Gay Marriage supporters said this would never happen...

[Kosh]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SniOXFhwIZ8]Eddie Murphy - RAW - Marriage - YouTube[/ame]

 

[bodecea]

From a purely legal perspective, is there a reason for it to be called "marriage" instead of "partnership" under the law? I don't see one.

It's not the government's business to define marriage, either traditional OR gay. It's one of those things our government got involved in many years ago, before anyone ever dreamed of homosexuals wanting to "marry" each other. The only real purpose it currently serves is for activists to use government to impose it's moral will on the rest of us. There is no reason it can't be changed.

So...what have you actively done to get government out of marriage...besides decline getting a government marriage license which I will "assume" you've done already.?

I advocate my plan for Civil Union reforms. Is there something else I can do?

Of course you do. So you have no issue with the costs involved just because of a name.

 

[Nyvin]

I don't know if anyone pointed this out...but the OP's article is about a presentation made back in the 1980's.

 

[Boss]

It is very frightening to see so many on the RW not know what "legal consent" is and why it is so important.

What's frightening is that you don't seem to understand how our laws have changed regarding age of legal consent in America. There have been times where 12-year-olds could marry... and it hasn't been THAT long ago, as a matter of fact.

The OP points out a conference held at Cambridge University where people literally argued that it's "NORMAL" for men to want to have sex with children. You've got a JUDGE in Australia saying the only reason incest is taboo is because of birth defects and that can be fixed with abortion.

So the wheels of morality are coming off left and right. You're suddenly going to find your liberal self in a society you are very uncomfortable with. Things are going to be happening that you don't approve of, and there won't be a damn thing you can do to stop it because YOU paved the way for it.

 

[bodecea]

It is very frightening to see so many on the RW not know what "legal consent" is and why it is so important.

What's frightening is that you don't seem to understand how our laws have changed regarding age of legal consent in America. There have been times where 12-year-olds could marry... and it hasn't been THAT long ago, as a matter of fact.

The OP points out a conference held at Cambridge University where people literally argued that it's "NORMAL" for men to want to have sex with children. You've got a JUDGE in Australia saying the only reason incest is taboo is because of birth defects and that can be fixed with abortion.

So the wheels of morality are coming off left and right. You're suddenly going to find your liberal self in a society you are very uncomfortable with. Things are going to be happening that you don't approve of, and there won't be a damn thing you can do to stop it because YOU paved the way for it.

Thank you for pointing out that we are moving in the right direction in that regard....just like we are moving in the right direction with legalized gay marriage.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

A few days ago, I got a great big belly laugh from a gay marriage advocate over my assertion that government sanctioning of sexuality through gay marriage would open the door to other less desirable possibilities, like pedophilia.

"Oh, you must be out of your mind-- we know better than to have sex with children!" they chortled in disbelief that I would even argue such ridiculous nonsense. "That will never happen," they said.

Well... here ya go...
'Paedophilia is natural and normal for males'

"Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,” said the presentation. “At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.”

Some yellowing tract from the Seventies or early Eighties, era of abusive celebrities and the infamous PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange? No. Anonymous commenters on some underground website? No again.

The statement that paedophilia is “natural and normal” was made not three decades ago but last July. It was made not in private but as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organisers, to many of the key experts in the field at a conference held by the University of Cambridge.
Other presentations included “Liberating the paedophile: a discursive analysis,” and “Danger and difference: the stakes of hebephilia.”

Hebephilia is the sexual preference for children in early puberty, typically 11 to 14-year-olds.

Another attendee, and enthusiastic participant from the floor, was one Tom O’Carroll, a multiple child sex offender, long-time campaigner for the legalisation of sex with children and former head of the Paedophile Information Exchange. “Wonderful!” he wrote on his blog afterwards. “It was a rare few days when I could feel relatively popular!”

Last week, after the conviction of Rolf Harris, the report into Jimmy Savile and claims of an establishment cover-up to protect a sex-offending minister in Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet, Britain went into a convulsion of anxiety about child abuse in the Eighties. But unnoticed amid the furore is a much more current threat: attempts, right now, in parts of the academic establishment to push the boundaries on the acceptability of child sex.

===================================================

Now we know from every liberal "cause" that has ever come down the pike, if academia is saying it today, it will be on the legislative docket tomorrow, if liberals have their say.

