatest of the greek city-states, Sparta, and history’s final saviours of Western Civilization at Thermopylae (The Hot Gates) in 480 B.C.
And only monandry and diandry, or New Testament style wedlock, was lawful among the Mohawk, citizens of the greatest of the eastern woodland North American tribes, which forever blocked France’s attempt to seize New York so as to split England’s colonies in twain.
Not only did spartan women routinely have two husbands at the same time, but Sparta herself always had two kings at the same time, as Sparta had two separate royal families. This dual monarchy (there are no other words to describe it) came from the Agiad Royal Family and the Eurypontid Royal Family.
Although some greek city-states had matrilineal descent, Sparta had patrilineal descent like most greek city-states. Accordingly a Spartan woman practicing monandry would give patrilineal descent at birth to her daughters and to her sons from her living sole husband at nine months previously. A Spartan woman practicing diandry would give patrilineal descent at birth to her old daughters from her living old husband at nine months perviously, give patrilineal descent at birth to her old sons from her living old husband at nine months previously, and give patrilineal descent at birth to her new daughters from her old husband at nine months previously. But a Spartan woman practicing diandry would give patrilineal descent at birth to her new sons from her living new husband at nine months previously.
Much criticism of both the Spartans and the Mohawk, has been leveled by outsiders who complain of the extreme freedom of the females and the extreme militarism of the males. It must be noted that there is no record of any Spartan male, Spartan female, Mohawk male, or Mohawk female, complaining of female freedom or male militarism.
Whatever your point of view on Spartan life or Mohawk life, the New Testament lays down cast-iron guidelines for wedlock. The fact that the New Testament complies with Spartan law and Mohawk law is irrelevant.
Of absolutely no relevance to this discussion, the symbol of the United States of America is the bald headed eagle, which is a species that uses both monandry and diandry for conception, and where the one male or two males reside in the exactly the same nest as the one female. The one female and either the one male or two males, stay in the nest together and raise the chick together.
Mark 10:7 King James 1611.
Ephesians 5:31 King James 1611.
Both husbands must leave their families to go and become a member of the wife’s family, or the one husband must leave his family to go and become a member of the wife’s family.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS POLYGAMY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS TRIGAMY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS BIGAMY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MAHOMETRY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS CLITORECTAS.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MUTILATAS.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS INFIBULATAS.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS CASTRATOS.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS EVIRATOS.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MUSICOS
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS POPERY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS PRIESTCRAFTRY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MONKERY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MARIOLATRY
CAPITAL LAWES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE MOHAWK.
1st. If any person within this Government of The Mohawk shall by direct, exprest, impious, or presumptuous ways, deny the true God and his Attributes; he shall be put to death.
2nd. If any person within this Government of The Mohawk shall maliciously and on purpose deny that any Mohawk person may have arms for his defence suitable to his condition and as allowed by law; he shall be put to death.
3rd. If any man shall traitorously deny his Clanmother’s right and titles to her Eagle Feathers and Dominions, or shall raise arms to resist her Authority; he shall be put to death.
4th. If any man shall treacherously conspire or publiquely attempt, to invade or surprise any town or towns, fort or forts, within this Government of the Mohawk; he shall be put to death.
5th. If any man lyeth with a man or mankind as he lyeth with a woman; they shall be put to death, unless the one party were forced or under fourteen years of age, in which case he shall not be punished.
6th. If any man or woman shall lye with any beast or brute creature by carnal copulation; they shall be put to death, and the beast shall be burned.
7th. If any person shall bear false witness maliciously and on purpose to take away any person’s life; he shall be put to death.
8th. If any person shall slay, or cause another to be slain by guile or by poisoning or any such wicked conspiracy; he shall be put to death.
9th. If any person shall commit any willful murder, which is manslaughter, committed upon malice, hatred, or cruelty, not in a person’s necessary or just defence, nor by mere casualty against his will; he shall be put to death.
10th. If any person shall geld any man or mankind to take away generative power or virility; he shall be put to death.
11th. If any person shall geld any woman or womankind; he shall be put to death.
12th. If any man forcibly stealth or carrieth away any woman or womankind; he shall be put to death.
13th. If any marryed man shall maliciously and on purpose claim wedlock with a woman, other than his one wife; he shall be put to death.
14th. If any marryed woman shall maliciously and on purpose claim wedlock with a man, other than her two husbands or one husband; she shall be put to death.
15th. If any unmarryed man above twentyeight years of age and under fortytwo years of age shall maliciously and on purpose refuse wedlock for over fourteen days with any marryed woman under sixtythree years of age, said marryed woman having borne a son, or unmarryed woman under sixtythree years of age; he shall be put to death.
16th. If any person shall maliciously and on purpose deny any marryed woman wedlock with two husbands, said marryed woman having borne a son, or any unmarryed woman wedlock with one husband; he shall be put to death.
17th. If any child, above sixteen years of age, and of sufficient understanding, shall smite his Natural Mother or Lodgemother, unless thereunto provoked and foret for the self preservation from death or mayming, then at the complaint of the said Mother and Lodgemother, and not otherwise, they being sufficient witnesses thereof; that child so offending shall be put to death.
18th. If any stubborn and rebellious son, above sixteen years of age, and of sufficient understanding, shall not obey the voice of his Natural Mother or Lodgemother, and that when the said Mother or Lodgemother have chastened such son will not hearken unto them, then at the complaint of the said Mother and Lodgemother, and not otherwise, they being sufficient witnesses thereof; that son so offending shall be put to death.
19th. If any man shall lye with a woman by carnal copulation, such woman not being his one wife; he shall be whipt thirteen strokes, unless he hath his Natural Mother or Lodgemother authority, in which case he shall not be punished.
20th. If any woman shall lye with a man by carnal copulation, such man not being one of her two husbands or her one husband; she shall be whipt three strokes, unless she hath her Natural Mother or Lodgemother authority, in which case she shall not be punished.