Another liberated woman weighs in... in favour of polygamy. Kate Hartfield in today's Ottawa Citizen takes a very dim view of the mores and habits of the people in Bountiful, B.C. and suggests that they might be in violation of a variety of sections of the Criminal Code, but ridicules the law against polygamy as

rooted in the notion that certain kinds of sexual behaviour should be against the law -- even between consenting adults. That's exactly the ideology that Canada divested itself of 40 years ago.

She explains that the current law seems also to forbid a ménage à trois or having a mistress and adds "No one is arguing (for the moment anyway) that the state should recognize polygamous relationships as ‘marriages’ or accord them any rights under the law."

But what happens when they do start arguing it? For as J. Budziszewski warns, people are that logical... slowly.

Apparently the answer to Thursday's question is yes, and partly. In today's Globe and Mail the "director of the Institute of Comparative Law at McGill University" weighs in with a piece defending "the lifestyle adopted by some in Bountiful" using the classic feminist trope that the women there are smart, funny and down to earth, and work outside the home, use e-mail, go to college and use contraception without their husband's or husbands' knowledge. However she has nothing to say in the piece about the implications for this case with respect to fundamentalist Islam in Canada because she... um... say, why is that?

Out in B.C. they've finally summoned up the courage to lay polygamy charges against breakaway Mormons. Now let's see if all the right-thinking leftists who insisted that courts should not let elected legislators show disrespect to the romantic and sexual choices of consenting adults when it came to gay marriage will rally to the cause of polygamists and, if not, whether they'll honour us with the reasoning behind their apparently contradictory positions.