Hi fellow polyamorists. We’d like to thank you for your contribution to the CPAA 2010 survey. We have already used some of the results in court filings and will continue to use the results as appropriate. Below is a summary of the results which we reported to the court.
Background: The survey ran for one month and focused on seeking some answers from polyamorists who had either lived in or are presently living in a conjugal (marriage like) relationship of 3 or more adults. The questions asked were designed so we could provide the court with relevant information about polyamorists in our role as interveners in the court case respecting the constitutionality of s. 293 Criminal Code of Canada.
Summary of responses provided to the court:
112 people responded advising that they are living in Polyamorous Conjugal Households in Canada (with one respondent per household).
Another 76 respondents said they had lived in such a Polyamorous Conjugal Household in Canada in the past.
The total number of women in the reported Polyamorous Conjugal Households was 167. Men totalled 158. Those identifying as “other” totalled 40 (and they self-identified in comments as gender fluid, transexual, transperson, trans-identified, androgynous, intersex, or gender queer).
Ninety nine (99) respondents did not have any minors (under the age of 19) living in their Conjugally Polyamorous Households who were under the parental care of adults in the household. Another 72 had such minors in the household.
Sixteen (16) Conjugal Unions (of 3 to 5 people) were reported to have been sanctioned by a rite, ceremony, contract or consent other than a legal marriage. Another 30 such Conjugal Unions (of 3 to 4 people) were reported to have been marked by a personal verbal or written commitment to each other.
Forty five (45) respondents reported that their multiple Conjugal Unions had involved witnesses who celebrated, assisted them or were a party to the rite, ceremony, contract or consent that sanctioned the relationship.
Seventy four (74) respondents reported that they believed they were limited in being able to express or practice their religious beliefs or to live in keeping with their conscience as a result of s. 293. Another 33 thought that the law “may” limit them in this way.
Fifty eight (58) respondents were willing to let the CPAA tell the court their family stories if they were not identified. Only thirteen respondents indicated they were willing to have their family stories be told to the court and to be named if need be.
In particular we would like to thank the 13 families who indicated their willingness to join in and be named in the court litigation. We accepted the offers of 5 families and decided that those would be sufficient to give the court a flavour of what some polyamorous households look like and to form the basis for our legal arguments.