Libertarians and Polygamy

[Jason]

The Daily Paul is a website that was started to advocate the candidacy of Ron Paul during his presidential runs, but since that time has continued to be active in advocating for libertarian ideas. Most of the articles cover current events and how they relate to small government and personal freedoms. But there doesn't seem to be any particular boundary on what might be discussed from time to time (as would be expected on a libertarian forum!), and opinions on almost every topic can be found. It's one of the sites, along with Biblical Families and a few others, that my wife and I check out nearly every day. Not everything is from a Christian perspective. This is a very secular site, and some users are vehement atheists. Others are believers. Some are conservatives, some are liberal leaning. The people run the gamut and so do the thoughts. I came across this post on the front page a couple of weeks ago.

http://www.dailypaul.com/329855/why-men-need-to-cheat

Then on a whim typed in polygamy in their search bar. I was surprised at how often the subject came up. But I've noticed several of us here, my family included, have strong opinions about personal liberties as well, so it makes sense.

 

[FollowingHim]

The deeper you ponder Christianity, if you're being honest about the scripture, the more libertarian you become in my opinion. The very foundation of Christianity is free will - God does not force us to follow Him, but rather allows us to disobey, that's what Adam did in the garden. And many of the past "greats" of libertarianism / classical liberalism were Christians and argued for it from a Christian perspective - e.g. Frederick Bastiat (read his book "The Law", free online many places, a brilliant brief introduction to classical liberalism from a Christian perspective).

I call myself a "morally conservative social libertarian" when I need a label - in other words I have firm views on right & wrong but you're free to do whatever you like so long as you don't bother me.

On this note, the church will never win the debate against "gay marriage" and require the state to enforce a religious perspective - nor should the state enforce a religious view. If the church continues to argue for government control over marriage defining it how they want it, they'll get strict government control over marriage but defining it as something quite different. The only way to get anywhere in this debate is through libertarianism - get the government out of marriage entirely. That's a major reversal in perspective I can't see most people making sadly. But here we have a disproportionate representation of deep thinkers who do get it!

 

[Jason]

I am neither republican nor democrat. Although I am very personally conservative, I also loathe being told how to live my life and would prefer to stay out of other people's business as well. If anarchists would just get their act together and put forward a candidate, I'd vote for that guy!

Two years ago, as the presidential election was really ramping up, I was invited to a pastor's conference in St.Louis purportedly with the intent of hearing speakers talk about protecting our religious freedoms. What I actually got was a pretty decent meal and a couple hours of Republican vote-begging. The worst moment of the evening was when Governor Rick Perry made his speech and told the room full of clergy "Somebody's morality is going to be made into law, and we need to make sure it's ours!" Much of the room applauded hardily, but their were a few of us that just shook our heads. Here I thought that governments were instituted among men to secure their God-given rights (that's what Jefferson told me), not to force piety on sinners.

But many of the church people around me fail to see that by handing over that kind of responsibility to government, they are setting themselves up to be controlled in the same manner when the public's opinions shift. The next year I was attending the Missouri Baptist Convention's annual meeting. My wife and I are usually our church's only messengers, and she rarely makes it to the floor for votes as she is often taking care of the kids. A resolution was proposed relating to DOMA (the defense of marriage act), and in the text stated that "it is the rightful place of our government to define and defend marriage". I hated that wording, and said so. But when it came time to vote, mine was the only hand raised for "nay" that I saw. It is not government's place to define marriage. God already did that. If we were to pretend government had such an authority, we should not be surprised when they begin to define it in ways that scripture does not, as public opinions change. And that is exactly what has happened. My church friends should not complain when new laws use their tax dollars to subsidize marriages they don't agree with. It was they themselves who made the mistake of giving unto Caesar what rightly belonged to God.

For many years I have preached that the Government should be out of the marriage business. Long before I ever considered plural marriage. That is one small blessing that I thank God for - that I can say I have at least been consistent.