PDA

View Full Version : Civil Liberties: Would Ron Paul legalize polygamy?




Tannenzšpfle
01-09-2012, 08:13 PM
The arguments supporting gay marriage are mostly equally valid for polygamy, and as I understand it, Ron Paul has voiced tacit support for gay marriage in the sense that "it's none of the government's business what adults consent to". And as a bonus, the Bible doesn't really condemn polygamy.

I'm speaking as a libertarian who thinks polygamy should be legal, but my question is this:

Would Ron Paul allow people to marry more than one person at a time?

Feeding the Abscess
01-09-2012, 08:15 PM
By getting the government out of marriage, yes.

I think it'd be better to state that it would be decriminalized, though. Legalization typically implies that the state would still be the arbiter of what relationships should be.

The only limit to marriage that Ron Paul subscribes to involves consent (or more accurately, the lack thereof).

Under a Paulian administration, Mitt Romney's forebears wouldn't had to have fled America to Mexico because of governmental religious persecution.

brandon
01-09-2012, 08:16 PM
He would legalize dueling too.

Dr.3D
01-09-2012, 08:17 PM
I'm sure, Dr. Paul would say, 'let that be a states issue.' The federal government doesn't have the authority to make any of those things illegal.

torchbearer
01-09-2012, 08:19 PM
not a federal issue. please get an education.

RM918
01-09-2012, 08:25 PM
I'd wager it somewhere near the extreme bottom of his priorities list.

Sunstruck-Eden
01-09-2012, 08:28 PM
He would legalize dueling too.

What? Like dueling dueling? Like Aaron Burr/Alexander Hamilton style?!

I LOVE THIS MAN (although I by no way want people to die from this stuff. I just think people should be able to duel/fight each other without getting the authorities involved).

Dr.3D
01-09-2012, 08:29 PM
Dueling banjos.

acptulsa
01-09-2012, 08:29 PM
I'd wager it somewhere near the extreme bottom of his priorities list.

This.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no federal law against it. Also to the best of my knowledge, the presidency is a federal position. So, he would be in no position to affect any of our many laws against it. At all.

And wouldn't if he could.

trey4sports
01-09-2012, 08:29 PM
he's not legalizing it. He's getting the government out of the equation. Government is not ALLOWING it, Ron is merely stating that the government should have no say in the matter.

Elwar
01-09-2012, 08:30 PM
Why should a couple have a government certificate telling them that they are married?

Icymudpuppy
01-09-2012, 09:02 PM
What? Like dueling dueling? Like Aaron Burr/Alexander Hamilton style?!

I LOVE THIS MAN (although I by no way want people to die from this stuff. I just think people should be able to duel/fight each other without getting the authorities involved).

I can think of several neocons I'd challenge right now.

farreri
01-09-2012, 09:11 PM
Would Ron Paul allow people to marry more than one person at a time?
Criminalizing polygamy is unconstitutional IMO because the 1st Amend. says "Freedom of Religion" and polygamy is a part of the Mormon religion (for example).

jcarcinogen
01-09-2012, 09:11 PM
Marriage is a religious sacrament. Government involvement created the problem.

amy31416
01-09-2012, 09:17 PM
He'd "legalize" freedom, and part of freedom is that consenting adults can do what they want. I don't give a rat's ass what your ethics are, that's the way it should be.

Personally, I think ethics evolve (partially) from seeing the havoc these sorts of things can wreak, whether that is drugs, various types of marriage, various type of governance, etc. How will human beings ever learn and evolve without the freedom to do stupid things?

archangel689
01-09-2012, 09:17 PM
Why is it the job of the government to have anything, anything at all, to do with marriage?

If you read the constitution there is no power granted to be involved in any such thing.

When you make something that you feel is immoral, illegal... someone in the future will have the precedent to take a right off of YOU because they think that it is immoral.

You can't chop freedom into pieces, once you erode it, it will continue to erode until there is nothing left.

In here the answer lies at exactly 13 minutes in so scrub to 13 minutes in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BWEBXKOkaI

The Beastly One
01-09-2012, 09:28 PM
Interestingly enough neither do the states, I believe. A vote in the individual state could invoke certain temporary restrictions on these issues, but the 'no state shall create law or legislation contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America' bit sort of precludes it. The tenth ammendment is fairly clear about the liberty of the individual...I think.

Tannenzšpfle
01-10-2012, 03:23 AM
Criminalizing polygamy is unconstitutional IMO because the 1st Amend. says "Freedom of Religion" and polygamy is a part of the Mormon religion (for example).

For what it's worth, the LDS Church formally divorced itself from the practice in 1890.

Kandilynn
01-10-2012, 03:53 AM
I would like to see it decriminalized, along with polyandry. I wouldn't personally choose to take part in a plural marriage, but I would defend the right of other consenting adults to do so.

cindy25
01-10-2012, 05:38 AM
state issue

revgen
01-10-2012, 05:46 AM
No. States legalize it.

