Independent American Party: The “Holy Matrimony” Confusion: IAP’s Views on Marriage

The “Holy Matrimony” Confusion: IAP’s Views on Marriage
Published June 11, 2013
By Kelly Gneiting, National Chairman of the Independent American Party (IAP)

 

First and foremost, I want to express my realization that there is a divergence of opinion on this topic within liberty-loving men and women of today.  I mean to offend no one.  Simply, I am interested in NOT what’s popular, but what’s right.  My guiding compass is the opinions of our Founders.

Since our Founders accomplished, by petition to God and undaunted courage, the only free society on Earth, their voices should be heard the loudest.

“Government should stay out of our relationships, and keep away from our bedrooms!” I’ve heard these or similar statements for years now from freedom-loving people, mostly libertarians.  IAP leaders have even been called homophobic by Libertarian Party leadership.

After writing the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson was appointed to a special committee with Benjamin Franklin and John Adams to prepare an official seal for the United States.  Both Jefferson and Franklin suggested that one side of the seal portray Moses leading ancient Israel, since the Israelites had the historical distinction of being the most ancient people to practice the principles of representative government.

Since Jefferson had discovered the Anglo-Saxons had practiced almost identical principles, he suggested representing the Anglo-Saxon society on the other side of the seal, with no opposition from Franklin or Adams.  John Adams wrote:

“Mr. Jefferson proposed the Children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day and pillar of fire by night…”  (Richard S. Patterson & Richardson Dougall, the Eagle and the Shield: A History of the Great Seal of the United States, Washington: U.S. Dept. of State, 1976, p. 16)

On August 13, 1776, Jefferson himself wrote:

“Are we not better for what we have hitherto abolished of the feudal system…? Is it not better now that we return at once into that happy system of our ancestors, the wisest and most perfect ever yet devised by the wit of man…?” (Julian P. Boyd, ed., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 20 vols. by 1982, 1:492)

The Ten Commandments were the basis for our representative government.  Because there is no mention of adultery being forbidden by our U.S. Constitution, many feel that the libertarian viewpoint is justified, and that adultery, fornication, bestiality, homosexuality, and drug use should be tolerated since they are “victimless crimes,” while laws which forbid these are inexcusable attempts to override governing of self.

This was NOT the belief of our Founders.  James Madison, for one, said:

We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power of government; far from it.  We have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments.” (America’s God And Country Encyclopedia Of Quotations.” William J. Federer. Fame Publishing, Inc. 820 South MacArthur Blvd., Coppell, Texas 75019-4214. 1994)

Then in a message to the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, John Adams stated:

“We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion.  Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

The formula of our Founders is expressed in the 10th amendment, stated simply:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

What this means is that although the federal government was to stay away from recognizing marriage, states were NOT.  In fact, states were obligated to recognize marriage in order to punish sex crimes, such as in Idaho’s Statutes, with verbiage that was (or is) a part of EVERY OTHER state constitution:

TITLE 18 CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS CHAPTER 66 SEX CRIMES

18-6601. Adultery.  A married man who has sexual intercourse with a woman not his wife, an unmarried man who has sexual intercourse with a married woman, a married woman who has sexual intercourse with a man not her husband, and an unmarried woman who has sexual intercourse with a married man, shall be guilty of adultery, and shall be punished by a fine of not less than $100, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than three months, or by imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a period not exceeding three years, or in the county jail for a period not exceeding one year, or by fine not exceeding $1000. (see http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title18/T18CH66SECT18-6601.htm)

Simply, our American roots originate from the top of Mt. Sinai.  It was there that Moses received the principles of a representative government, by God Himself.

In 1799 Reverend Abiel Abbot said it best:

“Our American Israel is a term frequently used; and common consent allows it apt and proper.”  —A sermon on Thanksgiving Day, 1799, by Reverend Abiel Abbot (“God’s New Israel,” Conrad Cherry, 1971, preface page)

In Cleon Skousen’s popular book on Freedom 101, The 5000 Year Leap, he frequently referred to the term debauchery to describe our Founder’s views that with liberty comes responsibility.  Skousen had this historic point to make, referencing homosexuality:

There were only four “crimes” or offenses against the whole people.  These were treason, by betraying their own people; cowardice, by refusing to fight or failing to fight courageously; desertion; and homosexuality.  These were considered capital offenses.  All other offenses required reparation to the person who had been wronged. (page 14)

Marriage is a sacred institution.  It has been described as “holy matrimony.”  The definition of holy is, dedicated and consecrated to God… dedicated to the service of God.  Performed as a religious ceremony between one man and one woman, the oaths taken in marriage vows are also recognized by correct civil law, with adultery being punishable as a crime.

