LewRockwell.com: Legalize Polygamy! | New Libertarian Position?

[FrankRep]

I'm pretty shocked that Lew Rockwell put this on his site. I thought the idea was to kick government out of marriage. Legalizing is a different story. I'm disappointed,


How many libertarians here agree with Polygamy?



Legalize Polygamy! -- No. I am not kidding. (http://lewrockwell.com/spl5/legalize-polygamy.html)


LewRockwell.com
April 16, 2013


Recently, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council reintroduced a tired refrain (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=03AKmrj3ABA#!): Legalized gay marriage could lead to other legal forms of marriage disaster, such as polygamy. Rick Santorum, Bill O’Reilly, and other social conservatives have made similar claims. It’s hardly a new prediction – we’ve been hearing it for years. Gay marriage is a slippery slope! A gateway drug! If we legalize it, then what’s next? Legalized polygamy?

We can only hope.

Yes, really.

...

Full Story:
http://lewrockwell.com/spl5/legalize-polygamy.html

[lib3rtarian]

How many libertarians here agree with Polygamy?

I do. I support all contracts and relationships between consenting adults.

[cajuncocoa]

the rest of the article, which originates from Slate.com (http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/04/legalize_polygamy_marriage_equality_for_all.html)


Yes, really. While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families.

For decades, the prevailing logic has been that polygamy hurts women and children. That makes sense, since in contemporary American practice that is often the case. In many Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints polygamous communities, for example, women and underage girls are forced into polygamous unions (http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/woman-flees-polygamous-sect-in-arizona-18293572) against their will. Some boys, who represent the surplus of males, are brutally thrown out of their homes (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jun/14/usa.julianborger) and driven into homelessness and poverty at very young ages. All of these stories are tragic, and the criminals involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. (That goes without saying, I hope.)

But legalizing consensual adult polygamy wouldn’t legalize rape or child abuse. In fact, it would make those crimes easier to combat.

Right now, all polygamous families, including the healthy, responsible ones, are driven into hiding (notwithstanding the openly polygamous Brown family on TLC’s Sister Wives, that is). In the resulting isolation, crime and abuse can flourish unimpeded. Children in polygamous communities are taught to fear the police and are not likely to report an abusive neighbor if they suspect their own parents might be caught up in a subsequent criminal investigation. In a United States with legalized polygamy, responsible plural families could emerge from the shadows—making it easier for authorities to zero in on the criminals who remain there.

Many people argue that there is no such thing as a “healthy, responsible” polygamous family, particularly for the children born into one. “Children are harmed because they are often set in perennial rivalry with other children and mothers for the affection and attention of the family patriarch,” argued John Witte Jr. in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/why-not-polygamy/2012/11/09/642c883c-2aa6-11e2-bab2-eda299503684_blog.html). “Men with lots of children and wives are spread too thin,” agreed Libby Copeland in Slate (http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/01/the_problem_with_polygamy.html). The earnestness of these arguments is touching but idealistic. Men in monogamous marriages can’t be spread too thin? Children in monogamous families don’t rival each other for the attentions of their parents? Two-parent families are not the reality for millions of American children. Divorce, remarriage, surrogate parents, extended relatives, and other diverse family arrangements mean families already come in all sizes—why not recognize that legally?

It’s also hard to argue with the constitutional freedom of religious expression that legalized polygamy would preserve. Most polygamous families are motivated by religious faith, such as fundamentalist Mormonism or Islam, and as long as all parties involved are adults, legally able to sign marriage contracts, there is no constitutional reason why they shouldn’t be able to express that faith in their marriages. Legalized polygamous marriage would also be good for immigrant families, some of whom have legally polygamous marriages in their home countries that get ripped apart during the immigration process. (It’s impossible to estimate exactly how many polygamous families live here, since they live their religious and sexual identities in secret. Academics suggest there are 50,000 to 100,000 people engaged in Muslim polygamy (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90857818) in the U.S., and there are thousands of fundamentalist Mormon polygamist families as well.)

Finally, prohibiting polygamy on “feminist” grounds—that these marriages are inherently degrading to the women involved—is misguided. The case for polygamy is, in fact, a feminist one and shows women the respect we deserve. Here’s the thing: As women, we really can make our own choices. We just might choose things people don’t like. If a woman wants to marry a man, that’s great. If she wants to marry another woman, that’s great too. If she wants to marry a hipster, well—I suppose that’s the price of freedom.

And if she wants to marry a man with three other wives, that’s her damn choice.

We have a tendency to dismiss or marginalize people we don’t understand. We see women in polygamous marriages and assume they are victims. “They grew up in an unhealthy environment,” we say. “They didn’t really choose polygamy; they were just born into it.” Without question, that is sometimes true. But it’s also true of many (too many) monogamous marriages. Plenty of women, polygamous or otherwise, are born into unhealthy environments that they repeat later in life. There’s no difference. All marriages deserve access to the support and resources they need to build happy, healthy lives, regardless of how many partners are involved. Arguments about whether a woman’s consensual sexual and romantic choices are “healthy” should have no bearing on the legal process. And while polygamy remains illegal, women who choose this lifestyle don’t have access to the protections and benefits that legal marriage provides.

As a feminist, it’s easy and intuitive to support women who choose education, independence, and careers. It’s not as intuitive to support women who choose values and lifestyles that seem outdated or even sexist, but those women deserve our respect just as much as any others. It’s condescending, not supportive, to minimize them as mere “victims” without considering the possibility that some of them have simply made a different choice.

The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/04/legalize_polygamy_marriage_equality_for_all.html

[cajuncocoa]

Polygamy is not my personal choice, nor do I think it is a good one. That said, it's no damned business of the federal government if that's the choice someone wants to make.

[thoughtomator]

I don't see where it's anyone else's business to tell someone they can't form the voluntary, mutually consensual relationships that they want to form.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Legalize it.

[green73]

I do. I support all contracts and relationships between consenting adults.

This.

[Nirvikalpa]

More idiots that don't understand the terms they use - polygyny is what they are referring to. Polygamy could me a man with multiple wives (polygyny) or a woman with multiple husbands (polyandry).

[Anti Federalist]

Of course.

There is no legal leg to stand on that could possibly be used to not "legalize" any form of consenting adult relationship.

[FriedChicken]

It is very hard for me to understand why anyone would want the government involved in marriage.
I'm constantly surprised that people on both sides of the "legalization" issue are adamantly opposed to having the government drop the issue all together.

[Anti Federalist]

The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.

There is the fail, on two levels.

No, they are not all the same.

While you've been distracted with this "fight", the nation has turned into an authoritarian prison state.

[itshappening]

This is what marriage equality is!

[Anti Federalist]

It is very hard for me to understand why anyone would want the government involved in marriage.
I'm constantly surprised that people on both sides of the "legalization" issue are adamantly opposed to having the government drop the issue all together.

Because it was never really about that.

It was about norming and acceptance.

I'll have to dig it up, an indignant letter from some homosexual gripe group in the UK, pissed off that their "struggle" was being diminished by the absurd position that polygamist marriages should be legal as well.

[PierzStyx]

Don't think this is a "new" position.

[A Son of Liberty]

The "libertarian position" has nothing to do with one kind of marriage or another... "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

[paulbot24]

It's funny to think about the responses you would get posing this question to people that can't even comprehend how typical marriage existed in times before marriage licenses.

[erowe1]

That does look like a really strange thing to read on LRC.

[69360]

None of my business if all participants are willing.

