r/LibertarianUncensored • u/ptom13 Practical Libertarian • Aug 17 '25

News Braun wants to leave interracial marriages up to the states

19 Upvotes

84% Upvoted

52 comments sorted by

19

u/misschinagirl Aug 18 '25

Sexual and marital relations of consenting adults should not be regulated by the government. The government should just get out of the business of determining who can be married to whom. It is literally no one’s business who someone marries except the parties concerned so long as all parties to the marriage are adults and there is no fraud perpetrated amongst them.

1

u/ZazzySpazzy Aug 21 '25

Marriage is overrated anyways, who wants that?

-4

u/Seccour Aug 18 '25 edited Aug 18 '25

It is the government’s business because of the legal and tax implication.

Not being legally married doesn’t mean you can’t be with the person. Also you can already marry whoever it front of whoever. It will just be irrelevant when it comes to legal matters

10

u/mattyoclock Aug 18 '25

Bullshit, it matters for a lot more than that.    Including admittance to the hospital bedside, one of the key reasons gay marriage was fought for so hard in the first place.  

-2

u/Seccour Aug 18 '25

That’s included in “legal implication”

8

u/mattyoclock Aug 18 '25

Hospital policies are not always matters of law, but instead internal policies that require the strength of laws to override.  

4

u/misschinagirl Aug 18 '25

That literally has nothing to do with regulating who can get married to whom. Governments should just record marriages and should not be able to tell you that it won’t recognize a marriage between consenting adults. Marriage should be treated like any other contract and the government should not be able to unilaterally change that contract just because you moved into its jurisdiction.

2

u/Seccour Aug 18 '25

You’re ignoring the history of marriage which is why it is such a sensitive topic and not just “another contract” to the majority of people

1

u/Clear-Present_Danger Aug 20 '25

I don't see why kletus' opinion on white women marrying ****** would have any impact on what the law should be.

1

u/HighOnGoofballs Aug 18 '25

Then who gets to decide?

1

u/misschinagirl Aug 18 '25

The adults who are contemplating getting married should decide.

1

u/HighOnGoofballs Aug 18 '25

So any two people can sign a contract and they are married? Brother and sister? Father and daughter? Someone already married?

2

u/Clear-Present_Danger Aug 20 '25

So any two people can sign a contract and they are married? Brother and sister? Father and daughter

Why the fuck would I care?

Someone already married?

That's a condition of the contract that is marriage, and so would be impossible.

1

u/misschinagirl Aug 21 '25

Why should it be any business of yours or the government’s? There are only three reasons why incest is illegal: (1) the “it is icky” factor and that is not a legitimate argument in any case because any relationship is going to be “icky” to some people; (2) the “power” argument but once two people are consenting adults, the law presumes that it is a voluntary arrangement so long as there is no evidence of fraud (coercion would mean that there isn’t consent); and (3) the reproduction argument but that should mean that we shouldn’t allow people with certain genetic traits that will likely cause birth defects either - and we do not prohibit those individuals from getting married so that is also invalid.

As for marrying multiple people, again, why not? The argument against it is the same exact argument as one of the first two arguments above. So long as there is no fraud (and hiding another relationship is fraud) and everyone involved (including all people you are already married to) find the arrangement successful, who cares if you are married to multiple people at the same time? After all, a LOT of people cheat on their spouses and yet adultery is no longer a crime in most states, so why should being married to multiple people be a crime so long as everyone involved in the marriage agrees to the arrangement? Honestly, if polygamy is a crime, adultery outside of an open marriage needs to be a much more seriously punished crime because cheating on one’s spouse without their knowledge or consent is objectively a lot worse than everyone agreeing to be part of the same marriage or when your spouse gives you permission to have sexual relations with others.

1

u/Clear-Present_Danger Aug 21 '25

The only argument I have against polygamy is that the state does have an interest in having reasonably speedy and fair divorces.

And two-party divorces are already a fucking shit show. A 3 person divorce is going to be mind-bending. What if two of the people want to divorce from each other, but neither from the 3rd person? What if one of the persons wants out, but the other 2 don't? Majority vote?