The philosophy of libertarianism is NOT the philosophy God delivered to Moses on Mt. Sinai.  The Ten Commandments are what God delivered— laws meant to govern civil societies.  There is no profession of Christ as Savior in the Ten Commandments.  There are no temple ordinances, no doctrine of baptism, and no insisting of paying tithes in the Ten Commandments.  What there is, however, are rules by which a Republic should be governed.  Thomas Jefferson and his associates knew this!

God’s hand in our nation’s history is a historical fact.  He was referred to and called upon numerous times in applying the formula which set our first American generation free.  As Americans, we have as our National Motto, “In God we trust,” and public servant’s oath to office ends with, “…so help me God.”

This is the formula we would be wise to return to; a philosophy in which traditional marriage IS recognized by government and adultery and sexual perversion is rightly punished by law.

Source:
http://www.independentamericanparty.org/2013/06/the-holy-matrimony-dilemma-iaps-views-on-marriage-by-kelly-gneiting/

42 thoughts on “Independent American Party: The “Holy Matrimony” Confusion: IAP’s Views on Marriage

  1. Deran

    So, the IAP essentially believes the same things as the much maligned Constitution Party, with the exception being that the IAP does not promote the killing of “sexual perverts”. But prison time for adults that mutually love each other should do time in prison. Nice.

    The “Founders”, especially the ones mentioned here, were either Free masons, free thinkers and deists. they were not jesus freaks, they did not view the bible the way the religious nutters of today do. The religious nutters of today make completely false comparisons between their ideology and the ideologies of the “Founders”.

  2. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    Cody Quirk told me the IAP is significantly better than the CP. I’ll take him on his word, but this party is in no way, shape or form for me. The more I read from other alternative parties, the more I support the Libertarian Party and I’m convinced that it’s the only party in the U.S. supporting freedom, all across the board. Not being nit picky. Libertarians support freedom, in EVERY aspect of your life.

    On March 7, 2014, I am going to proudly join the Libertarian Party, and I hope Paulie will still be willing to help out with the basic dues ;)

  3. Cody Quirk

    Deran, many of the Founding Fathers were still Pro-Christian, and while they were opposed to theocracy and having one denomination favored over another by the government- they still believed in and advocated for government rooted upon Christian & Jewish principles, and also supported the right to religious expression- even in the government and opposed government restricting the right to limit religious expression or speech both within and outside of the American government.

    That’s something that the militant atheists and Leftists refuse to acknowledge.

  4. Cody Quirk

    Our platform and beliefs are certainly better then the CP, but I acknowledge that they’re not perfect, and while I, and the IAP, will always support the state’s right to maintain traditional marriage, as well as maintain moral, traditional values, which are in conformity with the US Constitution-

    Yes I admit we need to reword some of our national platform, and that will happen at a later date, but if you think that we support Riley Hood’s advocacy of outright recriminalizing homosexuality and suppressing the religious rights of other religions in America, you can be rest assured that we abhor such anti-American BS.

  5. David

    Marriage use to be sacred, then the government got involved. Another issue was that our founding fathers grew hemp. Our first flag was made of hemp, yet a lot of people still want to continue this ban on hemp.

  6. From Der Sidelines

    The folks at the IAP could use a High Solonic on their history, because any claim that the Constitution is based on the Judaic Ten Commandments needs to have their head examined and history checked, because it simply isn’t anywhere near true.

    But, we should not expect much better from an organization that is a bunch of rabid religious fanatics devoid of logic and reason, either…

  7. From Der Sidelines

    @5:

    “I, and the IAP, will always support the state’s right to maintain traditional marriage, as well as maintain moral, traditional values, which are in conformity with the US Constitution…”

    Nope. The right to marry is a fundamental right that trumps state powers (States have no rights, get it correct!) because the rights of the people, of which is the right to consent to be governed and to grant powers to the government (and to revoke them as well), ALWAYS trumps the power of government, period, end of story, have a nice day, please leave a message after the tone, BEEP.

  8. From Der Sidelines

    @5: Otherwise you’re simply saying the governing principles that Jefferson so eloquently wrote about were wrong.