[jmdrake]

I'm pretty shocked that Lew Rockwell put this on his site. I thought the idea was to kick government out of marriage. Legalizing is a different story. I'm disappointed,


How many libertarians here agree with Polygamy?


David, Solomon, Abraham, Jacob.....oh wait...they weren't libertarians.

Anyway, to your point about getting the government out of marriage? You do realize that polygamy is currently a criminal offense in most states right? Why should it be? Do I want government recognition of polygamy and government enforced benefits? Hell no. Do I think that a man who has kids by 5 different women is somehow "better" than a man who "marries" two of them? Again...hell no.

It's funny that I've had arguments with people who want to "equalize marriage" for gays, but get upset with me if I say "Okay. Well do you at least support decriminalizing polygamy?" Oh no, they say. Marriage is between two consenting adults, not three. Well....why? If we as a nation are going to reject the clear Biblical standard that marriage is between two people of the opposite sex, then why must we cling to the questionable Biblical standard that marriage must be between two people?

[EBounding]

Government-marriage is all about control, no matter how it's defined. People are convinced they don't have a marriage unless it's the State incorporating their relationship. In return, the State gives them slightly less complicated tax rules.

Politicians love government-marriage because it's worship of the state. It allows them to create new classes of people so they can maintain power.

[William R]

In Utah and Northern Arizona authorities turn a blind eye to Polygamy. Not saying I agree with it, but it's not a Washington DC issue.

[erowe1]

What actually is the legal status of polygamy?

Is it just that marriages beyond the first are legally null and void? Do people get punished for it? If they do, is it by the federal government or just the state? And if the state, is it all of them or just some?

[ravedown]

It is very hard for me to understand why anyone would want the government involved in marriage.
I'm constantly surprised that people on both sides of the "legalization" issue are adamantly opposed to having the government drop the issue all together.
i made the same argument to a lawyer during a conversation-he of course said the federal government HAS to be involved in marriage because civil contracts are soooo messy and you'd be in court forever dealing with a messy divorce and it's just makes it easier for everyone. i said, you mean it makes it easier for lawyers....he gave me the -you libertarian's are really naive about how the real world works...blah blah. i said- so you're saying pre-nups are useless then? he took awhile and danced around that but finally said-yeah, they're pretty useless and more trouble than they're worth.
so now we know what special interest group is really behind state licensed marriage...lawyers.

[jmdrake]

What actually is the legal status of polygamy?

Is it just that marriages beyond the first are legally null and void? Do people get punished for it? If they do, is it by the federal government or just the state? And if the state, is it all of them or just some?

It varies from state to state. In TN you've committed bigamy if you "purport" to marry someone and you are already legally married, or you "purport" to marry someone who is already legally married. In other words, even if you don't seek state approval for the second marriage, it's considered bigamy. I suppose if you didn't seek state approval of either marriage you wouldn't be violating the statute. Bigamy is a class A misdemeanor which means you can get 11 months 29 days in jail. There is no federal polygamy/bigamy statute to my knowledge. But Utah's entrance into the union was blocked until they consented to pass an anti-polygamist statute.

Abraham would also be in trouble in Tennessee for being married to Sarah as she was his half sister. In TN, even marrying step siblings is illegally. Marrying cousins (even first cousins) is legal.

[Christian Liberty]

Lew Rockwell doesn't necessarily endorse everything on his site. Pat Freaking Buchanan is on there, for crying out loud (Why the crap they have a ROMNEY SUPPORTER on there, I will never know). That said, yes, people should indeed be able to form any relationship they want. However, government should not RECOGNIZE polygamous marriages, because that is a perversion of the definition of marriage. So is gay marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. I don't need government to recognize this, I'd be more than happy to see them respectfully step aside, but I don't want them to define it incorrectly.

Kinda like I don't need a law saying that the sky is blue, or preventing anyone from making a private agreement that the sky is purple, but I don't want the government to recognize that the sky is purple.

[Brian4Liberty]

Get government out of the marriage business. Decriminalize.

[dannno]

Frank, if it is illegal then you can go to prison for it. If it is legal, that doesn't necessarily mean it is sanctioned by the government, it can absolutely mean that they simply aren't involved with that particular part of our lives.

I guess the question comes down to whether you want to put people in prison for having these type of relationships or not.

[sailingaway]

Lew is entitled to his opinions. I think government belongs out of marraige, and ABSOLUTELY the federal government does.

[dannno]

Lew is entitled to his opinions. I think government belongs out of marraige, and ABSOLUTELY the federal government does.

I don't understand the logic of saying how legalizing something gets the government involved when it's the opposite. People use this argument for cannabis and it really doesn't make any logical sense.

Adding regulation gets the government involved. Legalizing something gets the government OUT. If you legalize AND add regulation then yes, you still have government involved. Keeping it illegal keeps the government involved. Legalizing it and removing regulations gets the government out of it, and in fact, making it illegal is a regulation in and of itself, so legalizing is essentially a step towards de-regulating.

[Melissa]

Maybe with some things this is true but not with Marriage...if it is legal it adds government in..that is why I can't support this whole marriage equality thing as my first rule is...limited government and adding more people in a class that is controlled by government will add government..it will have to add clerks for the new marriages..it will add tons of new rules and papers as now it is man and woman on the forms but it would have to be person A and Person B..New laws would have to made and enforced from the IRS on down...but back the OP question...yes it should be ok and would be if government was out of the marriage business and I have found that the equality people are not so equal...when I ask can two sisters get married they about have a heart attack and I have to remind them that they are not for equality for real they just want to add a group they like to this marriage business and I also have to point out they are hypocrites as they yell and scream that the right wants to choose who can be legally married...and I say unless you support a guy and multiple wives or sisters or any consenting adults then you are doing the same thing you accuse others of..you just want your group added and others not so much...how is that any different. Oh and when they accuse me of comparing incest to Homosexuals and ask if I am really am saying they are the same thing...I say no!!! just as we learned in third grade about same and different and incest is different then homosexuals so true is homosexuals different then heterosexuals..and try to get them to make peace with the other side so they can all fight together to get government out of marriage.
I don't understand the logic of saying how legalizing something gets the government involved when it's the opposite. People use this argument for cannabis and it really doesn't make any logical sense.

Adding regulation gets the government involved. Legalizing something gets the government OUT. If you legalize AND add regulation then yes, you still have government involved. Keeping it illegal keeps the government involved. Legalizing it and removing regulations gets the government out of it, and in fact, making it illegal is a regulatio
n in and of itself, so legalizing is essentially a step towards de-regulating.

[mczerone]

i made the same argument to a lawyer during a conversation-he of course said the federal government HAS to be involved in marriage because civil contracts are soooo messy and you'd be in court forever dealing with a messy divorce and it's just makes it easier for everyone. i said, you mean it makes it easier for lawyers....he gave me the -you libertarian's are really naive about how the real world works...blah blah. i said- so you're saying pre-nups are useless then? he took awhile and danced around that but finally said-yeah, they're pretty useless and more trouble than they're worth.
so now we know what special interest group is really behind state licensed marriage...lawyers.

The problem with this is two-fold: first, if the civil-contract method were more complicated, lawyers would LOVE that answer. They profit off the complexity of the system - in that they help parties through the difficulties and argue each possible little point.

Second, then why isn't there a "standard state contract" for every single business relationship? There are certain social standards to contracts, but there isn't a single model of Articles of Incorporation, or Demand Contract, or Employment Contract given by the government. Certainly, if they cared about reducing legal costs, these civil contracts would be completely standardized with little wiggle room as to the structure of the terms.

