sealybobo asked very specific questions on another CDZ thread that deserve answers but weren't directly on the topic of genetics vs. choice. To keep this in the same section I pose the question as yes or no: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and still protect people equally. In other words is managing benefits through govt the ONLY way to make this work (so that people who disagree with same sex couples getting benefits just have to put up with this religious conflict similar to people who don't believe in race mixing with marriage and family); or for the sake of separating beliefs from govt are there feasible options for separating marriage/benefits from govt and still manage these programs where everyone can access and have security/equal protections the same as going through govt, but without imposing conflicting beliefs on anyone (since people could have a choice of which programs to fund or not if this was separated somehow, such as by party). Here are SB original questions: ================== Dear Emily, Are you saying that the government shouldn't give tax breaks to married couples? Are you saying that the government/law shouldn't get involved when a couple wants to get a divorce? Who then decides how much the stay at home wife gets in the divorce? Do Libertarians want the law/government to stay out of divorce? =============== My answer to this is to give people and parties a choice of how they want to manage it, instead of trying to mandate one system for everyone through federal govt whether they agree or not. They can go through state, through party, through nonprofits; give people an option to opt out and go through local groups if they want to manage their marriages, benefits, HEALTH CARE, etc that way and quit trying to micromanage "one policy fits all" through the federal/Congressional level that isn't designed for social work which requires one on one individualized decisions. Now, SB question is basically how do you expect to protect and provide benefits etc. if you don't go through govt. So the debate question I will frame this as, are "Are there ways to manage this BESIDES forcing policies through federal govt that conflict with various people's beliefs. and STILL provide the same equal protections or better than what is offered now"