A second search of the statutes in NH has discovered that
chapter 457, section 457:6 does allow for marriage of a
minor of 16 or 17 years old, with consent of parent/guardian
and a judge.
A second search of the statutes in NH has discovered that
Bigamy is a punishable crime in all states except Hawaii.
It might be considered that the original laws were made to
protect the spouse of the first marriage would be the injured
party. But the statutes say only that bigamy evolves from a
prohibited second marriage while a person is still married,
regardless of whether or not the first spouse consents to the
second marriage, as in a polyamorous relationship. Some codes use the term “polygamy” or “polygamous” relationship,
as might be for the early Mormons. The early Mormons were actually
persecuted because of their polygamous practices.
States that use the term polygamy in the codes are Idaho, Maine, and Massachusetts.
Mississippi actually has a statute that says:
“If any person shall teach another the doctrines, principles, or tenets, or any of them, of polygamy; or shall endeavor so to do; or shall induce or persuade another by words or acts, or otherwise, to embrace or adopt polygamy, or to emigrate to any other state, territory, district, or country for the purpose of embracing, adopting, or practicing polygamy, or shall endeavor so to do…”
In the case of Hawaii, it is up to the state to not issue a marriage license to
anyone they believe is already married to someone else, or to discover it
after the fact. This is the case in all states, but in Hawaii discovery of bigamy
does not get you charged with a crime.
New Hampshire does have a statute, standard wording, against bigamy.
Simply repealing that statute, and follow Hawaii, is all that is necessary.
[Edit: In some states anyone who knowingly marries a bigamist is also
included in the bigamy law. One has to wonder whether the spouse
from the first marriage was aware that the person they married might
marry someone else as well, i.e., do all partners give consent to the
polyamorous nature of the relationship?]
The file below contains the raw data for this post.
Bigamy.odt (30.7 KB)
Adultery bears approximately the same relationship to bigamy
as sexual incest bears to marriage incest.
21 states still have adultery on the books as a criminal matter.
In all states adultery can be held as a reason for divorce, although
it is not always sufficient in and of itself.
It holds less weight for the dissolution of covenent marriages.
There is what appears to be a gender-specific asymmetry in
Section 750.30 – Adultery; Punishment
Any person who shall commit adultery shall be guilty of a felony; and when the crime is committed between a married woman and a man who is unmarried, the man shall be guilty of adultery, and liable to the same punishment.
Idaho and South Carolina seem to be the only states that criminalize
fornication in any way.
New Hampshire already does not criminalize adultery or fornication
The file below has the raw data used for this post.
Adultery.odt (20.2 KB)
If you feel that such things are worthwhile, by all means avail yourself.
If we are going to break free from one master, why not also break free from all masters. Seems counter to logic to say that the “national master” is violating our rights so we will abandon that master. Oh, but while the “state master” is also violating our rights, not as much though, so we will keep the “state master”.
Alas, as we have been discussing, many “adults” lack the capacity for self determination, so they need a “parent” to make choices for them. That is what government is for, it is the parent for those who need parents to guide them.
In discussions, when I point out the fallacy of the idea of government, like the mental slaves they are they can only repeat what they have been told, that we “need” government.
The fallacy is simple, one needs only to look to the word “government” to understand its’ function and purpose in reality, not in theory. The root word is “govern” which is commonly understood to mean “control”. The sufix “-ment” is commonly understood as “that which acts”. Therefore, “goverment” commonly understood, means “that which controls”.
Let’s play devils advocate and say, a little control is what we need. How much is a little? How much is too much? Is the amount of control clearly definable, or is it just an estimate? Is the amount of control a “feeling” or is it something that can be reasonably articulated and defined?
Returning back to the “the logical case for government”. The Declaration of Independence says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and [Property].” The “power” of “government” comes from the individuality of equal Men, not a collective of Men, as we will see below.
It goes on to say “[t]hat to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”, telling us the “power” and “purpose” of government is only the “just” powers granted by the Creator to men as individuals, again not a collective.
Further, “[t]hat whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness,” we can debate what classifies as a “destructive of these ends” but the fact is the purpose is protection of individual life, individual liberty, and individual property. While, in the original intent of “this government” from the point of view of those who wrote it, they could not have conceived what “destructive ends” could be other than what they experienced and it is only through our own experiences we can understand fully the next part in a way that they themselves understood.
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;” a government that violates is purpose is neither light nor transient. “[…] and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed,” here is the place where we justify and establish the “when” we act.