[dannno]

Maybe with some things this is true but not with Marriage...if it is legal it adds government in..that is why I can't support this whole marriage equality thing as my first rule is...limited government and adding more people in a class that is controlled by government will add government..it will have to add clerks for the new marriages..it will add tons of new rules and papers as now it is man and woman on the forms but it would have to be person A and Person B..New laws would have to made and enforced from the IRS on down...but back the OP question...yes it should be ok and would be if government was out of the marriage business and I have found that the equality people are not so equal...when I ask can two sisters get married they about have a heart attack and I have to remind them that they are not for equality for real they just want to add a group they like to this marriage business and I also have to point out they are hypocrites as they yell and scream that the right wants to choose who can be legally married...and I say unless you support a guy and multiple wives or sisters or any consenting adults then you are doing the same thing you accuse others of..you just want your group added and others not so much...how is that any different. Oh and when they accuse me of comparing incest to Homosexuals and ask if I am really am saying they are the same thing...I say not just as we learned in thrid grade about same and different and incest is different then homosexuals so true is homosexuals different then heterosexuals..and try to get them to make peace with the other side so they can all fight together to get government out of marriage.


That's all fine and dandy, but can you tell me how you are able to morally equivocate putting innocent people in a cage with allowing more people to get married? It just takes a lot of mental gymnastics for me to think, wow, I should have police go put those people in a cage even though they didn't do anything wrong because our government is too big when they have nothing to do with that. It's like being ok with innocent bystanders dying in your quest for liberty, it's pretty much the same as terrorist logic but a little less extreme. Maybe you can explain how I'm wrong?

First we need to get innocent people out of cages, that really should be our first priority. Tackling out of control big government is another great goal, and legalizing gay marriage doesn't need to get in the way of that at all. And I really don't see how it does.

[Melissa]

How do gays go to jail from not being able to marry? that was the topic if you mean marijuana I already said that in some things you are right but not marriage...
That's all fine and dandy, but can you tell me how you are able to morally equivocate putting innocent people in a cage with allowing more people to get married? It just takes a lot of mental gymnastics for me to think, wow, I should have police go put those people in a cage even though they didn't do anything wrong because our government is too big when they have nothing to do with that. It's like being ok with innocent bystanders dying in your quest for liberty, it's pretty much the same as terrorist logic but a little less extreme.

First we need to get innocent people out of cages, that really should be our first priority. Tackling out of control government government is another great goal, and legalizing gay marriage doesn't need to get in the way of that at all.

[Brian4Liberty]

I don't understand the logic of saying how legalizing something gets the government involved when it's the opposite. People use this argument for cannabis and it really doesn't make any logical sense.


Repealing laws is decriminalizing.

What law would you create to legalize it?

[mczerone]

Maybe with some things this is true but not with Marriage...if it is legal it adds government in..that is why I can't support this whole marriage equality thing as my first rule is...limited government and adding more people in a class that is controlled by government will add government..it will have to add clerks for the new marriages..it will add tons of new rules and papers as now it is man and woman on the forms but it would have to be person A and Person B..New laws would have to made and enforced from the IRS on down...but back the OP question...yes it should be ok and would be if government was out of the marriage business and I have found that the equality people are not so equal...when I ask can two sisters get married they about have a heart attack and I have to remind them that they are not for equality for real they just want to add a group they like to this marriage business and I also have to point out they are hypocrites as they yell and scream that the right wants to choose who can be legally married...and I say unless you support a guy and multiple wives or sisters or any consenting adults then you are doing the same thing you accuse others of..you just want your group added and others not so much...how is that any different. Oh and when they accuse me of comparing incest to Homosexuals and ask if I am really am saying they are the same thing...I say no!!! just as we learned in third grade about same and different and incest is different then homosexuals so true is homosexuals different then heterosexuals..and try to get them to make peace with the other side so they can all fight together to get government out of marriage.

Let's assume that we agree that the government should be out of marriage, but while they are involved we want the minimal amount of spending on the administration of marriages.

Case 1: certain relationships are restricted. The government must verify the identity of the parties applying for marriage, must look into the veracity of the relationship to prevent fraud in the benefits it grants to marriage (immigration status, tax status, inheritance status, and other things that the government gives privilege to marriages for), and must constantly bicker about where the lines must be drawn as to "permissible" marriages (race restrictions? gender? number? relation? age?)

Case 2: Recognize all marriage between willing agents. The government must do no work to verify, ensure against fraud, or draw lines. There would be no more than 10% more marriages than today, hardly enough to increase the number of clerks in most counties. The documents that are drawn up anew each year that reference "husband" or "wife" could simply be changed to "spouse" without any additional cost.

I'd say that by your own metric there is no reason to restrict marriage.

[Danan]

Repealing laws is decriminalizing.

What law would you create to legalize it?

If it is not against the law to act in a certain way then this action is legal, isn't it?

[erowe1]

Let's assume that we agree that the government should be out of marriage, but while they are involved we want the minimal amount of spending on the administration of marriages.

Case 1: certain relationships are restricted. The government must verify the identity of the parties applying for marriage, must look into the veracity of the relationship to prevent fraud in the benefits it grants to marriage (immigration status, tax status, inheritance status, and other things that the government gives privilege to marriages for), and must constantly bicker about where the lines must be drawn as to "permissible" marriages (race restrictions? gender? number? relation? age?)

Case 2: Recognize all marriage between willing agents. The government must do no work to verify, ensure against fraud, or draw lines.

I'd say that by your own metric there is no reason to restrict marriage.

What all would case 2 involve? Would multiple spouses be entitled to spousal Social Security benefits? If so, then that's a lot of added government spending.

[mczerone]

What all would case 2 involve? Would multiple spouses be entitled to spousal Social Security benefits? If so, then that's a lot of added government spending.

That's a problem with SSI, not with marriage recognition.

[Danan]

What all would case 2 involve? Would multiple spouses be entitled to spousal Social Security benefits? If so, then that's a lot of added government spending.

How long would it stay that way if anybody could add those benefits to anyone else without further questions? Seems like the best way to get the government out of marriage as quickly as possible.

[Melissa]

By what you just said it will grow government for the very fact it adds more people..again my first rule is limited government so if there is a question I struggle with I ask does it grow government and adding more to marriage will..no way around that..any time you add people it grows...so I will never fight for more government to give more people so called rights..and is it not funny that people feel they can only be married if they get the states permission..no one has said they all can get married any time but we are talking about state sanctioned marriage and when you add more people that are allowed to do something then by its very nature you will grow the government department..
Let's assume that we agree that the government should be out of marriage, but while they are involved we want the minimal amount of spending on the administration of marriages.

Case 1: certain relationships are restricted. The government must verify the identity of the parties applying for marriage, must look into the veracity of the relationship to prevent fraud in the benefits it grants to marriage (immigration status, tax status, inheritance status, and other things that the government gives privilege to marriages for), and must constantly bicker about where the lines must be drawn as to "permissible" marriages (race restrictions? gender? number? relation? age?)

Case 2: Recognize all marriage between willing agents. The government must do no work to verify, ensure against fraud, or draw lines.

I'd say that by your own metric there is no reason to restrict marriage.

[jmdrake]

How do gays go to jail from not being able to marry? that was the topic if you mean marijuana I already said that in some things you are right but not marriage...

Except this thread isn't about gays. It's about polygamists. Gays can get "married" without fear of prison. Polygamists cannot. The proper libertarian stand is no criminal sanctions for anybody and no special benefits for anybody.