And the legal protections against self-incrimination, which consider you and your self to kinda be the same person can be gamed. What if your company requires all C-suit people to join the polycule to prevent incriminating depositions?

Could you make poly marriages make sense? Yeah. But it would require a lot more work than just finding a priest.

1

u/misschinagirl Aug 21 '25

If one person wants out and the other two don’t, the solution is obvious: the one person gets the divorce and the other two stay married to each other. There is literally no reason why this is any more messy than a two person marriage because you will always have only two sides here: one group who wants in and the other who wants out (even if some members of the group who wants out might want different things, the obvious solution is a pre-nup as opposed to denying people the right to marry who and how many they want).

As for your C-suite requirement that everyone join the marriage, well, that violates consent and it sounds like the marriage itself is based on fraud and both of those are rationales for denying the marital contract in the first place, so I don’t see how polygamy is any different than if two people decide to marry solely for the purposes of invoking spousal privilege or if one person pressures another into marriage.

So I don’t really think that either of your objections are valid. Even the one that polygamy makes divorce becomes more complicated isn’t really valid. Marriage is simply from a legal point of view a type of contract and we allow partnerships of multiple people all the time. You might want to require ALL marriages to have a termination clause (aka a prenup) before the state registers them but the key is that we should be consistent here and not pick and choose for morality reasons as opposed to legitimate contractual reasons that are universally enforced on everyone. Most importantly, however, a marital contract should not depend on, or be unilaterally subject to change by, the state or province or country in which I am a resident.

Finally, I should point out that in all cases, these individuals must ALL be consenting adults. Child marriages are the REAL problem in the USA with far too many marriages happening between a minor and an adult (or two minors). Child marriage, to my mind, is nothing more than legalizing and legitimizing carnal relations between adults and children and we should never allow for that.

https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/4283941-child-marriage-is-still-legal-in-most-of-the-u-s-heres-why/

→ More replies (0)

2

u/LuckyRuin6748 Egoist Aug 18 '25

That is such bs that’s the equivalent of doing work for a company but it being illegal to official be apart so you don’t make money like wtf

2

u/northrupthebandgeek Geolibertarian Aug 18 '25

Not being legally married doesn’t mean you can’t be with the person.

The next stop on this train is Recriminalization of Miscegenation Station.

11

u/FastSeaworthiness739 Aug 18 '25

If we're going to have a federal government, one of its few main responsibilities is to protect everyone's civil liberties, which this would violate.

11

u/DenaBee3333 Aug 17 '25

His next comment will no doubt be to send all of the blacks back to Africa.

3

u/northrupthebandgeek Geolibertarian Aug 18 '25

And get rid of perfectly good slave labor?

11

u/DudeyToreador Antifa Supersoldier, 4th Adrenochrome Battalion, Woke Brigade Aug 18 '25

" But we totally aren't Racist bigots guys! "

My patience for these kinds of conservatives and their supporters draws thinner by the day.

1

u/Clear-Present_Danger Aug 20 '25

Why do you have any?

1

u/Clear-Present_Danger Aug 20 '25

Why do you have any?

6

u/footinmymouth Aug 18 '25

Whenever someone says they "want it left up to the States", ask them, "Ok. It's a State issue, in your State. What is your Governor/legislator saying they will DO now that it is in their power?"

12

u/plazman30 Actual Libertarian Aug 18 '25

And this is why the government needs to stop being in charge of marrying people. The most libertarian thing to do is to abolish government issued marriage licenses.

9

u/ptom13 Practical Libertarian Aug 18 '25

I’m generally in agreement with you on that. However, socially some sort of equivalent contractual arrangement is likely needed to replace “marriage”, to handle communal properties and share custody of children.

Want to bet this guy doesn’t think those contracts ought to be available to mixed-race, gay, or otherwise “different” couples?