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security,” as is an individual right of the individual people to determine for themselves at what point they decide to “abolish” government from their lives. Those who caused to write this Declaration had just fought and won their freedom from their own government, which has been done in the past, but it is the specific situation of their day that allowed them to achieve this end. The distance and time required to respond to an attack by the colonists was against King George. His dictates took months to be sent to the colonists, his men too as long. His ability to fight a new and unconventional war lead to him believing that without him, the colonists would not survive nor prosper. He was wrong.
Today, “King George” sits in our “front yard”. “His” dictates are “immediate”, and “His” responses are swift. “He” has the power and resources of 330 million people, an “army” of 60 million, and a population that absent “His” assistance would end the way of life for untold millions.
Mostly, “His” “power” is in the minds of the people, and doesn’t exist in reality. That is the idea behind NHExit, changing the “government” away from what it is, back to what it was. Putting the people back in power, and putting the check back on “goverment” where we can hop in a car, drive a hour or less and be in the front yard of the “government”. But I say, this is a step toward the proper form of government. Self governance.
By and large we all agree in the basics, so much so we don’t need to codify “right and wrong”. We have technology to put ourselves in a position to seek out others and use our rights, to the point we don’t need a top down structures of enslavement.
The story often glossed over between the King and Colonists, is that it wasn’t the many against the King. It was the few and determined. At the height of “revolutionary war” General Washington commanded 45,000 troops to the King’s 600,000 to 1,000,000. The population of the colonies was a small 3,000,000, and a minority of those were revolutionaries. The Constitution was signed by a minority of people, approved by a small margin of people, over the enslavement of many. Of those allowed to vote, by paying a poll tax, was some 16,000 people. Of those who actually voted, some 11,000. Of those, only some 6,000 voted for ratification of the Constitution.
Government has always been a minority run operation. The next step is, as the prophets Salt and Pepper said, “free your mind, and the rest will follow.” Your government isn’t you. You are it’s property. You can play the game by it’s rules, which are entirely written in favor of the government. Or you can free yourself. That you are an individual. Endowed by your Creator with the inalienable individual rights of Life, Liberty, and Property. Granted by Him, the authority to create for yourself the government that best suits your needs, not governments’.
New Hampshire State Constitution, Part 1, article 10, Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
Connecticut State Constitution, Article 1, section 2, All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and they have at all times an undeniable and indefeasible right to alter their form of government in such manner as they may think expedient.
Pennsylvania State Constitution, Section 1, article 2, All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.
Maine State Constitution Article 1, Second 2, All power is inherent in the people; all free governments are founded in their authority and instituted for their benefit; they have therefore an unalienable and indefeasible right to institute government, and to alter, reform, or totally change the same, when their safety and happiness require it.
There are a few others that have enacted similar Constitutional statements alluding to the right to alter, reform, or totally change their form of governance. The going theory is that these rights are collective, except the NH Constitution which inshrines the “right to rebellion”, saying that it is absurd and slavish to obey an arbitrary power that has become oppressive.
Something that is not often spoken about is the fact that
prior to the Declaration of Independence, signed by the
delegates from the various states, the people of
Massachusetts, in the individual counties, had already
declared their independence from England. They
communicated through committees of correspondence,
ousted the English representatives, and had declared
their independence. This happened 1-2 years prior
to the assembled representatives in Boston. All of
the Massachusetts counties except Boston had
already done this. Paul Revere carried the declarations
of the counties to Boston, to urge the representatives
to vote for independence.
This, along with the refusal of local sheriffs to enforce
the dictates from England, were the real American
revolution before the Revolutionary War began.
It was the revolution before the war.
Minimum age for tobacco and alcohol use are set by the federal
government, being 21 years old for both. There are statutes
in each state covering tobacco and alcohol, but without much
difference in who can buy where.
These will be more important once we secede… countries of Europe,
North America, Central America and South America have lower
As far as I can tell, the state with the least intrusive marriage
requirements is Alabama… no other state even comes close.
Alabama does not require a notice of intent to marry, a license,
does not issue a marriage certificate, and does not require
The only requirement is to fill out a marriage document stating
under oath that the two parties in question are of legal age to
contract marriage, are not within the prohibited degrees of
consanguinity, are not currently married to anyone else, and
are entering the marriage voluntarily. The age requirement
includes consent from parents/guardians and a judge for
16 and 17 year olds to marry, if needed. The only thing missing
is the attainment of majority through the marriage.