[erowe1]

That's a problem with SSI, not with marriage recognition.

It's a problem with both if recognizing polygamy would entail multiple spouses getting SS benefits.

[Melissa]

Actually they all can get married and not go to jail...OH you mean they want the state to sanction it and get the paperwork..well then I understand and again none of the equality people are fighting for polygamists and I would do the same for them I doing for the gays...fight to get government out..not more in..
Except this thread isn't about gays. It's about polygamists. Gays can get "married" without fear of prison. Polygamists cannot. The proper libertarian stand is no criminal sanctions for anybody and no special benefits for anybody.

[mczerone]

It's a problem with both if recognizing polygamy would entail multiple spouses getting SS benefits.

Fine. Let's pretend SS has been abolished. Do you still have a problem with polygamy?

[mczerone]

By what you just said it will grow government for the very fact it adds more people..again my first rule is limited government so if there is a question I struggle with I ask does it grow government and adding more to marriage will..no way around that..any time you add people it grows...so I will never fight for more government to give more people so called rights..and is it not funny that people feel they can only be married if they get the states permission..no one has said they all can get married any time but we are talking about state sanctioned marriage and when you add more people that are allowed to do something then by its very nature you will grow the government department..

It "adds more people" to what? To having govt paperwork? Most people already have SS cards, birth certificates, driver's licenses, etc.

Do you support limiting diver's licenses to only straight people, because it would shrink govt?

[Melissa]

No I dont want to do any groups as I do not support groups..would I support getting out of licenses for all sure...but not just one group and until the equality people fight for sisters or polygamists are they not just trying to add a new group..which in turn will add to government..as now adoptions will be back up for gays and divorces and clerks..I do not know how you can be for limited government but then want them to grow to support the group you like getting what another group has...still makes government grow..
It "adds more people" to what? To having govt paperwork? Most people already have SS cards, birth certificates, driver's licenses, etc.

Do you support limiting diver's licenses to only straight people, because it would shrink govt?

[dannno]

How do gays go to jail from not being able to marry? that was the topic if you mean marijuana I already said that in some things you are right but not marriage...

Gay marriage is legal, you can go to a church and get married to a gay person in all 50 states if the church will marry you. Then you can live with your spouse in holy matrimony for the rest of your life in any state you want. Many states simply don't recognize it as a marriage for tax and legal purposes. So when I say I want to legalize polygamy I mean stop sending people to jail, when FrankRep hears legalize polygamy he thinks we need to get the state to recognize their marriage or whatever. That's why I'm trying to teach the distinction.

I'm arguing for legalizing polygamy, polygamists (can) go to jail for living their life the way they choose, even if they don't actually hurt anybody. We can legalize polygamy without the state needing to recognize it as a valid 'marriage', we just need to stop sending people to jail.

As far as gay marriage, I don't see why allowing gay people to get married for legal purposes is a big deal, if straight people can do it then there is no reason why we shouldn't afford the ability to gay people. They should have the same ability to generate tax breaks by living with another person consistently as anybody else. Straight people who don't have children get these tax breaks, and some gay people adopt, so the ability to pro-create argument doesn't really make any sense. Personally I'd like to get the states out of it, but allowing gay people to get married is simply helping to level the playing field, even if the playing field is kinda shitty, it is better level than not.

[Melissa]

I agree with most of this but look at different in the sense I will not grow government....so I must fight to get government out of the marriage business so all adults 2 to how many ever people want to live with and call it marriage can have the same rights..and that is contract rights and that is all government should worry about...well if their is a dispute..
Gay marriage is legal, you can go to a church and get married to a gay person in all 50 states if the church will marry you. Then you can live with your spouse in holy matrimony for the rest of your life in any state you want. Many states simply don't recognize it as a marriage for tax and legal purposes. So when I say I want to legalize polygamy I mean stop sending people to jail, when FrankRep hears legalize polygamy he thinks we need to get the state to recognize their marriage or whatever. That's why I'm trying to teach the distinction.

I'm arguing for legalizing polygamy, polygamists (can) go to jail for living their life the way they choose, even if they don't actually hurt anybody. We can legalize polygamy without the state needing to recognize it as a valid 'marriage', we just need to stop sending people to jail.

As far as gay marriage, I don't see why allowing gay people to get married for legal purposes is a big deal, if straight people can do it then there is no reason why we shouldn't afford the ability to gay people. They should have the same ability to generate tax breaks by living with another person consistently as anybody else. Straight people who don't have children get these tax breaks, and some gay people adopt, so the ability to pro-create argument doesn't really make any sense. Personally I'd like to get the states out of it, but allowing gay people to get married is simply helping to level the playing field, even if the playing field is kinda shitty, it is better level than not.

[mczerone]

No I dont want to do any groups as I do not support groups..would I support getting out of licenses for all sure...but not just one group and until the equality people fight for sisters or polygamists are they not just trying to add a new group..which in turn will add to government..as now adoptions will be back up for gays and divorces and clerks..I do not know how you can be for limited government but then want them to grow to support the group you like getting what another group has...still makes government grow..

But the thrust of this article is to point out that there should be no privileged groups.

You're the one subdividing which group is eligible and which group is not.

ETA: I also already showed that my position of "shall issue" marriage licenses actually shrinks the amount of govt needed to administer the system.

[dannno]

Do you support limiting diver's licenses to only straight people, because it would shrink govt?

Thanks, I was trying to think of a good analogy like this one.

I really don't see any difference between limiting driver's licenses to straight people and limiting legal marriage to straight people. It's the same thing.

I'd like to get the government out of driver's licenses, too, but that doesn't mean I'm going to support limiting driver's licenses only to straight people.

[Melissa]

No I want all groups to have the same rights...I just do not want to use government to do it..I want government out...at least acknowledge you are not for limited government...at least not with this issue..
But the thrust of this article is to point out that there should be no privileged groups.

You're the one subdividing which group is eligible and which group is not.

[mczerone]

No I want all groups to have the same rights...I just do not want to use government to do it..I want government out...at least acknowledge you are not for limited government...at least not with this issue..

(1) See my ETA to that post: I believe that issuing marriage licenses to any willing adult will limit the spending of govt.

(2) In addition to less spending, it's less govt in that it gives them less POWER. They no longer can say you can or can't get married, or structure your household how you and your partner(s) see fit. Allowing all adults to freely marry gives each individual more power, and the govt less.

[mczerone]

...dbl post...

[Melissa]

We will have to agree to disagree as there is no way giving them more authority who can get married gives them less power..if they want as your license analogy shows they can keep growing..do you know you can get your license taken away if you have not paid child support...yea those things are linked somehow by government and giving everyone a license took power out of their hands huh... http://www.4safedrivers.com/blog/not-paying-child-support-can-now-land-you-without-a-drivers-license/
(1) See my ETA to that post: I believe that issuing marriage licenses to any willing adult will limit the spending of govt.

(2) In addition to less spending, it's less govt in that it gives them less POWER. They no longer can say you can or can't get married, or structure your household how you and your partner(s) see fit. Allowing all adults to freely marry gives each individual more power, and the govt less.

[jmdrake]

It "adds more people" to what? To having govt paperwork? Most people already have SS cards, birth certificates, driver's licenses, etc.

Do you support limiting diver's licenses to only straight people, because it would shrink govt?