Here's yet another alarming immoral indicator:
Australian judge says incest may no longer be a taboo

Judge in Australia says incest may no longer be a taboo and the only reason it is criminal is potential birth abnormalities, which can be solved by abortion.

Judge Garry Neilson, from the district court in the state of New South Wales, likened incest to homosexuality, which was once regarded as criminal and "unnatural" but is now widely accepted.

He said incest was now only a crime because it may lead to abnormalities in offspring but this rationale was increasingly irrelevant because of the availability of contraception and abortion.

"A jury might find nothing untoward in the advance of a brother towards his sister once she had sexually matured, had sexual relationships with other men and was now 'available', not having [a] sexual partner," the judge said.
"If this was the 1950s and you had a jury of 12 men there, which is what you'd invariably have, they would say it's unnatural for a man to be interested in another man or a man being interested in a boy. Those things have gone."

===================================================

My argument against governmental sanctioning of gay marriage is that once you've established under the law, that sexual proclivity can be a determinate factor in marriage, all bets are off... you can essentially argue for ANY sexual proclivity to be legitimized on the basis of "equal protection" and the Constitution. This is NOT an equal rights issue, it is a MORAL issue with profound ramifications and consequences.

Now, I am not some prudish stick in the mud who hates gay people and doesn't want them to be happy in life. I happen to have some very close gay friends, one such couple who's wedding I attendended in 1986! Did I mention this was in rural Alabama? Of course it wasn't a state-sanctioned "marriage" by law, it was merely a private wedding ceremony on a hillside with a Rastafarian minister and close family and friends attending, but there was no Sheriff Bubba Billybob there to tell them they couldn't do it, nor were there any Bible-thumping protesters preventing the event. They had a cake... not sure who made it for them, but it was there. They had a photographer, went on a honeymoon, we threw rice... they've been together now for nearly 30 years. Curiously enough, neither of them support "Gay Marriage!"

Their viewpoint (and mine, which was adopted from them), is that the government should not be involved with "marriage" at all. That should be left to individuals and churches to define in society, and NOT mandated by the government. Instead, they favor comprehensive Civil Union legislation which would essentially eliminate all government recognition of "marriage" and replace it with simple partnership agreements by contract between any two consenting adults. This approach would ostensibly give all sides what they claim to want. Religious people get to maintain "sanctity of traditional marriage" while gay couples obtain a way and means to acquire the benefits and tax advantages of a couple. It also has an added bonus, in that such a contract could be used for a variety of platonic relationship arrangements, like a daughter caring for her aging mother, or two spinster sisters living together.

It's a purely sensible approach that resolves the issue once and for all.

You do have enough sense to realize that civil marriage, i.e., legally recognized marriage, is not going away, eh?

No. Because lefty's agenda is not about live and let live at all. It's about social engineering. He'll never allow that the government get out of the marriage business. It's the foundational institution of that last bastion of tribal superstition standing in the way of Big Daddy government's absolute autonomy: namely, the biological family of nature.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You do have enough sense to realize that civil marriage, i.e., legally recognized marriage, is not going away, eh?

From a purely legal perspective, is there a reason for it to be called "marriage" instead of "partnership" under the law? I don't see one.

It's not the government's business to define marriage, either traditional OR gay. It's one of those things our government got involved in many years ago, before anyone ever dreamed of homosexuals wanting to "marry" each other. The only real purpose it currently serves is for activists to use government to impose it's moral will on the rest of us. There is no reason it can't be changed.

Civil marriage is never going to go away, so as long as it exists, same sex couples have the constitutional right to it under equal protection.

 

[Boss]

I don't know if anyone pointed this out...but the OP's article is about a presentation made back in the 1980's.

No it's not. You need to read it again. This was a conference held at Cambridge recently.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A few days ago, I got a great big belly laugh from a gay marriage advocate over my assertion that government sanctioning of sexuality through gay marriage would open the door to other less desirable possibilities, like pedophilia.

"Oh, you must be out of your mind-- we know better than to have sex with children!" they chortled in disbelief that I would even argue such ridiculous nonsense. "That will never happen," they said.

Well... here ya go...
'Paedophilia is natural and normal for males'

"Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,” said the presentation. “At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.”