That’s it. It is still allowed to solemnize the marriage, but the
state does not keep that record… only the institution responsible
for solemnization, such as a church, will keep a record of it.
It did not seem a good use of resources to put the pertinent
portions of the marriage codes into a file, but the file below
will contain all of the pertinent sections for marriages in
New Hampshire would have to go a long way (as would any
other state) to meet the liberty inherent in Alabama marriages.
Alabama marriages.odt (26.2 KB)
Everyone seems to be familiar with the term “age of consent”.
There are what are called “close in age” exceptions, sometimes
known as Romeo and Juliet laws, that allow some person below
the age of consent who can consent to sex with persons are
above the age of consent, and on rare occasion these under
age of consent minors can also consent to sex with others who
are below the age of consent but above some other lower age.
That lower number is the age below which no-one older can
legally engage in sex with. Most often, there are no laws that
govern sexual relations between persons below this age…
sometimes the term statutory rape is used, but that term is not
well defined in the statutes.
In the United States, age of consent is usually set at 16
(31 states), but in 8 states it is 17, and in 11 states it is 18.
There is a greater range for the lower “statutory rape” age…
less than 11y.o. in 1 state, 12y.o. in 12 states, 13y.o. in 18 states,
14y.o. in 8 states, 16y.o. in 4 states, 17y.o. in 6 states, and unknown in 1 state.
In New Hampshire, the age of consent is 16y.o., and there
are Romeo and Juliet laws. In this case, lowering that lower
number actually gets the state more involved in the lives of
the minors, since below that age the statutes don’t generally
have any say. It means that minors below that age will
probably have more freedom to have sexual relationships
among themselves that are not punished by the statutes.
To maintain the close in age statutes, giving those particular
teens more liberty to have sexual relationships with persons
of the same age or older, this lower age would have to be
set at the lowest age listed in the Romeo and Juliet exceptions,
which I believe is 14. It’s a little complicated, but I believe that
age would be 14.
The file below has the raw data used to do this analysis.
Sex with minors.odt (63.6 KB)
The question of exceptions for persons below the age of consent is a complicated one.
The first thing I did was to eliminate any sections of the codes that required coercion
or force or other aggressive action that is contrary to the non-aggression principle.
Then, eliminated any section that included a situation where the actor was in a position
of authority over the victim. Any statute that included the idea that the victim was
unable to give consent, such as being drugged, or was mentally incapacitated in a way
that did not allow consent to be given, was eliminated.
This left some sections, or portions of sections, in which an offense was punishable
regardless of whether or not consent was forthcoming, and the exceptions for persons
under the age of consent for whom there were statutory exceptions.
In Title LXII, Title 632-A, section 632-A:2, I, a person who engages in sexual penetration
of a victim who was less than 13 years of age is guilty of aggravated felonious sexual
Subsection II describes aggravated felonious sexual assault without penetration of a
person under the age of 13.
Section 632-A:3 refers to sexual contact with a person: who is under 13 years of age.
Note that in all of the above, consent/nonconsent is not a factor, nor is the age of the
actor. In this case, even persons who are both/all under the age of 13 could conceivably
be charged with the offense.
13 is the number I was referring to in the previous post as being a lower number.
CORRECTION: I said in the previous post that I thought this would be 14, but it appears
that it is actually 13.
Section 632-A:4 (b) persons are guilty of sexual assault if they subject another person
who is 13 years of age or older and under 16 years of age to sexual contact where the
age difference between the actor and the other person is 5 years or more; this exempts
persons for age differences of less than 5 years. This allows a person who is
13 years of age to have sexual contact with 13, 15, 16, 17, 18 or 19 year olds
14 years of age to have sexual contact with 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 or 19 year olds
15 years of age to have sexual contact with 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 or 20 year olds
without being charged under this section.
Interestingly, a person is guilty of 632-A:2 Aggravated Felonious Sexual Assault, if such person engages in sexual penetration with another person
(j) When the victim is 13 years of age or older and under 16 years of age AND:
(1) the actor is a member of the same household as the victim; or
(2) the actor is related by blood or affinity to the victim
(k) When the victim is 13 years of age or older and under 18 years of age and the actor
is in a position of authority over the victim and is more than 4 years older than the victim.
There is no explicit prohibition against sexual penetration for persons between 13 and 15
years of age, inclusive.
See the data file for definitions of the terms “sexual contact” and “sexual penetration”.
Persons at or above the age of consent may consent to sex with
anyone at or above the age of consent.