TaiwanGuy
01-10-2012, 05:51 AM
Criminalizing polygamy is unconstitutional IMO because the 1st Amend. says "Freedom of Religion" and polygamy is a part of the Mormon religion (for example).

no, it's not.

No Free Beer
01-10-2012, 06:27 AM
By getting the government out of marriage, yes.

I think it'd be better to state that it would be decriminalized, though. Legalization typically implies that the state would still be the arbiter of what relationships should be.

The only limit to marriage that Ron Paul subscribes to involves consent (or more accurately, the lack thereof).

No, that is false to an extent.


Under a Paulian administration, Mitt Romney's forebears wouldn't had to have fled America to Mexico because of governmental religious persecution.

Unless there specific federal laws barring polygamy (which I believe there is), it would not be deemed "legal" or "illegal" by President Paul. Why? Because President Paul wouldn't have the authority to declare it as such. It would be left to the states. In other words, it is a state issue, not a federal one. So technically, Paul would not make it either or, even if it were rendered so as of now.

comprende?

If I am wrong, please do explain why.

bolil
01-10-2012, 12:33 PM
he would not make it illegal thats for certain. Why would anyone want to?

specsaregood
01-10-2012, 12:38 PM
For what it's worth, the LDS Church formally divorced itself from the practice in 1890.

Only because the US Govt was punishing them for practicing their religious beliefs.

Krugerrand
01-10-2012, 12:45 PM
Okay, not a scholarly source ... but it suggests the Supreme Court upheld a state law banning polygamy.


The law banning polygamy dates back to a Supreme Court decision in 1879 that called it "an offense against society." The court said it is not protected by religious freedom, just as "human sacrifice" is not protected.

On Wednesday, the Browns are expected to file a federal lawsuit to challenge the polygamy law in their home state of Utah, where they came under investigation for violating the state law that prohibits polygamy.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/sister-wives-polygamist-plans-suit-challenge-polygamy-law/story?id=14051846#.TwyGTl1KKHM

Anybody know what happens if a man with several wives moves from another country to the US?

Invi
01-10-2012, 01:04 PM
lol "allow"

Ron wants to decriminalize freedom.

Regardless, it's not something he would or could legislate from the white house.
He may personally be for voluntary association. He may personally be against polygamy, for his own reasons, possibly religious ones.
But y'know. constitution, etc, none of the government's business, particularly not the federal government.

I do imagine if states were to suddenly want to decriminalize polygamy, the federal government as it is would stick their nose in it for tax purposes and any other excuse they can find to be invasive.

Krugerrand
01-10-2012, 01:08 PM
lol "allow"

Ron wants to decriminalize freedom.

Regardless, it's not something he would or could legislate from the white house.
He may personally be for voluntary association. He may personally be against polygamy, for his own reasons, possibly religious ones.
But y'know. constitution, etc, none of the government's business, particularly not the federal government.

I do imagine if states were to suddenly want to decriminalize polygamy, the federal government as it is would stick their nose in it for tax purposes and any other excuse they can find to be invasive.

He could instruct the attorney general to not enforce federal laws (if we find out for sure that they exist.) But, I don't really see much in the way of Federal prosecution anyway, so the conversation is rather academic.

It would be a huge deal to Social Security (which obviously shouldn't exist anyway) When survivor benefits have to be paid to multiple wives.

ctiger2
01-10-2012, 01:18 PM
Q: Would Ron Paul legalize polygamy?
A: No, Ron Paul would push the authority to create social policies back to the states where they can decide what polygamy policy they want for their state.

AFPVet
01-10-2012, 01:19 PM
It's not the issue of whether he will legalize this or that, he simply says that it is a state issue for certain things.... If it is not enumerated in the Constitution, the federal government has no business regulating it.

mconder
01-10-2012, 01:20 PM
He would legalize dueling too.

How cool is that? Even presidents used to duel. Every time the MSN challenged Dr. Paul's honor, he could just settle it by challenging them to a duel.

farreri
01-10-2012, 05:35 PM
For what it's worth, the LDS Church formally divorced itself from the practice in 1890.
That's after they were bullied by the Christian dominated congress:


At Young's death in 1877, he was followed by other LDS Presidents, who resisted efforts by the United States Congress to outlaw Mormon polygamous marriages. In 1878, the United States Supreme Court, in Reynolds v. US, decreed that "religious duty" to engage in plural marriage was not a valid defense to prosecutions for violating state laws against polygamy. Conflict between Mormons and the U.S. government escalated to the point that in 1890, Congress disincorporated the LDS Church and seized all its assets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Pioneer_era

heavenlyboy34
01-10-2012, 05:54 PM
How cool is that? Even presidents used to duel. Every time the MSN challenged Dr. Paul's honor, he could just settle it by challenging them to a duel.
Aaron Burr FTW!! ;)

musicmax
01-10-2012, 06:07 PM
Would Ron Paul allow people to marry more than one person at a time?