Not a good analogy. Currently a "spouse" is entitled to SS benefits when his/her partner dies. If we're talking about polygamy, then theoretically a whole covey of women (or men) could marry one vested SS beneficiary just to soak up the benefits. There's a similar problem with health insurance, even private health insurance, because of how the government has encouraged it to be based on employment. Since you brought up the driver analogy, I can put as many people as I want on my car insurance, regardless of whether I'm related to them or intimately involved with them. That is the way health insurance (and pension benefits) should work.

The proper analysis to this problem isn't "how can we make marriage A like marriage B" but how can we redefine said right/benefit in a way that it doesn't involve marriage at all. Having the government give legal recognition to polygamy would be a disaster. Having the government decriminalize polygamy isn't a problem at all. In fact it should happen.

[mczerone]

We will have to agree to disagree as there is no way giving them more authority who can get married gives them less power..if they want as your license analogy shows they can keep growing..do you know you can get your license taken away if you have not paid child support...yea those things are linked somehow by government and giving everyone a license took power out of their hands huh... http://www.4safedrivers.com/blog/not-paying-child-support-can-now-land-you-without-a-drivers-license/

Telling the govt that they shall issue permits to anyone who wants one doesn't give them "more authority who can get married" (sic).

As to your second assertion, that the govt would then have the right to pull these permits for unrelated reasons, that's a problem with the state in the first place. They have that power NOW. Expanding marriage permits to all willing people doesn't give them more power in that area.

[erowe1]

(1) See my ETA to that post: I believe that issuing marriage licenses to any willing adult will limit the spending of govt.

I don't see why you would want that. Why not simply not punish polygamists? There's no need for a license for it.

[Melissa]

What do you not get about if you get a permit from the government they can of course take it away as you are the one that used Licenses for an analogy and I have already proved they give anyone that wants one but yet can take them away with new rules they adopt and with these new rules come new agencies and new clerks and more government.
Telling the govt that they shall issue permits to anyone who wants one doesn't give them "more authority who can get married" (sic).

As to your second assertion, that the govt would then have the right to pull these permits for unrelated reasons, that's a problem with the state in the first place. They have that power NOW. Expanding marriage permits to all willing people doesn't give them more power in that area.

[erowe1]

Fine. Let's pretend SS has been abolished. Do you still have a problem with polygamy?

Yes, I have a problem with it. I don't see why that's relevant though.

[Melissa]

I am good with this..and to get government out of all marriages and back in private contract rights only
I don't see why you would want that. Why not simply not punish polygamists? There's no need for a license for it.

[Victor Grey]

The only state I know of, that has any laws specifically pertaining to multiple people living together, is Utah.

So explain please, how exactly is polygamy largely "illegal", again? Where exactly, and provided examples of arrests please? Is it illegal because some other group gets slight government numnums for signing a contract vaguely related to having sex, death money, and living agreements between two people? Because society doesn't and never will, want to hold everyone's hand with embracing Lifetime movie acceptance?

If anyone wants to screw, and knock up multiple people, with all them living together, what exactly is stopping them. Dirty looks? Lack of social security taxes being returned?

[mczerone]

I don't see why you would want that. Why not simply not punish polygamists? There's no need for a license for it.

(1) Some local govts would punish polygamists based on a "single family household" zoning requirement. Having unrelated (i.e. unmarried) adults within the same house is a crime whether or not they are in a private committed relationship.

(2) Property distribution at death. Ideally everyone will specifically will their property to people, but some people don't or don't have to the opportunity. If they are in a polygamist relationship that isn't govt certified their property might revert to the state if there are no living relatives (i.e. spouse(s))

(3) Child rearing. Hospital visitation. Any number of any other things that a family might want to undertake that the govt currently says can't happen if one of the "parents" isn't married.

[erowe1]

(1) Some local govts would punish polygamists based on a "single family household" zoning requirement. Having unrelated (i.e. unmarried) adults within the same house is a crime whether or not they are in a private committed relationship.
But again, why not just not do that?



(2) Property distribution at death. Ideally everyone will specifically will their property to people, but some people don't or don't have to the opportunity. If they are in a polygamist relationship that isn't govt certified their property might revert to the state if there are no living relatives (i.e. spouse(s))
And again, the state should just not do that.



(3) Child rearing. Hospital visitation. Any number of any other things that a family might want to undertake that the govt currently says can't happen if one of the "parents" isn't married.
The government says those things can't happen? Meaning they punish people who do those things? I doubt that. But let's say it's the case. Then, once again, they should just not do that.

[awake]

There should be a law stating you can only have one friend at any given time. This of course would be licensed to make sure your friend is government approved. Oh and you will need a team of legal experts to leave your friend if things don't work out.

Government marriage is the antithesis of true human marriage.

[emazur]

Repealing laws is decriminalizing.

What law would you create to legalize it?

"The right to consume cannabis & derivative products shall not be infringed."

That's Bill of Rights style, but it would be in the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land. This would repeal the laws and prevent future laws from being enacted (unless this amendment was repealed, which isn't an easy or common thing to do)

[heavenlyboy34]

There should be a law stating you can only have one friend at any given time. This of course would be licensed to make sure your friend is government approved. Oh and you will need a team of legal experts to leave your friend if things don't work out.

Government marriage is the antithesis of true human marriage.
And your friend can take half your stuff when you go your separate ways. ;)

[JK/SEA]

if it feels good, do it.

[jmdrake]

Actually they all can get married and not go to jail...

In my state, if you commit polygamy you can get 11 months 29 days in jail. I'm sure that's the case for most states as well.

TENNESSEE CODE ANNOTATED
© 2013 by The State of Tennessee
All rights reserved

*** Current through the 2012 Regular Session ***

Title 39 Criminal Offenses
Chapter 15 Offenses Against the Family
Part 3 Bigamy and Incest

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-15-301 (2012)

39-15-301. Bigamy.

(a) A person commits bigamy who:

(1) Is married and purports to marry a person other than the person's spouse in this state under circumstances that would, but for the person's existing marriage, constitute a marriage; or

(2) Knows that a person other than the person's spouse is married and purports to marry the person in this state under circumstances that would, but for the person's existing marriage, constitute a marriage.

(b) It is a defense to prosecution under subdivision (a)(1) that the person reasonably believed that the person's marriage had been dissolved by death, divorce or annulment.

(c) Bigamy is a Class A misdemeanor.




OH you mean they want the state to sanction it and get the paperwork..well then I understand and again none of the equality people are fighting for polygamists and I would do the same for them I doing for the gays...fight to get government out..not more in..

No. That's not what I mean. I mean that laws like the one I just mentioned which can be used to put someone in prison for doing what David and Solomon did should be repealed.

[Smart3]

Full marriage equality under the law.

Until in the future when marriage is not the property of government.

[jmdrake]

(1) Some local govts would punish polygamists based on a "single family household" zoning requirement. Having unrelated (i.e. unmarried) adults within the same house is a crime whether or not they are in a private committed relationship.

Such zoning laws should be abolished. If I want to room with my best friend I should be able to do whether or not I'm sleeping with him/her.



(2) Property distribution at death. Ideally everyone will specifically will their property to people, but some people don't or don't have to the opportunity. If they are in a polygamist relationship that isn't govt certified their property might revert to the state if there are no living relatives (i.e. spouse(s))


Bollocks. If you have the opportunity to file for a marriage license you have the opportunity to fill out a will. In fact filling out a will is easier. In every state you can do it online. In most states you can write it out on a Post-It note. "I hereby will all of my property to X signed Y." That's a valid will in most jurisdictions.



