Not Diana, but was interested to read Ince’s response. For practical purposes, I think he is correct – the prospect of the prosecution of polyamorous families under this section is unlikely in the extreme (practically I think that the prosecution of polygamously married men is also extremely unlikely).

I’m not persuaded by his reading, however. He lists 8 articles as citations, but of those articles, the only one that seems to say what he’s saying is 227, which seems to me to be more along the nature of background information than part of the holding (it is also in a much earlier section of the judgment than the holdings). Most of 227 is actually quoting expert witness Dr. Witte’s testimony on the traditional meaning and practices associated with marriage.

Dr. Witte’s testimony would actually make certain forms of marriage not marriage, if it were taken literally as a definition of marriage in Canada. For example, in Islam, it is possible for a couple to marry without a public record and also for that marriage to be dissolved by the simple declaration of the husband (and in some cases, the wife). That is technically the case in Judaism as well.

In fact the idea of marriage as something imposed externally that must be undone by force beyond the couple is deeply related to Christianity’s understanding of marriage as a sacrament. While marriage law in Canada did grow in the context of predominant Christianity, I would be very surprised if the Judge, or Ince would want to define marriage in a way that that so excludes non-Christian religious traditions and their adherents.

One of my sweeties and I are registered in California as domestic partners, so we can share his insurance benefits. We’d assumed that included his Flexspend account — the chunk of money he sets aside from his paycheck through the year that can be used to pay for medical procedures which insurance refuses to cover. We’ve just found out, however, that thanks to DOMA (the ridiculous so-called “defense” of marriage federal law) the Flexspend account will cover only him — not me — because we are not married.

This makes me so angry! Who is the government to tell us what a family is?! We’ve just made a donation to AtMP again, despite it being a very frugal year for us, because we feel strongly DOMA should be struck down as unconstitutional. Thank you for your patience with my indignant comment here.

Did you see the final article dissecting Bauman’s decision by the CPAA’s lawyer, John Ince? Ince sees the ruling as a clear win for us. He is convinced that a mere marriage-like commitment ceremony or agreement (rings, vows, cake and all) cannot create a group “marriage” under the judge’s ruling.

The key is that the judge said it’s not a marriage unless it’s “institutionalized” — i.e. binding; recorded and enforced by some kind of authority; and not able to be dissolved by the parties themselves (i.e. without obtaining a divorce from the authority). It’s not a “marriage” if it can end by the parties just deciding it’s over and walking away, rather than by having to go back and obtain an unbinding.

Ince says that therefore, almost any ceremony that polyfolks would be likely to perform would not be a “marriage” under Bauman’s opinion; it would be a friendship ceremony.

The “authority” can be a sect leader a like an FLDS patriarch; it doesn’t have to be someone approved by the state. Also, polys getting married by a minister in a UU or Wiccan church might “borrow” sufficient authority from the church and its community to be illegal, but this is debatable.

See Ince’s open letter to the poly community:

http://polyadvocacy.ca/statement-from-john-ince-what-this-decision-means-for-polyamorists

Cheers,

Alan M.

AtMP spoke out forcefully and organized a local movement when the same thing happened in Massachusetts in 2004. Not sure we have the capacity to do so now in NY, but it would certainly be worthwhile.

http://www.unmarried.org/federal-income-taxes.html