There are close-in-age exceptions for some teens who can consent
to sex with some persons over the age of consent and those over
the age of consent will not be prosecuted for having sex with some
persons under the age of consent.
Then there are those below that age below which older persons
will be prosecuted for having sex with, even if the younger person
consents. The belief is that these persons cannot give informed
consent to sex, and would never actually desire sex with an older
However, the statutes actually acknowledge that these kids can
have sexual desires. 25 states explicitly prohibit any sexual acts
by someone older when the intent of the actions of the older person
can “reasonably be construed” to
“…for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of
any person, including the child…” [emphasis mine].
The intention of the statutes is obviously to prevent child
sexual abuse… libertarians are opposed to any coercion
or use of force.
At the same time, I would hope that we could oppose the
use of force of law to prevent actual consensual sex on
the part of these “pre-teens”.
I don’t know how this can be done, but I believe we need
to start having honest discussions about this. Perhaps
there can be something like close-in-age exceptions, so
that “adults”, those over the age of consent, might be
excluded from sex with these minors, but that these
pre-teens can explore their own sexuality…which they’re
doing anyway, with or without the consent of adults…but
their sexuality is usually suppressed.
Leif, if your passion is to retread this old tire called government, by all means, if it makes you happy. Realize, of course, the purpose of government is to control others. In other words, slavery. If you wish to be a slave, be the best damn slave you can be.
If you want to be free, you have to first recognize that you are currently a slave. If you want to be free, you have to stop supporting your masters. It’s a hard road. As you walk along it, you’ll find others who are free. Join them in freedom.
If on the other hand, if you want to be a slave, continue to obey your masters and don’t worry about the rules, regulations, and Statutes, because you are a slave, and will always be one for as long as you believe their game. The game is rigged. You know all the riggers, and you aren’t on of them.
I’m not trying to “retread”… this is just one step from here
to a completely new government. The only reason for
any government at all, nowadays, is to represent a certain
group of people in what we call a state to other groups of
people that we call states, or countries, or … cyberdoo,
we haven’t known each other for long, but trust me when
I say that there is no stronger advocate of anarchism than
I’m tired of the “baby steps” that have been taken by
the liberty community up until now. On the other hand,
we can’t just say “get rid of government and we’ll figure
it out from there”. I am proposing steps that will take
us closer to a libertarian government than any other
state, but as I have posted, these are a “minimum”.
The biggest failure of Marx was that he thought he
could predict the steps to an end form of government,
and he tried to jump from point 0 to point 10 without
going through all of the intermediate steps he thought
would occur… he saw the beginning and the end point,
but ignored everything that he predicted would happen
In an above response you said "Okay, I see where you are coming
from, and as a preparedness enthusiast I understand preparing for the day.
I just don’t know where to start. It’s rather overwhelming to be honest.
I’m trying to make it not so overwhelming. We don’t have to take big steps
all at once.
You said that we needed to start with principles, but the
hardest thing to do is take principles and know how to apply them in
a practical way.
I’m trying to use the current framework to suggest practical
changes to achieve conformance to the principles we have
Applying the changes indicated to make NH the most libertarian state…
Start with the requirements for marriage found in Alabama.
The only prohibitions for marriage in Alabama are for age, consanguinity,
bigamy/polygamy, not same-sex, and consent.
It has been shown that 18 is a standard age across the states, exception
being made for 16y.o who have consent of parents/guardians and a judge.
The least constrictive consanguinity is between ascendants, descendants,
and siblings. Same-sex marriages are permitted in NH, and consent is
a factor in all marriages and sexual relationships.
Comparing the two:
Married - at age 16
Outside of marriage - sex at 13
Married - same-sex marriages permitted
Outside of marriage - same-sex sex permitted
Married - cannot marry ascendants, descendants, or siblings
Outside of marriage - can have sex with anyone
Married - bigamy/polygamy prohibited
Outside marriage - polygamous/polyamorous relationships permitted
Married - requires consent to the marriage
Outside marriage - requires consent to sex
Married - have imposed responsibilities
Outside marriage - may assume responsibilities (same as in marriage)
when they reach age of majority
Married - requires permission from the state
Outside marriage - does not require permission from the state
Add in that fact that the Alabama code does not require a marriage
license, marriage certificate, or solemnization.
At the same time, nothing in the above prohibits solemnization.
It means that religious freedom is preserved, since anyone
wanting a marriage would be able to marry according to the
dictates of their own religion/church, while still having no civil
marriage recorded with the state.