(3) Child rearing.


Adoption. In a polygamist "marriage" the two biological parents should be the parents. Any other spouses should be considered godparents or aunts or uncles or something other than parents.



Hospital visitation.


Springing durable power of attorney for healthcare. Any hospital that doesn't honor that to the extent of letting whoever has the DPAH visit the patient should not be eligible for any federal or state money, and and state funded 9/11 centers should route ambulances to other facilities.



Any number of any other things that a family might want to undertake that the govt currently says can't happen if one of the "parents" isn't married.

Just about anything that you can legitimately do privately through marriage you can do through some form of contract. The state sponsored stuff (taxes, social security, health insurance) should either be abolished or radically altered as to not at all depend on who you sleep with.

[jmdrake]

By the way, this thread shows why Christian conservatives should jump on the "legalize polygamy" bandwagon. Obviously libertines and liberals aren't thinking the financial implications of such an idea through. At least I'm certain liberals aren't. Libertines might be happy with crashing social security, which is exactly what will happen if polygamy gets federal recognition (not just decriminalization) and you have the fulfillment of Isaiah 4:1.

In that day seven women will take hold of one man and say, "We will eat our own food and provide our own clothes; only let us be called by your name. Take away our disgrace!"

Only it will be the taxpayers providing the food and the clothes. Bring on the financial apocalypse! (Or let sense settle into the minds of the libs so that they realize that the welfare state needs to be abolished or at least radically altered first.)

[Krzysztof Lesiak]

Polygamy? Whatever, it doesn't affect me, go ahead. A lot of people probably aren't gonna do it, outside of Utah though.

Legalizing bestiality though, that's a completely different story. I strongly oppose that. I don't care if that makes me a LINO.

[Smart3]

Polygamy? Whatever, it doesn't affect me, go ahead. A lot of people probably aren't gonna do it, outside of Utah though.

Legalizing bestiality though, that's a completely different story. I strongly oppose that. I don't care if that makes me a LINO.

As long as the animal is not harmed in any way, what's the problem? I'm for legalization of zoophilia, but I'd settle for decriminalization. (the latter assumes that if an animal is killed or severely damaged as a result of the acts, the person would go to prison for a very long time)

and please stop calling it bestiality. That's like calling homosexuality - sodomy. It's down right offensive.

[green73]

Here's a theory. Polygyny has long been outlawed because someone (or group of like-minded individuals) could quickly raise an army against the establishment. Think about it. There's a guy in Canada with over 100 children.

[heavenlyboy34]

Polygamy? Whatever, it doesn't affect me, go ahead. A lot of people probably aren't gonna do it, outside of Utah though.

Legalizing bestiality though, that's a completely different story. I strongly oppose that. I don't care if that makes me a LINO.

May I ask why you believe bestiality should be illegal? I think it's cruel and probably should be illegal too, but I'm curious as to your reasoning. Thnx.

[WhistlinDave]

I'm pretty shocked that Lew Rockwell put this on his site. I thought the idea was to kick government out of marriage. Legalizing is a different story. I'm disappointed,

How many libertarians here agree with Polygamy?

I think people should be free to choose it if they want. I couldn't find a single thing in the article that I disagree with.

I also think you're framing the question the wrong way. If you ask me, "Do you agree with polygamy," I would say it's not something I would choose for myself. One nagging wife is quite enough. But if you ask me, "Do you agree that consenting adults should have the freedom to choose polygamy if they want," then my answer is yes.

Same thing happens with same sex marriage. People frame the question the wrong way. Ron Paul personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, but he doesn't believe he has the right to force that definition upon other people. It's not a question of "liking" or "agreeing" with something, it's a question of allowing others the freedom to like or agree to whatever they want for themselves.

Regarding getting government out of marriage, the end result for polygamists is the same. They will be free to have their polygamist families. (Just without government benefits & privileges based on their married status.) So if you object to polygamy on a moral or religious basis, and think people should not be allowed to do it, then you shouldn't be taking the position that we need to get government out of marriage entirely. Same thing with same sex marriage.

[dannno]

Not a good analogy. Currently a "spouse" is entitled to SS benefits when his/her partner dies. If we're talking about polygamy, then theoretically a whole covey of women (or men) could marry one vested SS beneficiary just to soak up the benefits.

The analogy was for gay marriage - If we are going to have government marriage I see no problem with the government limiting marriage to two people as long as it applies to everybody - but to say that gay people can't get married isn't very fair application of the law.

[green73]

May I ask why you believe bestiality should be illegal? I think it's cruel and probably should be illegal too, but I'm curious as to your reasoning. Thnx.

Just curious, in a free society, who is the plaintiff?

[NoOneButPaul]

Like every other social issue this is a state's rights issue. Period, end of story.

[WhistlinDave]

How do gays go to jail from not being able to marry?

I'll give you one possible scenario. Two lesbians, let's just call them... Ruth and Naomi... go get married in their gay friendly church. But, they live in a state where it isn't legal. Furthermore, the Federal government (under DOMA) says their marriage is illegal as well. But Ruth says, "You know, I'm a prophet of the Lord and I know in my heart these laws are just wrong. So I'm not asking permission from anyone." Now, when they file their taxes, they file married filing jointly.

The State and the Federal government come back and say, "You owe more taxes," and they say, "No, we don't," and the government says, "Yes, you took deductions for being married and you aren't allowed to take those deductions."

This goes back and forth a while, and Ruth and Naomi eventually get a letter saying their house will be taken if they don't pay up. They ignore it. Eventually the house is foreclosed upon by the IRS, and finally when Ruth and Naomi refuse to leave their home, men with badges and guns come to remove them. During this incident, one of the cops doesn't like a smart ass remark made by Ruth, and he thinks she's disobeying an order, so he cuffs her and slams her to the ground, and then hauls her off to jail for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. (Same scenario could occur even in a state where same sex marriage is legal, as long as DOMA is the law of the land.)

The idea that gays can go get married all they want isn't the whole truth. Because they still are not allowed to be married in the eyes of the law, and will suffer the consequences if they attempt to disagree.

Of course this is the part where everyone dances around the issue by saying, "Your example just shows why taxation is evil, or why we need to get government out of marriage entirely." Those things may be true, but that does not change the fact that same sex couples very well could go to jail if they try to act married when the law still says they are not allowed to.

[WhistlinDave]

I forgot to add the issue of tax fraud. Forget foreclosing on the house; they could be found guilty of tax fraud if they dig in their heels.

[Victor Grey]

In my state, if you commit polygamy you can get 11 months 29 days in jail. I'm sure that's the case for most states as well.

[i]TENNESSEE CODE ANNOTATED
© 2013 by The State of Tennessee
All rights reserved

. . .


I live in Tennessee as well, that law is useless, caring about that law is dumb, I'll can tell you why.

You can't enforce it on anyone except an idiot.


That law pertaining to poligamy, is like making pot "illegal."

By "illegal" like smoking pot, actually, I mean illegal, like this:

Illegal like that you can smoke it in your home, and absolutely no chance of arrest.
You can smoke it in public, 100% no chance arrest.
Hell you can publicly advocate smoking it. No arrest.
Illegal like you can grow you little harem of pot plants as large as you'd like. No arrests.
Illegal like, that you can go into a nongovernmental building, in part or solely devoted to the non-government related public square recognition of your smoking pot, and devote yourself and others to the life-long smoking of pot. No arrests. No chance of arrests.
Illegal like, you can smoke it with 3 women at the same time, in front of a cop, in front of jail.
Nothing.