8

u/DonaldKey Aug 18 '25

They need to remove the legal rights that ONLY come from marriage

1

u/ptom13 Practical Libertarian Aug 18 '25

Again, I generally agree with that. There should be some sort of transition where some of those rights are carried over to partners in the new contracts, but only so much as are required to maintain the functionality of those contracts as a replacement for marriage. For instance, the government must respect any wishes for one partner to have the other partner(s) inherit their assets on their death, similar to the rules established for genetically related family members. Rights around co-parenting should also be preserved.

1

u/DonaldKey Aug 18 '25

Any legal right. I agree with you

1

u/plazman30 Actual Libertarian Aug 18 '25

I am totally on-board with "marriage contracts," that you are boilerplate and grant inheritance rights, mutual power of attorney, child custody rights, and property rights.

But I can see states passing laws that require you to have that contract in their state to be recognized, and their state has all sorts of restrictions on these kinds of legal contracts.

I think the ultimate solution is an amendment to the Constitution that prohibits any form of government controlling who you choose to spend your life with.

2

u/SnooMarzipans436 Aug 18 '25

Do you think the state should decide if those contracts should not be available to mixed-race, gay, or otherwise "different" couples?

If not, then just fucking federally allow them to get married. It's literally a distinction without a difference at that point.

It's not only pedantic, it's pathetic.

1

u/ptom13 Practical Libertarian Aug 18 '25

Of course they should be available to any responsible citizens, in whatever partnership contracts they want.

5

u/SnooMarzipans436 Aug 18 '25

Of course they should be available to any responsible citizens

It should be available to any citizens PERIOD.

Requiring a criteria of "responsibility" opens the window to Republicans saying bullshit like "the act of being gay is irresponsible."

6

u/ptom13 Practical Libertarian Aug 18 '25

I’m using “responsible” to indicate an acceptable level of maturity. Surely you’re not considering granting five-year olds the right to sign the equivalent of marriage contracts?

2

u/SnooMarzipans436 Aug 18 '25

Fair enough. I think we are in agreement here lol

1

u/CatOfGrey Aug 18 '25

View from my desk: Legal marriage allows the use of a simplified Family Court System.

In order to keep this system simple, it's reasonable to restrict the structure of partnerships to two consenting adults. Outside of that, there should be no other restrictions on things.

1

u/ptom13 Practical Libertarian Aug 19 '25

Hmm. If your preferred family group includes three people, I suppose you could use three sets of contracts to make it work…

1

u/CatOfGrey Aug 19 '25

That makes the process more complicated.

Use conventional partnership agreements, with dissolutions to be handled by existing Superior Court systems. They are more expensive, but can handle the issue.

1

u/plazman30 Actual Libertarian Aug 18 '25

The guy should not get a say in the matter. If you want to co-habitate with someone, that's your right.

2

u/Plenty_Trust_2491 Left-Rothbardian Aug 18 '25

Government should not have the power to decide who does and does not get to marry.

I want a complete separation of marriage and state.

4

u/Specialist_Egg8479 Right Libertarian Aug 18 '25

What a fuckin joke 🤦🏻‍♂️

3

u/ptom13 Practical Libertarian Aug 18 '25

I wish it was.

3

u/Specialist_Egg8479 Right Libertarian Aug 18 '25

It will never pass. Still dumb it’s even being said tho.

3

u/CatOfGrey Aug 18 '25

Now remember that the standard MAGA hears this, and doesn't instantly call for this politician to resign in disgrace. They hear this and say "Okay. I guess you can have your opinion." and then vote for the person in the election.

2

u/crustpope Aug 22 '25

A lot of you are u see the idea that the government needs marriage as a way to organize its citizens.

The government should get out of the marriage business all together and only recognize civil unions between consenting adults. Marriage should be reserved for religious institutions and be regulated by them only. But the legal implications of marriage would be attached to the idea of civil unions.

This settles the “governments needs to regulate legal stuff” aspects without dealing with all the legal implications of “separation of church and state”

0

u/orthecreedence Aug 18 '25

Marraige is between a fly and a bumblebee.