In the long run, persons in NH would not be required to ask
the state for permission.
These might be of interest regarding cohabitation and sex, including
Cyberdoo, You wrote: “the purpose of government is to control others” that is NOT the purpose of Government. That’s the trouble of an Unjust Government. The ONLY purpose of government is as it says in the Declaration of Independence; "…That to secure these RIGHTS, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
So the ONLY just purpose of government is to secure Rights. PERIOD! Everything else is Unjust.
Then it goes on to say…
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
That pretty much sums it up… Just a note…
Securing more rights for more people is really the purpose
of my posts here… I’m trying to show how that can be done.
In most cases, if we try to change statutes, it will make a difference
the order in which we change them.
For example, if we change the requirements for a valid marriage,
to more closely match the Alabama statute, it is necessary to make
that change first, before repealing the statutes relating to marriage
licenses, certificates,etc. If we change the license an certificate
stuff first, and the Alabama-like statute fails, then we will be left
with no way to carry out the current laws requiring them.
Changing the statutes relating to who can have sex with whom
need to be changed in a different order so that we don’t leave
some people with anything legal that they can do.
On the other hand, the statutes relating to both marriage and
sexual incest can be changed at any time (they are often the
same statute) without forgetting anyone, since there is really
only one, or sometimes two, statutes we need to be concerned
about. But we don’t want to make sex within marriage illegal,
but extramarital sex be limitless.
Warning: this post contains explicit reference to sexual anatomy.
All terms used are directly from the statutes of the 50 states.
The first thing that needs to be considered wrt sex is just simply getting naked. The statutes regarding public indecency usually include the law regarding indecent exposure, but not usually
the other way around.
In NH, we have seen over the years some contention over local laws about nudity, especially with regard to female toplessness on the beaches.
Some of the terms used to describe the areas of the body that should not be exposed are:
nudity, pubic area, female breast, genitals, buttocks, female nipple,
male genitals in a discernibly turgid state, sex organs, mons pubis,
testicles, mons veneris, vulva, vagina, intimate parts.
The exposure of these parts is prohibited in a public place, a private place that can be seen from the public spaces or other private spaces.
Certain places are excepted: private places that cannot be viewed from other private or public spaces, public places set aside for the purpose of nudity (nudist facilities) and places that where incidental nudity is required, such as locker rooms.
A central part of the offense is that the actor must have the intent to offend others, must know, or should know that average persons would take offense, or is reckless in that regard, or that consent is not given. Consent is assumed anywhere that the person would not be if they did not consent, such as nudist faciilities, public clothing optional areas, or private areas where nudity is the norm. A standard wording is that exposure of the intimate parts can be viewed by anyone in the immediate area, and is calculated cause affront or alarm, or the actor is reckless in that regard. One of the prohibitions is that the intent cannont be to to arouse, appeal to, or gratify that individual’s lust, passions,or sexual desires without their consent.
There are some exceptions: the statutes exempt the spouse from being a victim. Most of the states also include an exception for breast-feeding and expressing breast milk in public.
In some states, the statutes do not mention anything about being in a public place. Delaware is typical: Section 13A-6-68 – Indecent Exposure
“(a) A person commits the crime of indecent exposure if, with intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire of himself or herself, or of any person other than his or her spouse, he or she exposes his or her genitals under circumstances in which he or she knows the conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm.”
The statutes go beyond simple exposure. They also treat of any masturbation, sexual intercourse or other sexual penetration, sexual contact, sexual contact, fondling, etc.
There are age-related sections. Sometimes the actor must be over the age of majority, sometimes over the age of consent. In almost every case, the age-related statutes simply change the penalty depending on the age of the victim.
However, if the statutes regarding criminal sexual activity do not cover a particular situation, it is possible that the indecency statutes would allow even kids to give consent to certain sexual situations.
The simplest form would be something like the Delaware statute, but simpler: “(a) A person commits the crime of indecent exposure if he or she exposes his or her genitals under circumstances in which he or she knows the conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm.”
The New Hampshire statute used to be just about that, but has recently been changed, and is now more complex than that.
The file below contains the raw data used for this post.
Indecent exposure.odt (40.9 KB)
Just came across this article, from 2019. A lot of states are eliminating laws that infringe with privacy, like the Alabama marriage law.
Happy to host visitors at our clothing optional resort near Canaan, NH such as the spiritual study group Sunday afternoons and this Sunday were hosting the Free Grafton potluck afterwards with a bonfire.