No, polygamy is "Illegal," akin to smoking pot, in like that;
in order to be arrested for the crime, you would have to get your dumb ass up... WALK, into a government office. With a joint. Smoke it. In front of a law enforcement officer... Admit, that you smoked it with multiple other people. Freaking Request DOCUMENTATION documenting that you smoke marijuana. Noting the time, the place, and the people witnessing said smoking.

Finally, requesting for MULTIPLE OTHER DOCUMENTS, also declaring that you smoked pot.

Oh and let's add one more. Illegal like getting down upon you knees, kissing the government's boots, turning around, mooning it, turning back around, kissing it's boots again, and then finally, in tears, on the ground, with clasped reverant hands, begging it, "Please master. Please government please. Arrest me government. Please, I beg of you, to arrest me. I know this technically is illegal, but still, I'm dumb as a bag of hammers and I confess to this crime, in writing and in person. So please master, yes master. Arrest me, arrest me, arrest me, Arrest Me. Please oh please, take my hand signed confession, my other hand signed confession, and these other hand signed confessions, and arrest me for smoking pot, and throw me in jail. Thank you sir, may I be found worthy but to kiss you buttocks?"


Then, and only then, being arrested.


That is what laws pertaining to the illegality of polygamy are and would be like, if they were how the laws for drugs were handled.
Ok the last step was an exaggeration, but still. Come on.

In other words, polygamy is de facto decriminalized. You have to make yourself go to jail for polygamy.



& that is why I deem to fart in the general direction toward the issue of the illegality of polygamy and to marriage issues in general. It's 90% all social recognition crusaderism.

I don't care. After that much trouble, of digging your own hole for the sake of living out an alternative lifestyle which could of been worked around by some will rewriting and ect, in order to be truly persecuted... I just don't care.

[jmdrake]

Well if Ruth and Naomi try to file joint income taxes they will probably have to pay higher taxes. It's a marriage tax penalty, not a benefit, if both people make close to the same amount of money which is more likely true for homosexua couples than heterosexual ones. And if Ruth and Boaz get married and Boaz says "I don't believe in a state license to marry" then they run into the same thing. Frankly I think conflated scenarios like this trivialize the issue, especially considering that there are people (polygamists) who face going to prison just for getting up in front of a preacher and saying "I do" in a private ceremony. That doesn't happen to gays.


I'll give you one possible scenario. Two lesbians, let's just call them... Ruth and Naomi... go get married in their gay friendly church. But, they live in a state where it isn't legal. Furthermore, the Federal government (under DOMA) says their marriage is illegal as well. But Ruth says, "You know, I'm a prophet of the Lord and I know in my heart these laws are just wrong. So I'm not asking permission from anyone." Now, when they file their taxes, they file married filing jointly.

The State and the Federal government come back and say, "You owe more taxes," and they say, "No, we don't," and the government says, "Yes, you took deductions for being married and you aren't allowed to take those deductions."

This goes back and forth a while, and Ruth and Naomi eventually get a letter saying their house will be taken if they don't pay up. They ignore it. Eventually the house is foreclosed upon by the IRS, and finally when Ruth and Naomi refuse to leave their home, men with badges and guns come to remove them. During this incident, one of the cops doesn't like a smart ass remark made by Ruth, and he thinks she's disobeying an order, so he cuffs her and slams her to the ground, and then hauls her off to jail for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. (Same scenario could occur even in a state where same sex marriage is legal, as long as DOMA is the law of the land.)

The idea that gays can go get married all they want isn't the whole truth. Because they still are not allowed to be married in the eyes of the law, and will suffer the consequences if they attempt to disagree.

Of course this is the part where everyone dances around the issue by saying, "Your example just shows why taxation is evil, or why we need to get government out of marriage entirely." Those things may be true, but that does not change the fact that same sex couples very well could go to jail if they try to act married when the law still says they are not allowed to.

[jmdrake]

Really? All it takes is one overzealous prosecutor to decide to make an example out of you. Recently TYT's covered a prosecutor trying to use the sodomy statute that was still on the books in his state to up the penalty in a statutory rape case. Nevermind it was already deemed unconstitutional. So here goes. You're married to two women. DPS comes to your house because somebody's filed some bogus complaint regarding your kids. As the DPS is interviewing one of your 10 kids, he tells the investigator "Guess what? I have two mommies and my daddy is married to both of them." DPS has no proof that you commited child abuse, but he doesn't like you and wants something to stick on you. Can you imagine the rest? I can.

As for your joint analogy, people get arrested every day in Nashville for having a joint on them when they get pulled over for a traffic stop. Sure they shouldn't consent to a search, but many do. Not the best analogy to prove your point.


I live in Tennessee as well, that law is useless, caring about that law is dumb, I'll can tell you why.

You can't enforce it on anyone except an idiot.


That law pertaining to poligamy, is like making pot "illegal."

By "illegal" like smoking pot, actually, I mean illegal, like this:

Illegal like that you can smoke it in your home, and absolutely no chance of arrest.
You can smoke it in public, 100% no chance arrest.
Hell you can publicly advocate smoking it. No arrest.
Illegal like you can grow you little harem of pot plants as large as you'd like. No arrests.
Illegal like, that you can go into a nongovernmental building, in part or solely devoted to the non-government related public square recognition of your smoking pot, and devote yourself and others to the life-long smoking of pot. No arrests. No chance of arrests.
Illegal like, you can smoke it with 3 women at the same time, in front of a cop, in front of jail.
Nothing.


No, polygamy is "Illegal," akin to smoking pot, in like that;
in order to be arrested for the crime, you would have to get your dumb ass up... WALK, into a government office. With a joint. Smoke it. In front of a law enforcement officer... Admit, that you smoked it with multiple other people. Freaking Request DOCUMENTATION documenting that you smoke marijuana. Noting the time, the place, and the people witnessing said smoking.

Finally, requesting for MULTIPLE OTHER DOCUMENTS, also declaring that you smoked pot.

Oh and let's add one more. Illegal like getting down upon you knees, kissing the government's boots, turning around, mooning it, turning back around, kissing it's boots again, and then finally, in tears, on the ground, with clasped reverant hands, begging it, "Please master. Please government please. Arrest me government. Please, I beg of you, to arrest me. I know this technically is illegal, but still, I'm dumb as a bag of hammers and I confess to this crime, in writing and in person. So please master, yes master. Arrest me, arrest me, arrest me, Arrest Me. Please oh please, take my hand signed confession, my other hand signed confession, and these other hand signed confessions, and arrest me for smoking pot, and throw me in jail. Thank you sir, may I be found worthy but to kiss you buttocks?"


Then, and only then, being arrested.


That is what laws pertaining to the illegality of polygamy are and would be like, if they were how the laws for drugs were handled.
Ok the last step was an exaggeration, but still. Come on.

In other words, polygamy is de facto decriminalized. You have to make yourself go to jail for polygamy.



& that is why I deem to fart in the general direction toward the issue of the illegality of polygamy and to marriage issues in general. It's 90% all social recognition crusaderism.

I don't care. After that much trouble, of digging your own hole for the sake of living out an alternative lifestyle which could of been worked around by some will rewriting and ect, in order to be truly persecuted... I just don't care.

[AGRP]

I'm pretty shocked that Lew Rockwell put this on his site. I thought the idea was to kick government out of marriage. Legalizing is a different story. I'm disappointed, How many libertarians here agree with Polygamy?

None of what you wrote seems to make sense. Please re-state.

