Anti-polygamy case gives rise to all kinds of family forms

Well, I hope you can see why I was asking.

It's imbalanced if you have people addressing only one component.

That said, the govt. handout as Sugar Daddy would need to be addressed first before you could ever address the govt.'s involvement in the marriage license industry.

I don’t fully agree there. The government’s dealing in various relationships is exactly their means to foster welfare dependency. Welfare money largely already pays for women who have children while single. Our rates of illegitimacy in the United States are ASTOUNDING. Welfare dollars presumably also, if it can be confirmed, pay for these polygamists living in compounds. It pays for the schools to preach “safe sex” in the midst of high abortions and underage pregnancies going on. The government marriage license is every bit the issue. If there wasn’t a major recognition issue to it, then there honestly would be little power in groups to demand recognition of their relationships. What benefits would they wish to claim?

Muslims practiced and had polygamy legal long before this church was founded. The real issue here is what to do when an already polygamous man from say Egypt or Saudi Arabia were to move to the U.S., would you force him to divorce his plural wives? Would you at least make an exception to him? I doubt most Muslims even know who Mormons are, you can correct me if I’m wrong. The practice of Polygamy has been legal in the Middle East and Africa for centuries, they just don’t want to leave it behind when they come to America.

The government marriage license is every bit the issue. If there wasn’t a major recognition issue to it, then there honestly would be little power in groups to demand recognition of their relationships.

(a) If the govt had no marriage license -- and if everything could be labeled a "marriage" (any old combo of relationships involving even more than 2 people), then...
...once you cave in to "everything is a 'marriage,' then nothing is a marriage")

(b) The govt has an "investment" in marriage. What do I mean by that? It means Uncle Sam winds up paying for kids born outside of wedlock, for children of broken homes, etc. It has a vested interest in protecting marriage.

When people don't control themselves, and make something a widespread problem, they wind up opening the door to govt. intervention.

I mean, hey, it'd be great if we didn't need crime interventionists (police, detectives, incarceration system, courthouses, judges, etc.). But people open the door to that all the time. (I don't see libertarians too often saying we should do away with the criminal justice system -- or greatly pare down on it).

Likewise, when men won't be sexually responsible (sex outside of wedlock; paying for the children they spawn); or couples divorce. Uncle Sam winds up footing the bills, and therefore has a right to invest in "up front" standards. A "free for all" marriage system would just make things worse than they already are.

Likewise, when men won’t be sexually responsible

You brought up a great point here. Certainly AIDS and other STDs take a rediculous amount out of the healthcare budget as they are.

Thanks for your mention about the investment, I stand corrected on that matter. Yes, children born out of wedlock, broken homes, take welfare money, which comes out of the pockets of you know who in order to fund it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.