Why do you have the mindset that one person must "allow" other free people permission to do something?

musicmax
01-10-2012, 06:08 PM
How cool is that? Even presidents used to duel. Every time the MSN challenged Dr. Paul's honor, he could just settle it by challenging them to a duel.

There's a Dana Bash/They Shoot Horses Don't They joke in here somewhere...

DEGuy
01-11-2012, 09:53 AM
As someone who is divorced,I find ridiculous that government is involved in validating a marriage by calling it "legal". Consenting adults should be allowed to do what they want, and the only thing government should be doing is encouraging everyone to have documented agreements what do to with mutually-shared property, and how to share custody of children in case of a split. Keep the government/courts out of it, and focused on other more important issues.

DEGuy
01-11-2012, 10:01 AM
Plus, it's not uncommon for men to have children with several women, or women to have children from several men. And polygamy is outlawed?1? At least polygamous families are trying to provide a stable children-centric atmosphere. Well, from what I learned on Big Love, at least...

Meiun
01-11-2012, 10:04 AM
he's not legalizing it. He's getting the government out of the equation. Government is not ALLOWING it, Ron is merely stating that the government should have no say in the matter.

^This! Exactly the argument Rand was making the other day. It's not about legalizing anything. It's about leaving those decisions in the hands of those it most directly affects.

Danke
01-11-2012, 11:04 AM
He would legalize dueling too.

Damn! I better be more circumspect with my posts from now on.

acptulsa
01-11-2012, 11:08 AM
Damn! I better be more circumspect with my posts from now on.

http://th520.photobucket.com/albums/w323/doublebubble1_photo/th_gauntlet.jpg

itsnobody
01-11-2012, 01:53 PM
No he would not. Right now marriage is a big issue because of the government benefits people get for marriage. Right now gays and polygamists can get married but it would not be legally recognized.

Without government benefits for any kind of marriage, all kinds of marriages would really be a non-issue.

Krugerrand
01-11-2012, 02:04 PM
No he would not. Right now marriage is a big issue because of the government benefits people get for marriage. Right now gays and polygamists can get married but it would not be legally recognized.

Without government benefits for any kind of marriage, all kinds of marriages would really be a non-issue.

Just to clarify ... any claim to marriage by polygamists would be grounds for prosecution. This goes beyond benefits for them.

itsnobody
01-11-2012, 02:16 PM
Just to clarify ... any claim to marriage by polygamists would be grounds for prosecution. This goes beyond benefits for them.

They can still get married but not call it a real marriage.

I mean if someone has multiple boyfriends or girlfriends they won't go to jail, adultery is also not criminal.

Ron Paul would not work to legally recognize any kind of marriage.

ConsideringRonPaul
01-11-2012, 06:35 PM
Not gonna lie, legalized dueling would be so sweet. It would allow a much needed influx of honor to society haha. But, as for Ron's positions on marriage, I like getting the government out of it, I just wish it was more feasible. And what would be done about all the taxation and other benefits the state provides.

Krugerrand
01-11-2012, 07:59 PM
They can still get married but not call it a real marriage.[B]

I mean if someone has multiple boyfriends or girlfriends they won't go to jail, adultery is also not criminal.

Ron Paul would not work to legally recognize any kind of marriage.

Take a look at what you just wrote compared to what you originally wrote:


Right now gays and polygamists can get married but it would not be legally recognized.

Polygamy is not something that is not recognized ... it is criminalized. A gay couple can run up and down the streets claiming to be married, they do not go to jail for that. Polygamists risk jail for that.

You are correct that you will not go to jail for multiple boyfriends/girlfriends ... but polygamy risks jail. Polygamist must HIDE their lifestyle.

Inny Binny
01-12-2012, 12:53 AM
We often hear about how two men might abuse their children just a little teensy bit more than heterosexual couples, and how two parents provide so much more support in time and money than a single mother.

Clearly the solution is lesbian polygamy, which would provide children with the safe environment they need, and the time they deserve.

ibaghdadi
01-12-2012, 02:24 AM
Would Ron Paul allow people to marry more than one person at a time?

The question itself is loaded.

Libertarians are for getting government out of the business of marriage. That does not mean you have to "support" or "allow" any particular form of marriage, because it's not within the government's mandate to begin with.

Of course, how you privately feel about it is another subject entirely, but then again that shouldn't matter either.

presence
01-17-2012, 12:14 PM
Not legalizing...

Decriminalizing.

Big difference. The federal government has no authority to involve itself in marriage. Marriage is a moral/religious/social construct not a legal construct.

We are all equal regardless of whether or not we are married, or whom we are married to. This is liberty.

Ron doesn't like the government recognizing "groups" only "individuals". There should not be any "group rights" only individual rights.

Married people shouldn't be treated any different by the federal government than single people. It is not the federal governments job to impose or imply morality, only to defend individual liberty.