View Single Post
  #63  
Old 11-23-2011, 06:47 PM
cypherpunks cypherpunks is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1
Default Well, shit. Mostly.

The ruling is that s. 293 is constitutional in all regards, except for criminalizing underage marriage participants.

However, the act specifically requires:
  1. an identified person, who
  2. with the intent to do so,
  3. practices, enters into, or in any manner agrees or consents to practice or enter into,
  4. a marriage, whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage, with more than one person at the same time.

In particular, living together, having sex together, and raising children together does not count, there has to be some sort of "marriage ceremony".

I realize that this will catch some poly groups who've had some unofficial ceremonies (not that prosecution is likely), but it makes it very easy to avoid. As long as you avoid the "M" word, any amount of pre-gay-marriage binding powers of attorney, listing as beneficiaries, etc. is fine. As long as you don't intend for it to be a marriage, it doesn't count.

Heck, in the absence of a legal marriage, you could declare yourself divorced from one partner and married to another each morning. Just don't wear both wedding rings at the same time

So it's mostly bad news, but some good.
Reply With Quote