[muh_roads]

Jesus let this thread die. We don't need passerby's that aren't familiar with us seeing this...unless they are in Utah or something. Even then the majority in Utah probably don't agree either.

[Victor Grey]

Really? All it takes is one overzealous prosecutor to decide to make an example out of you. Recently TYT's covered a prosecutor trying to use the sodomy statute that was still on the books in his state to up the penalty in a statutory rape case. Nevermind it was already deemed unconstitutional. So here goes. You're married to two women. DPS comes to your house because somebody's filed some bogus complaint regarding your kids. As the DPS is interviewing one of your 10 kids, he tells the investigator "Guess what? I have two mommies and my daddy is married to both of them." DPS has no proof that you commited child abuse, but he doesn't like you and wants something to stick on you. Can you imagine the rest? I can.

As for your joint analogy, people get arrested every day in Nashville for having a joint on them when they get pulled over for a traffic stop. Sure they shouldn't consent to a search, but many do. Not the best analogy to prove your point.

Of course they get arrested every day in Nashville. The laws pertaining to arrested for pot possession, aren't like the laws pertaining to arrests for polygamy.
Which is why my analogy, proves my point.

DPS will take your kids for anything. Child abuse is whatever they say is it is.
Ugly tie. No children for you.

[jmdrake]

Of course they get arrested every day in Nashville. The laws pertaining to arrested for pot possession, aren't like the laws pertaining to arrests for polygamy.
Which is why my analogy, proves my point.

DPS will take your kids for anything. Child abuse is whatever they say is it is.
Ugly tie. No children for you.

Okay. Sounds like you are comparing the current polygamy laws to the sodomy laws of days gone buy? On the books but everybody knew they weren't enforced? That is...until they were. Lawrence v. Texas is an example. One jilted gay lover called the police and told them there was shooting going on at his ex lover's house. When the cops got there...well there were no guns being shot. Both men were arrested. So that kind of scenario can happen with regards to polygamy. Some third party sicks the cops on you and some cop takes them up on it.

[WhistlinDave]

Well if Ruth and Naomi try to file joint income taxes they will probably have to pay higher taxes. It's a marriage tax penalty, not a benefit, if both people make close to the same amount of money which is more likely true for homosexua couples than heterosexual ones. And if Ruth and Boaz get married and Boaz says "I don't believe in a state license to marry" then they run into the same thing. Frankly I think conflated scenarios like this trivialize the issue, especially considering that there are people (polygamists) who face going to prison just for getting up in front of a preacher and saying "I do" in a private ceremony. That doesn't happen to gays.

OK, fair point. But, in my example, whether they would save more or pay more isn't really relevant, because if they tried to take deductions they weren't entitled to, the government would come after them if they were unlucky enough to get audited.

I was simply trying to answer Melissa's question, and the same kind of scenario is often used on RPF to illustrate why taxation is theft at the end of a gun. Because that's where it eventually can lead. But I will concede the point that polygamists can go to jail just for saying "I do" and that's not the case with gays who slap on the old ball and chain.

[Victor Grey]

Okay. Sounds like you are comparing the current polygamy laws to the sodomy laws of days gone buy? On the books but everybody knew they weren't enforced? That is...until they were. Lawrence v. Texas is an example. One jilted gay lover called the police and told them there was shooting going on at his ex lover's house. When the cops got there...well there were no guns being shot. Both men were arrested. So that kind of scenario can happen with regards to polygamy. Some third party sicks the cops on you and some cop takes them up on it.

Doesn't work like that. You can't prove anything related to polygamy. It has to be documented that they are married. Living together and having sex isn't a crime.

Children born outside of documented marriage, aren't reasonable evidence of bigamy either. Documented marriage certificates, are evidence of bigamy.
Kind of like what people wanting "legal" polygamy want. Documented polygamy.

A person however, doesn't seek after a certificate of homosexuality. Sodomy laws are based upon accusations that require a different type of evidence than polygamy laws. Namely two men or two women, simply having sex.

Again, point being, a polygamist basically has to self admit, in writing, in more than one document going directly to government itself, to committing a crime, for it to be considered that they are a polygamist. Otherwise legally speaking they're just having sex with people they live with, and there's no way to prove otherwise and provoke an arrest. They're at worst, reasonably just swingers, and a court can't reasonably prove anything more. Which swinging itself, isn't illegal.

Without the person's own assistance, polygamy is an unenforceable crime.

A gay person convicted of a sodomy law, simply has to be accused of having sex together. Very different requirement of evidence.

[PierzStyx]

It varies from state to state. In TN you've committed bigamy if you "purport" to marry someone and you are already legally married, or you "purport" to marry someone who is already legally married. In other words, even if you don't seek state approval for the second marriage, it's considered bigamy. I suppose if you didn't seek state approval of either marriage you wouldn't be violating the statute. Bigamy is a class A misdemeanor which means you can get 11 months 29 days in jail. There is no federal polygamy/bigamy statute to my knowledge. But Utah's entrance into the union was blocked until they consented to pass an anti-polygamist statute.

Abraham would also be in trouble in Tennessee for being married to Sarah as she was his half sister. In TN, even marrying step siblings is illegally. Marrying cousins (even first cousins) is legal.

There are federal anti-polygamy laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Anti-Bigamy_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds%E2%80%93Tucker_Act


Every one of those was aimed at punishing Mormons and forcing them to obey federal will.

[WhistlinDave]

There are federal anti-polygamy laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Anti-Bigamy_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds%E2%80%93Tucker_Act


Every one of those was aimed at punishing Mormons and forcing them to obey federal will.

Kind of ironic that after the persecution Mormons suffered at the hands of anti-polygamists, that modern day Mormons were so active in getting Prop 8 to barely pass in California. Over half of the $40 Million that was donated to the campaign came from members of the Mormon church, most of them from out of state, and the Mormon church even bused volunteers into California neighborhoods to go door to door campaigning to strike fear into the hearts of voters.

I guess the lessons of tyranny get lost in history and easily forgotten when it's someone else's perversion threatening all of civilization.

[jmdrake]

I know for a fact that in family law I read a case where a polygamist was convicted and he didn't have any documented marriage certificate. The only evidence against him was that witnesses testified that there was a wedding ceremony including 3 people.


Doesn't work like that. You can't prove anything related to polygamy. It has to be documented that they are married. Living together and having sex isn't a crime.

Children born outside of documented marriage, aren't reasonable evidence of bigamy either. Documented marriage certificates, are evidence of bigamy.
Kind of like what people wanting "legal" polygamy want. Documented polygamy.

A person however, doesn't seek after a certificate of homosexuality. Sodomy laws are based upon accusations that require a different type of evidence than polygamy laws. Namely two men or two women, simply having sex.

Again, point being, a polygamist basically has to self admit, in writing, in more than one document going directly to government itself, to committing a crime, for it to be considered that they are a polygamist. Otherwise legally speaking they're just having sex with people they live with, and there's no way to prove otherwise and provoke an arrest. They're at worst, reasonably just swingers, and a court can't reasonably prove anything more. Which swinging itself, isn't illegal.

Without the person's own assistance, polygamy is an unenforceable crime.

A gay person convicted of a sodomy law, simply has to be accused of having sex together. Very different requirement of evidence.

[jmdrake]

I stand corrected.


There are federal anti-polygamy laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Anti-Bigamy_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds%E2%80%93Tucker_Act


Every one of those was aimed at punishing Mormons and forcing them to obey federal will.