Stateless marriage, USA legal implications

[FollowingHim]

Very good discussion on the legal side of marriage without state paperwork, revealing many issues you may not have considered before. The Survival Podcast, interviewing a woman in a polyamorous family, but one man two women so very similar to the situation of most Christian polygynous families from a legal perspective.
http://www.thesurvivalpodcast.com/stateless-marriage/

Very USA-centric discussion, and US laws are far more complex and statist than many other countries (the "land of the free" rhetoric is pure propaganda so the slaves don't realise they're enslaved), so some parts of it are not relevant in other countries, but this gives a comprehensive list of issues to look into to check the implications in any other jurisdiction.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

Soooo.... not coming to visit soon then?

 

[FollowingHim]

I come to visit occasionally! But whenever I look into the legal issues in NZ I find they are very different to and generally simpler than in the USA.

As a general rule, the USA is very heavily controlled using an incredibly complex and multi-layered system of regulations and taxes. Depending on the state you have mandatory vaccinations, home birth being illegal, communist-style community committees telling everyone what they can do with their own properties... But you are left some gun ownership freedoms, which are heavily debated in the media, as a smokescreen to distract from every other freedom being taken away.

NZ is also quite statist and socialist, and getting worse by the year. But the smokescreen used here is sexual freedom, which works to our advantage when it comes to the laws around plural marriage. Everything is simpler as there are fewer layers of government - tax law is far clearer for instance. And we have freedom to refuse medical treatment enshrined in our bill of rights, which is useful while it stays there, nothing is guaranteed though. I'm no fan of our system at all, but even it with its many faults is generally more free than that in "the land of the free". I just mention this because I have to compare the US system to something, and this is the system I am most familiar with.

In that interview they make the point that the UK has more workable immigration law than the USA even for monogamous couples.

But no country is truly free sadly.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Don't be too hard on us here in the good ol' USA. Part of the problem is just how big and varied the country is. And some of the layer of regulation and taxation are the vestiges of when we were a functioning federalist republic. You just couldn't operate and finance Georgia the way you do New York. And some of the rules concerning property use are in fact civil contracts written into deeds that you have to agree to when you buy the property.

There is no doubt though that we are no longer free. It's very sad.

Along this same line though, the Alabama state senate has passed a bill attempting to get the state out of marriage. It's a weird little half measure but it's an interesting attempt.

 

[FollowingHim]

Zec, I'm not being hard on the USA, I recognise the reasons for the complexity, I'm just talking about the end result. Given the global readership of the forum, I pointed out that the complexity dealt with in an interview like this isn't necessarily directly relevant to readers outside the USA, because for various reasons US laws are uniquely convoluted. This interview is very relevant to people in the USA, and has some useful points for people outside.

The more I look into the legal side of polygamy, the more I find that most things that are written about it online are completely irrelevant to me, as they're from a US legal perspective, and US law is far more different to our own, and presumably that of other Commonwealth countries, than I ever imagined before delving into this.

And none of us are free. The USA just has the strongest propaganda to convince the peons that they are free, and too many people fall for it.