  9. From Der Sidelines

    @7: The states have no legitimate authority to trump fundamental rights. They never have.

  10. Steve Rhodes

    It’s hard for me to even type “marriage is sacred” without bursting out laughing. Some people in the country believe this and live this, but it certainly seems quaint and old-fashioned to me. We’ve also seen how the government screws everything up, and to have them be involved in the marriage contract has only complicated things.

  11. Andy

    “Krzysztof Lesiak // Jun 15, 2013 at 2:55 pm

    The more I read from other alternative parties, the more I support the Libertarian Party and I’m convinced that it’s the only party in the U.S. supporting freedom, all across the board. Not being nit picky. Libertarians support freedom, in EVERY aspect of your life.

    On March 7, 2014, I am going to proudly join the Libertarian Party, and I hope Paulie will still be willing to help out with the basic dues ;)”

    Any particular reason you are waiting until March 7, 2014 to join the Libertarian Party? Why not join right now?

  12. Cody Quirk

    #9

    DISAGREE.

    It’s called the 10th Amendment- states have the right to regulate marriage, and marriage is a privilege, not a right- otherwise we should also legalize polygamy, polyandry, marrying animals, etc.

    That’s my view- though I’m no nutjob loon like Riley Hood and his ilk.

  13. Andy

    “Krzysztof Lesiak // Jun 15, 2013 at 10:12 pm

    @13

    That’s my 18th birthday. I want to join it on that symbolic date.”

    I don’t think that there is any rule that says that you can’t join before you turn 18, so why not pick an earlier symbolic date? How about this 4th of July?

    By the way, I watched one of your videos recently. You don’t sound anything like what I imagined, as I expected you to have a Polish accent.

  14. Andy

    “Cody Quirk // Jun 15, 2013 at 11:04 pm

    #9

    DISAGREE.

    It’s called the 10th Amendment- states have the right to regulate marriage, and marriage is a privilege, not a right- otherwise we should also legalize polygamy, polyandry, marrying animals, etc.”

    Each state is also limited by its own state constitution. Does your state constitution protect freedom of religion, and freedom of association?

  15. Dr. Jimmy Rustles

    Ah, more zealots and shitheads. Why this is even separate from the CP is beyond me.

  16. Thomas L. Knapp

    I liked Steve Kubby’s position on the issue as delivered in 2007 vis a vis California:

    THE GOVERNATOR VERSUS CALIFORNIA FAMILIES
    Steve Kubby, March 2007

    Since his election to office, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has carefully cultivated his image as a “moderate,” plopping himself down in the muddled middle of every issue — often to the detriment of the very Californians he’s sworn to serve. In no case is that more true than with respect to issues of family and marriage.

    In 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill which would have recognized same-sex marriages in California, citing an inapplicable referendum result (Proposition 22, which applied to marriages solemnized outside California and which is void due to its conflict with the US Constitution’s “Full Faith and Credit” clause). He matched that veto with a pledge to uphold the state’s current “domestic partnerships” scheme. Now he’s making the same promise again versus AB 43.

    This is the “middle” that Governor Schwarzenegger stands astride: Not slavery, just segregation. Not extermination, just “second class citizenship.”

    There are two sides to marriage, and neither of them are the government’s business.

    On one side, we have emotional commitment expressed in a ceremony — usually, though not always, a religious ceremony. On the other, we have a standardized form of legal contract applying to the practical and legal matters arising from that commitment. The maximum extent to which the government of California has any legitimate business in these affairs is in even-handed enforcement of those contracts. Certainly it has no business peering under the clothing of the ceremony’s participants, or comparing the genitalia of the parties to the contract.

    It’s a shame that AB 43 is even necessary. There should never have been any question that the job of California’s government is to respect freedom of religion and to enforce contracts, not abridge that freedom or deny the right of contract on the basis of sex. Unfortunately, the question DID arise and AB 43 IS necessary — mainly because of politicians like Arnold Schwarzenegger who keep scrambling for the “middle” of an issue to which there’s only one right side.

    It’s time for our political leaders to stop appeasing the anti-family, anti-marriage advocates of “special treatment for homosexuals.” No, I’m not talking about those who advocate for “gay rights.” All they’re asking for is the equal treatment under the law they’ve been entitled to from the beginning.

