5 ms·

I have no desire for “society” to make rules that govern my kids. Especially seeing that between gerrymandering, the electoral college and the fact that each s

I have no desire for “society” to make rules that govern my kids. Especially seeing that between gerrymandering, the electoral college and the fact that each state no matter what the size has two senators means that people who would love to impose their religious beliefs on others have an outsized influence on laws that are passed.

nathan_compton 3y ago
You may not have any such desire but imagine if you died and your kid was adopted by an abusive person you _would_ want the state to intervene. I'm as unsatisfied as you are about the current political situation in the United States, but the solution isn't to just demand the government withdraw. It is to actually engage _more_ politically and with an understanding of what the true responsibilities of the state are. The state will _inevitably exercise power_. Only a vigilant citizenry can hope to modulate it.
- scarface74 3y ago
  So exactly how is “engaging politically” going to help when the majority viewpoint is already ignored because they know they can just appealed to their gerrymandered system? Republicans can completely ignore California and Democrats can completely ignore the Bible Belt (except GA which is now Purple) As far as what the state can do. Again as a parent, when my children were minors, we chose trusted family members to be their guardian. If that wasn’t an option, we would have chosen friends. No matter how you feel about the abortion issue for instance, even in conservative states, the majority of people don’t want more restrictions as proven by recent ballot initiatives, yet the politicians are still passing laws. In my home state (Florida) the government is wasting all kinds of taxpayer money going after Disney and out of the list of things Florida and especially my city (Orlando) cares about is that Disney spoke out against a policy.
  - nathan_compton 3y ago
    There are ways to engage politically that do not depend on the legal structures in place.
    - scarface74 3y ago
      So what is the purpose of “engaging politically” if it’s not to change laws.
- Retric 3y ago
  It’s perfectly possible to limit the state to only specific areas, we don’t let it set up arranged marriages for example. As to that specific example, I trust my own judgment for who my kids would be reared by more than I trust a bureaucrat with the same role.
  - scarface74 3y ago
    It very much restricts people who want to marry more than one person from doing so and until a few years ago, the government restricted marriage to heterosexual couples.
    - Retric 3y ago
      The state doesn’t recognize such unions, but it doesn’t prohibit them either. So you can’t have multiple marriage licenses, but you can legally hold a public polygamist civil ceremony followed by “cohabitation.” Granted people want the legal befits of a recognized marriage rather than the state to treating it as two actors preforming a ceremony as part of a play. But such distinction are relevant when you say something is banned.
      - nathan_compton 3y ago
        There are federal laws against polygamy and laws against it in every state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_polygamy_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_polygamy_in_the_Un...
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        Retric 3y ago
        From the article you linked. “On December 13, 2013, a federal judge, spurred by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups,[25] struck down the parts of Utah's bigamy law that criminalized cohabitation, while also acknowledging that the state may still enforce bans on having multiple marriage licenses.[26] The state of Utah appealed the decision, arguing that polygamist Kody Brown (whose relationships were documented in the show Sister Wives) lacked standing to bring his civil suit, since his county prosecutor, Jeff Buhman, had not followed through on any plan to prosecute the Brown family. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (Denver) agreed with Utah and overturned the previous decision, thus effectively recriminalizing polygamy as a felony.[27]” Of note, the state of Utah won the appeal because they didn’t bring action against the group rather than because the lower court’s decision was incorrect. Thus polygamy can remain illegal as long as nobody is ever prosecuted for it. It also mentions: “Given that almost no polygamists bother to seek a second marriage license, the practice of forming a family with more than one spousal-styled relationship is very difficult to criminalize. In the majority of cases, the additional partner is considered a wife in the context of religious beliefs. Legally speaking, the practice is more akin to adultery.”
- freedomben 3y ago
  Meta comment: Your attempted use of markdown italics multiple times in your comment made it a little unreadable (I made this mistake for a long time myself). So pro-tip: On HN, italics are the * * rather than markdown's _ _
  - nathan_compton 3y ago
    Thanks! Muscle memory.

nathan_compton 3y ago

You may not have any such desire but imagine if you died and your kid was adopted by an abusive person you _would_ want the state to intervene. I'm as unsatisfied as you are about the current political situation in the United States, but the solution isn't to just demand the government withdraw. It is to actually engage _more_ politically and with an understanding of what the true responsibilities of the state are. The state will _inevitably exercise power_. Only a vigilant citizenry can hope to modulate it.

scarface74 3y ago
So exactly how is “engaging politically” going to help when the majority viewpoint is already ignored because they know they can just appealed to their gerrymandered system? Republicans can completely ignore California and Democrats can completely ignore the Bible Belt (except GA which is now Purple) As far as what the state can do. Again as a parent, when my children were minors, we chose trusted family members to be their guardian. If that wasn’t an option, we would have chosen friends. No matter how you feel about the abortion issue for instance, even in conservative states, the majority of people don’t want more restrictions as proven by recent ballot initiatives, yet the politicians are still passing laws. In my home state (Florida) the government is wasting all kinds of taxpayer money going after Disney and out of the list of things Florida and especially my city (Orlando) cares about is that Disney spoke out against a policy.
- nathan_compton 3y ago
  There are ways to engage politically that do not depend on the legal structures in place.
  - scarface74 3y ago
    So what is the purpose of “engaging politically” if it’s not to change laws.
Retric 3y ago
It’s perfectly possible to limit the state to only specific areas, we don’t let it set up arranged marriages for example. As to that specific example, I trust my own judgment for who my kids would be reared by more than I trust a bureaucrat with the same role.
- scarface74 3y ago
  It very much restricts people who want to marry more than one person from doing so and until a few years ago, the government restricted marriage to heterosexual couples.
  - Retric 3y ago
    The state doesn’t recognize such unions, but it doesn’t prohibit them either. So you can’t have multiple marriage licenses, but you can legally hold a public polygamist civil ceremony followed by “cohabitation.” Granted people want the legal befits of a recognized marriage rather than the state to treating it as two actors preforming a ceremony as part of a play. But such distinction are relevant when you say something is banned.
    - nathan_compton 3y ago
      There are federal laws against polygamy and laws against it in every state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_polygamy_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_polygamy_in_the_Un...
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - Retric 3y ago
        From the article you linked. “On December 13, 2013, a federal judge, spurred by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups,[25] struck down the parts of Utah's bigamy law that criminalized cohabitation, while also acknowledging that the state may still enforce bans on having multiple marriage licenses.[26] The state of Utah appealed the decision, arguing that polygamist Kody Brown (whose relationships were documented in the show Sister Wives) lacked standing to bring his civil suit, since his county prosecutor, Jeff Buhman, had not followed through on any plan to prosecute the Brown family. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (Denver) agreed with Utah and overturned the previous decision, thus effectively recriminalizing polygamy as a felony.[27]” Of note, the state of Utah won the appeal because they didn’t bring action against the group rather than because the lower court’s decision was incorrect. Thus polygamy can remain illegal as long as nobody is ever prosecuted for it. It also mentions: “Given that almost no polygamists bother to seek a second marriage license, the practice of forming a family with more than one spousal-styled relationship is very difficult to criminalize. In the majority of cases, the additional partner is considered a wife in the context of religious beliefs. Legally speaking, the practice is more akin to adultery.”
freedomben 3y ago
Meta comment: Your attempted use of markdown italics multiple times in your comment made it a little unreadable (I made this mistake for a long time myself). So pro-tip: On HN, italics are the * * rather than markdown's _ _
- nathan_compton 3y ago
  Thanks! Muscle memory.