For a long time, the B.C. attorney general has wavered on pursuing polygamy charges. That’s because the evidence may be clear, but the law is not. Though polygamy is prohibited by section 293 of the Criminal Code, a significant number of legal experts don’t believe the law would survive a constitutional challenge. As recently as last April, Attorney General Wally Oppal told the media that his criminal justice branch believed a prosecution would fail because of a possible violation of the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.

Apparently now, however, it’s damn the torpedoes for the attorney general. Nothing else has changed since last spring and, it would seem, police have found no other reason to charge Blackmore and Oler relating to the treatment of their wives or children. Canada now faces the prospect of having one of the remaining factors defining marriage (that is, the number 2) stricken from the law of the land.

This should not be surprising to anyone who opposed same-sex marriage. If the courts didn’t think sex was a reasonable criteria for marriage (as in one man and one woman), why should a number be any more sacred? Marriage is rapidly losing all legal definition, thanks to activist judges and a supine Parliament.

Would it be so bad if Canada legalizes polygamy? Yes indeed. It’s true, other countries and cultures accept polygamy. It’s also true that it may be illegally happening in Canada as more and more immigrants from countries where polygamy is legal immigrate to Canada. But we have (had?) a legal definition of marriage for good public policy reasons. Marriage between a man and a woman — despite its flaws — provides the most ideal basis for a family and raising children. The family, as Catholic social teachings put it, is the fundamental building block of society. The spouses are, or should be, equal as well as complementary partners in this essential enterprise. Polygamy undermines both equality and complementarity in marriage, distorting its nature and opening the door to abusive relationships, even if not in a legal sense.

Religious freedom has never meant freedom to harm others or vital social institutions. Let’s pray the courts refrain from doing even more damage to marriage than they have already done.