    It is the OPPONENTS of same-sex marriage who seek “special treatment for homosexuals,” and we should call that “special treatment” out for what it is: Jim Crow. Apartheid. “Separate but equal.” If anyone thinks the comparison unsound, let me remind you marriage licenses were first issued in Ohio in the 1830s, under a law intended to prohibit interracial marriages. Government regulation of marriage has ALWAYS been about catering to popular prejudice, not about any legitimate government interest in protecting rights.

    There’s no “middle ground” between equal treatment under the law and the dark agenda of hate and homophobia. Time to get off the fence, Governor Schwarzenegger. Ask the legislature to pass AB 43. Then sign it and bring an end to sexual segregation in California.

  17. JD

    How are bestiality and adultery victimless? and what person can, with a straight face, link homosexuality with those acts? Bestiality is sex with an animal. The animal in question can not talk nor communicate in any other way. Thus it can not consent.

    Adultery is different from an open relationship. Adultery is sneeking around lying and ultimately violating a legally binding contractual obligation. Non-consensual extra-marital relations are illegal in four states and should be. And here is my problem with the religious right.

    Is marriage the basic building block of our society, yes. Is the nuclear family of two parents, two kids, and a dog the American ideal, of course. So what not really promote it? I dont care the make up or style of the family. The fact of the matter is our society needs stability in the homes of our people. So stop preventing the creation of more nuclear families and start attacking those that really destroy them, the adulterers.

    If religion is the basis then clearly extra-marital sex without the consent of the spouse is more morally wrong. It is mentioned with disdain far more often in the Holy Bible so clearly God was so disgusted by it that he wanted to hammer the point home. If you aren’t religious and are only concerned with legalities then realize that marriage is both a written and verbal contract. Violating the terms of a contract can lead to civil and even criminal charges. If my wife says I can have sex with whomever I wish then I am absolved of all crime except in the eyes of God but if my wife says that I cant and then I do then I have actually violated a contract.

    So in summation homosexuality is arguably wrong morally but if you deny a homosexual the same rights, privelages and dignity that you afford to a heterosexual you are in legal trouble because you have discriminated against them through the government for simply participating in a consensual relationship. Regardless of whether we are talking local, state, or federal all governmental entities that take any federal money are obligated to ensure equal rights and protection from discrimination under law. The adulterer has no legal protection because they have violated the civil, legal, and moral foundations of the state and are directly victimizing someone, their spouse. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

  18. JD

    And btw the state no matter what the 9th and 1oth amendments say can not interfere with the free practice of religion so long as all participation in the religious practice is consensual and is not violating anyone’s life, liberty, or property. So what about churches and faiths that marry homosexuals?

    My church, The Community of Christ, is the first large LDS denomination to openly ordain homosexuals and the first to marry them. It is a practice of our religion. When any state tells one of our ordained ministers that he can not marry a couple without risking penalties for himself and the church then they are violating our guaranteed first amendment rights.

    Speaking of the myriad of LDS churches I would also like to say that oulawing consensual polygamy is also violating civil rights. If it is religious practice that does not remove life, liberty, or property then the state can do nothing.

    So what those of us who believe in civl liberties need to start talking about is not whether gay marriage will be legal or whether polygamy will be legal. They are already legal and will soon be emancipated. What we must start talking about is what penalties those government officials will suffer who have openly voted for and passed acts and legislation that violates civil rights. I am saying the discussion should turn, on a national level, to the severity of the charges for violationg the civil rights of millions of Americans.

    Realize, please, that I do not think it is or should be illegal to remove a gay from a church, its sick and wrong, but not illegal. Nor should it be illegal to talk of punishing homosexuality. I am only talking about those officials in said states that have passed legislations banning gays and polygamists from their natural right and governmental right to egual treatment by the state.

  19. Andy

    “JD // Jun 16, 2013 at 8:31 am

    How are bestiality and adultery victimless? and what person can, with a straight face, link homosexuality with those acts? Bestiality is sex with an animal. The animal in question can not talk nor communicate in any other way. Thus it can not consent.”

    I suppose that one could argue that bestiality has a victim if one is a believer in animal rights.

    “Adultery is different from an open relationship. Adultery is sneeking around lying and ultimately violating a legally binding contractual obligation.”

    Adultery could be viewed as a violation of contract, which would be and is grounds for divorce, but a person should not go to prison for having committed adultery.

  20. Andy

    ” Nor should it be illegal to talk of punishing homosexuality.”