Some yellowing tract from the Seventies or early Eighties, era of abusive celebrities and the infamous PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange? No. Anonymous commenters on some underground website? No again.

The statement that paedophilia is “natural and normal” was made not three decades ago but last July. It was made not in private but as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organisers, to many of the key experts in the field at a conference held by the University of Cambridge.
Other presentations included “Liberating the paedophile: a discursive analysis,” and “Danger and difference: the stakes of hebephilia.”

Hebephilia is the sexual preference for children in early puberty, typically 11 to 14-year-olds.

Another attendee, and enthusiastic participant from the floor, was one Tom O’Carroll, a multiple child sex offender, long-time campaigner for the legalisation of sex with children and former head of the Paedophile Information Exchange. “Wonderful!” he wrote on his blog afterwards. “It was a rare few days when I could feel relatively popular!”

Last week, after the conviction of Rolf Harris, the report into Jimmy Savile and claims of an establishment cover-up to protect a sex-offending minister in Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet, Britain went into a convulsion of anxiety about child abuse in the Eighties. But unnoticed amid the furore is a much more current threat: attempts, right now, in parts of the academic establishment to push the boundaries on the acceptability of child sex.

===================================================

Now we know from every liberal "cause" that has ever come down the pike, if academia is saying it today, it will be on the legislative docket tomorrow, if liberals have their say.

Here's yet another alarming immoral indicator:
Australian judge says incest may no longer be a taboo

Judge in Australia says incest may no longer be a taboo and the only reason it is criminal is potential birth abnormalities, which can be solved by abortion.

Judge Garry Neilson, from the district court in the state of New South Wales, likened incest to homosexuality, which was once regarded as criminal and "unnatural" but is now widely accepted.

He said incest was now only a crime because it may lead to abnormalities in offspring but this rationale was increasingly irrelevant because of the availability of contraception and abortion.

"A jury might find nothing untoward in the advance of a brother towards his sister once she had sexually matured, had sexual relationships with other men and was now 'available', not having [a] sexual partner," the judge said.
"If this was the 1950s and you had a jury of 12 men there, which is what you'd invariably have, they would say it's unnatural for a man to be interested in another man or a man being interested in a boy. Those things have gone."

===================================================

My argument against governmental sanctioning of gay marriage is that once you've established under the law, that sexual proclivity can be a determinate factor in marriage, all bets are off... you can essentially argue for ANY sexual proclivity to be legitimized on the basis of "equal protection" and the Constitution. This is NOT an equal rights issue, it is a MORAL issue with profound ramifications and consequences.

Now, I am not some prudish stick in the mud who hates gay people and doesn't want them to be happy in life. I happen to have some very close gay friends, one such couple who's wedding I attendended in 1986! Did I mention this was in rural Alabama? Of course it wasn't a state-sanctioned "marriage" by law, it was merely a private wedding ceremony on a hillside with a Rastafarian minister and close family and friends attending, but there was no Sheriff Bubba Billybob there to tell them they couldn't do it, nor were there any Bible-thumping protesters preventing the event. They had a cake... not sure who made it for them, but it was there. They had a photographer, went on a honeymoon, we threw rice... they've been together now for nearly 30 years. Curiously enough, neither of them support "Gay Marriage!"

Their viewpoint (and mine, which was adopted from them), is that the government should not be involved with "marriage" at all. That should be left to individuals and churches to define in society, and NOT mandated by the government. Instead, they favor comprehensive Civil Union legislation which would essentially eliminate all government recognition of "marriage" and replace it with simple partnership agreements by contract between any two consenting adults. This approach would ostensibly give all sides what they claim to want. Religious people get to maintain "sanctity of traditional marriage" while gay couples obtain a way and means to acquire the benefits and tax advantages of a couple. It also has an added bonus, in that such a contract could be used for a variety of platonic relationship arrangements, like a daughter caring for her aging mother, or two spinster sisters living together.

It's a purely sensible approach that resolves the issue once and for all.

You do have enough sense to realize that civil marriage, i.e., legally recognized marriage, is not going away, eh?

No. Because lefty's agenda is not about live and let live at all. It's about social engineering. He'll never allow that the government get out of the marriage business. It's the foundational institution of that last bastion of tribal superstition standing in the way of Big Daddy government's absolute autonomy: namely, the biological family of nature.

