• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should polygamists have the right to marry?

Which brings up the viable alternative: Stay single and barhop every night.........................

Bonz, off topic, but we had fog this morning so thick I couldn't see next door! It didn't burn off till 0930. Creepy! :eek: This weather is strange....one day snow, next day balmy in shirtsleeves, next day snow again...Mother Nature is having problems figuring out what she wants...We're supposed to have showers in April, according to the nursery rhyme...someone needs to remind her...just saying.
 
The libertarian in me sides with my blog post linked in my signature.

Government can not regulate marriage without violating most people's First amendment rights.
 
The libertarian in me sides with my blog post linked in my signature.

Government can not regulate marriage without violating most people's First amendment rights.

The first amendment does not give you the right to a definition of a word. In fact, I would argue the first amendment actually precludes us from using religion as the basis for that definition, as far as the government is concerned.
 
The libertarian in me sides with my blog post linked in my signature.

Government can not regulate marriage without violating most people's First amendment rights.

That makes no sense. Government cannot fail to place a definition on who it issues a license to without violating someone's rights? You believe in the positive right to a marriage license?

Libertarians are supposed to believe that rights are negative in nature.
 
The libertarian in me sides with my blog post linked in my signature.

Government can not regulate marriage without violating most people's First amendment rights.

That makes no sense. Government cannot fail to place a definition on who it issues a license to without violating someone's rights? You believe in the positive right to a marriage license?

Libertarians are supposed to believe that rights are negative in nature.
 
Of course. It is a freedom of expression, and a freedom of religion. I may not personally agree with the concept, but why does my opinion need to restrict others' rights? It is idiotic that this is illegal.
 
The first amendment does not give you the right to a definition of a word. In fact, I would argue the first amendment actually precludes us from using religion as the basis for that definition, as far as the government is concerned.

That makes no sense. Government cannot fail to place a definition on who it issues a license to without violating someone's rights? You believe in the positive right to a marriage license?

Libertarians are supposed to believe that rights are negative in nature.

No. As citizens of this country, we are obligated to recognize that the laws of the land are valid (even the ones we don't like). There fore, if the government says marriage is z, y and z and I believe (as part of my religion) that it is a, b, and c then I either capitulate and believe x, y and z per the government rule of law or I will be punished by the rule of law and thus persecuted for my religious beliefs.

Example: As an employer I would be obligated to recognize that my employee is married to someone in contradiction to my beliefs and extend benefits (leave, health care, etc). If I don't, I can be punished with fines, jail time or both. My religious belief is that I the employee and spouse aren't truly married, but if I don't recognize their marriage as valid then I will be persecuted.

Now, that's a direct example but the indirect nature of the law applies as well. Those that adhere to the strictest sense of marriage are, as of today, forced to recognize that divorced couples that remarry other people are valid marriages even though they don't believe they are. If they were to stand up and say no, they would be persecuted.

So, no I don't think there is a positive or negative right to a marriage license. I think it is a social construct that, if regulated, results in religious persecution. However, if unregulated, it would fall under the jurisdiction of social groups (religions, families, organizations and the like) to regulate marriage as an institution and a ceremony as they see fit.
 
Back
Top Bottom