    It should only be illegal if it is done to an unwilling participant, as in a rape, and rape is already illegal. If people voluntarily engage in a homosexual act then there is no crime.

  21. JD

    I never said homosexuality should be illegal. I defended its legality and I defended the legality of those who merely talk of punishing it. I can not defend those who actually have violated the civil rights of homosexuals and those churches that ordain their marriage. I am a straight male married to a beautiful woman and our civil rights are being violated because of the homophobic marriage bans.

    Andy, why would you even bring up rape? Rape was never mentioned. I clearly never said anything about non-consensual homosexuality.

    I am sorry some people don’t see violating a written contract as illegal, it is. In this contract you have set out terms that state your living situation for the rest of your life. Sure you can resign but while still involved you simply cant violate the contract. Libertarians believe in not punishing victimless crime. How is adultery victimless?

    I think the simple fact of the matter is that marriage differs from person to person and from orientation to orientation. While the government cant regulate the composition of the marriage it can regulate where victimisation is concerned. My wife and I are married to each other. She is my wife, and I am her husband. We duly own, but do not control, each other. If I violate her ownership of my marital bed then I have harmed her. She is a victim. I wont do this because I actually have morals unlike far too many in the Liberty movement.

  22. paulie

    Cody Quirk told me the IAP is significantly better than the CP. I’ll take him on his word, but this party is in no way, shape or form for me. The more I read from other alternative parties, the more I support the Libertarian Party and I’m convinced that it’s the only party in the U.S. supporting freedom, all across the board. Not being nit picky. Libertarians support freedom, in EVERY aspect of your life.

    On March 7, 2014, I am going to proudly join the Libertarian Party, and I hope Paulie will still be willing to help out with the basic dues

    Yep. I still got 25 bucks for your first year membership as long as you remain committed to 25 of your own for the second year.

  23. paulie

    The right to marry is a fundamental right that trumps state powers (States have no rights, get it correct!) because the rights of the people, of which is the right to consent to be governed and to grant powers to the government (and to revoke them as well), ALWAYS trumps the power of government, period, end of story, have a nice day, please leave a message after the tone, BEEP.

    It’s called the 10th Amendment- states have the right to regulate marriage,

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people (emphasis added) – this one being a case of the latter.

    we should also legalize polygamy, polyandry, marrying animals, etc.

    Absolutely yes on the first two. non-human animals are not able to give rational informed consent, so no.

    I liked Steve Kubby’s position on the issue as delivered in 2007 vis a vis California

    Me too.

    Adultery is different from an open relationship. Adultery is sneeking around lying and ultimately violating a legally binding contractual obligation.

    That’s a matter between the contracting parties and is grounds for a civil action (divorce), not a criminal matter.

    if you deny a homosexual the same rights, privelages and dignity that you afford to a heterosexual you are in legal trouble because you have discriminated against them through the government for simply participating in a consensual relationship. Regardless of whether we are talking local, state, or federal all governmental entities that take any federal money are obligated to ensure equal rights and protection from discrimination under law.

    Agreed, and I would add taxpayer money at any level to federal money.

    My church, The Community of Christ, is the first large LDS denomination to openly ordain homosexuals and the first to marry them. It is a practice of our religion. When any state tells one of our ordained ministers that he can not marry a couple without risking penalties for himself and the church then they are violating our guaranteed first amendment rights.

    Agreed.

    Speaking of the myriad of LDS churches I would also like to say that oulawing consensual polygamy is also violating civil rights. If it is religious practice that does not remove life, liberty, or property then the state can do nothing.

    I agree.

  24. JD

    Paulie, it just seems that violating one half of a persons being is a criminal act against that person. This is where it really gets hairy. I, and everyone else I know, take marriage so seriously that it is obvious the state can not manage to regulate the institution. The state must, at most, hope to protect it.

    Marriage or Holy Matrimony is really a religious act. The state may perform it but it is a religious act. Marriage is the formal sacrifice of the self. There is no half only the whole. In this situation adultery is criminal and so is the state’s discrimination. The state of Indiana is violating the rights of all members of the homosexual community, the community of christ, the metro church, and many others.

  25. Paulie

    I see no reason for it to be a criminal matter rather than a civil one.

    What we must start talking about is what penalties those government officials will suffer who have openly voted for and passed acts and legislation that violates civil rights. I am saying the discussion should turn, on a national level, to the severity of the charges for violationg the civil rights of millions of Americans.