Conservatives will never vote to ban civil marriage. Are you fucking insane? Oh wait, we've already established that.

 

[Slyhunter]

People are going to hate me after this post .... fuck it.

Is throwing your kid up in the air bad for your kid and thus illegal?
Is wrestling with your kid illegal?
What makes sex any different?
Because they might get pregnant? ok, so use birth control that problem is solved.
Because they might get STD's? well kid might go blind using a BB gun, shoot someone going hunting, cut himself playing with knives, skin his knees riding a bike, what is one more risk for something the kid might enjoy.
The French do it. They believe 14 year old girls need to be taught how to be good at having sex by mature men instead of immature boys. Then the trained girl would train the immature boys. If it's good enough for the French why not for the Americans?

And as long as you get rid of pregnancy and std's what is the harm?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The idea that the right of same sex adults to legally marry will force the legalization of pedophilia is about as stupid as claiming that the right to bear arms forces the legalization of armed robbery.

 

[Boss]

You do have enough sense to realize that civil marriage, i.e., legally recognized marriage, is not going away, eh?

From a purely legal perspective, is there a reason for it to be called "marriage" instead of "partnership" under the law? I don't see one.

It's not the government's business to define marriage, either traditional OR gay. It's one of those things our government got involved in many years ago, before anyone ever dreamed of homosexuals wanting to "marry" each other. The only real purpose it currently serves is for activists to use government to impose it's moral will on the rest of us. There is no reason it can't be changed.

Civil marriage is never going to go away, so as long as it exists, same sex couples have the constitutional right to it under equal protection.

No, same sex couples do NOT have a right to it under equal protection because MARRIAGE is the union of a man and woman, not same sex couples. It's like arguing a plumber has a right under equal protection to be licensed as an electrician. He does not. What he does is not electrical work.

Now... interracial man/woman couples DID have an argument under equal protection. They were being denied the right on the basis of race alone. Homosexuals are not being denied the right to MARRY... but MARRIAGE is what MARRIAGE is.

And I never said civil marriage had to "go away." Just government sanctioning of it. People would still be perfectly free to "get married" all they like... in fact, if some church wanted to "marry" homosexuals, they could do so. The government shouldn't be involved.

 

[bodecea]

People are going to hate me after this post .... fuck it.

Is throwing your kid up in the air bad for your kid and thus illegal?
Is wrestling with your kid illegal?
What makes sex any different?
Because they might get pregnant? ok, so use birth control that problem is solved.
Because they might get STD's? well kid might go blind using a BB gun, shoot someone going hunting, cut himself playing with knives, skin his knees riding a bike, what is one more risk for something the kid might enjoy.
The French do it. They believe 14 year old girls need to be taught how to be good at having sex by mature men instead of immature boys. Then the trained girl would train the immature boys. If it's good enough for the French why not for the Americans?

And as long as you get rid of pregnancy and std's what is the harm?

^ fails to understand "legal consent"....not to mention, we are not the French.

 

[bodecea]

From a purely legal perspective, is there a reason for it to be called "marriage" instead of "partnership" under the law? I don't see one.

It's not the government's business to define marriage, either traditional OR gay. It's one of those things our government got involved in many years ago, before anyone ever dreamed of homosexuals wanting to "marry" each other. The only real purpose it currently serves is for activists to use government to impose it's moral will on the rest of us. There is no reason it can't be changed.

Civil marriage is never going to go away, so as long as it exists, same sex couples have the constitutional right to it under equal protection.

No, same sex couples do NOT have a right to it under equal protection because MARRIAGE is the union of a man and woman, not same sex couples. It's like arguing a plumber has a right under equal protection to be licensed as an electrician. He does not. What he does is not electrical work.

Now... interracial man/woman couples DID have an argument under equal protection. They were being denied the right on the basis of race alone. Homosexuals are not being denied the right to MARRY... but MARRIAGE is what MARRIAGE is.

And I never said civil marriage had to "go away." Just government sanctioning of it. People would still be perfectly free to "get married" all they like... in fact, if some church wanted to "marry" homosexuals, they could do so. The government shouldn't be involved.