    Good point.

  26. Andy

    “Cody Quirk // Jun 16, 2013 at 4:44 pm

    Yes Andy, it does.”

    If your state constitution protects freedom of religion, and freedom of association, then I don’t see any constitutional basis for why gay marriage should not be legal in your state. Making it illegal imposes religion on people, and it also violates their right to freely associate, as in their right to form voluntary relationships.

  27. Cody Quirk

    Too bad some people on both sides of this issue can’t be civil on this topic.

    Again, the states have the rights to regulate and define marriage in any way shape or form as long as it is done by the legislative process, and/or a vote taken by the majority of the people of that state.
    If someone doesn’t agree with their state’s laws, or definition of marriage, then that person needs to work with the people and governing powers of that state to change up such laws then.

    But personally, I do support keeping marriage between a man and a woman, even though I am opposed to the federal government getting involved on the issue of marriage or even divorce in the first place.
    However if say the legislature or people of my state do away with traditional marriage, then as much as I would disagree with it, I would still respect and acknowledge that change in the law and that would be that.

    In fact in Nevada, we already have civil unions and even though my state party challenged it in the legislature- we lost, it became law, and what’s done is done and we will not challenge it.

    And last off, Mr. Gneiting was only pointing out the quotes that the founding fathers made about morality, and also to the previous state ordinances that prohibited certain sexual acts- to prove a point in his talk.

    That does not mean that he and the IAP actually support recriminalizing homosexuality and certain sexual acts outright.
    In principle, the IAP is opposed to immorality and obscenity, yet that doesn’t mean we actually support suppressing or outlawing vice completely, since to advocate for such would, in principle, be a violation of several clauses and amendments in the U.S. Constitution, including the 14th Amendment.

    … Of course people like Riley Hood, and others in the Constitution Party disagree with the above paragraph- as they care more about instituting their definition of the Bible upon the American people, rather then the constitution and it’s original philosophy and limitations for governance.

  28. Steven Wilson

    This whole argument is just semantics. You fight over the utility of the word “marriage” and you trivialize the humans involved.

    The people in the government want control over the relationship. Nothing has changed.

    Holy
    Official
    Certified
    Legal

    The issue is just control. Why would giving control to a state government be different than a federal government?

    Marriage originated in the church, and their is a separation of church and state implied. Therefore, the government is now a church.

    Up next, baptism rights. And maybe, even a prayer tax. Whoa!!

  29. Cody Quirk

    In that case Andy- the same goes with polygamy, polyandry, and all forms of ‘sexual union’ in general; you cannot legalize gay marriage and still prohibit the other forms of marriage at the same time, IMO.

    But then again, if gay marriage was to become legal in my state, then that would require changing our state constitution, which would require our state legislature to vote for gay marriage at both the last session (which they did), and the next session in 2015, and also to be placed on the ballot twice, and be upheld by the will of the voters.

    If the proponents of gay marriage can do that here, then gay marriage will become law, and the only thing Nevadans like me can do afterwards is grumble & accept the results.

  30. Paulie

    Yes, polygamy/polyandry should be legal too. As a political battle that one is not quite ready yet, as more support needs to be built first. It should be pushed as an idea outside the practical politics realm first, then slowly brought in to practical politics step by step. Same as was done with gay marriage.

  31. From Der Sidelines

    Cody @15:”DISAGREE”

    Well, then you’d be wrong.

    States have no more authority to restrict or infringe on individual rights than the feds do. Study your Jefferson; he laid it out pretty clearly. The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people, and it leaves silent the question of what the state can do and what it cannot, and in that argument, the rights and powers of the people trump the powers of the states. If it were otherwise then the rights of the people would not be rights but mere privileges and subject to the whim of the state, and our republican form of government completely contraindicates that.

    If you’re making that argument, to which I give the benefit of the doubt that you’re not, then you have no concept of the fundamentals of how our American system is designed and supposed to work.

  32. Andy

    “Cody Quirk // Jun 16, 2013 at 5:12 pm

    In that case Andy- the same goes with polygamy, polyandry, and all forms of ‘sexual union’ in general; you cannot legalize gay marriage and still prohibit the other forms of marriage at the same time, IMO.”

    I agree these things should be legal as well. It should only be illegal if it is not a voluntary action, as in a person if forced to do something against their will.

Leave a Reply