Legal marriage now includes same sex as well as opposite sex in many states and it continues to be included in more states and in more countries. We get that you don't like it...but not liking something is not a valid reason to discriminate against law-abiding, tax-paying citizens based on gender.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

A few days ago, I got a great big belly laugh from a gay marriage advocate over my assertion that government sanctioning of sexuality through gay marriage would open the door to other less desirable possibilities, like pedophilia.

"Oh, you must be out of your mind-- we know better than to have sex with children!" they chortled in disbelief that I would even argue such ridiculous nonsense. "That will never happen," they said.

Well... here ya go...
'Paedophilia is natural and normal for males'

"Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,” said the presentation. “At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.”

Some yellowing tract from the Seventies or early Eighties, era of abusive celebrities and the infamous PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange? No. Anonymous commenters on some underground website? No again.

The statement that paedophilia is “natural and normal” was made not three decades ago but last July. It was made not in private but as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organisers, to many of the key experts in the field at a conference held by the University of Cambridge.
Other presentations included “Liberating the paedophile: a discursive analysis,” and “Danger and difference: the stakes of hebephilia.”

Hebephilia is the sexual preference for children in early puberty, typically 11 to 14-year-olds.

Another attendee, and enthusiastic participant from the floor, was one Tom O’Carroll, a multiple child sex offender, long-time campaigner for the legalisation of sex with children and former head of the Paedophile Information Exchange. “Wonderful!” he wrote on his blog afterwards. “It was a rare few days when I could feel relatively popular!”

Last week, after the conviction of Rolf Harris, the report into Jimmy Savile and claims of an establishment cover-up to protect a sex-offending minister in Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet, Britain went into a convulsion of anxiety about child abuse in the Eighties. But unnoticed amid the furore is a much more current threat: attempts, right now, in parts of the academic establishment to push the boundaries on the acceptability of child sex.

===================================================

Now we know from every liberal "cause" that has ever come down the pike, if academia is saying it today, it will be on the legislative docket tomorrow, if liberals have their say.

Here's yet another alarming immoral indicator:
Australian judge says incest may no longer be a taboo

Judge in Australia says incest may no longer be a taboo and the only reason it is criminal is potential birth abnormalities, which can be solved by abortion.

Judge Garry Neilson, from the district court in the state of New South Wales, likened incest to homosexuality, which was once regarded as criminal and "unnatural" but is now widely accepted.

He said incest was now only a crime because it may lead to abnormalities in offspring but this rationale was increasingly irrelevant because of the availability of contraception and abortion.

"A jury might find nothing untoward in the advance of a brother towards his sister once she had sexually matured, had sexual relationships with other men and was now 'available', not having [a] sexual partner," the judge said.
"If this was the 1950s and you had a jury of 12 men there, which is what you'd invariably have, they would say it's unnatural for a man to be interested in another man or a man being interested in a boy. Those things have gone."

===================================================

My argument against governmental sanctioning of gay marriage is that once you've established under the law, that sexual proclivity can be a determinate factor in marriage, all bets are off... you can essentially argue for ANY sexual proclivity to be legitimized on the basis of "equal protection" and the Constitution. This is NOT an equal rights issue, it is a MORAL issue with profound ramifications and consequences.

Now, I am not some prudish stick in the mud who hates gay people and doesn't want them to be happy in life. I happen to have some very close gay friends, one such couple who's wedding I attendended in 1986! Did I mention this was in rural Alabama? Of course it wasn't a state-sanctioned "marriage" by law, it was merely a private wedding ceremony on a hillside with a Rastafarian minister and close family and friends attending, but there was no Sheriff Bubba Billybob there to tell them they couldn't do it, nor were there any Bible-thumping protesters preventing the event. They had a cake... not sure who made it for them, but it was there. They had a photographer, went on a honeymoon, we threw rice... they've been together now for nearly 30 years. Curiously enough, neither of them support "Gay Marriage!"

Their viewpoint (and mine, which was adopted from them), is that the government should not be involved with "marriage" at all. That should be left to individuals and churches to define in society, and NOT mandated by the government. Instead, they favor comprehensive Civil Union legislation which would essentially eliminate all government recognition of "marriage" and replace it with simple partnership agreements by contract between any two consenting adults. This approach would ostensibly give all sides what they claim to want. Religious people get to maintain "sanctity of traditional marriage" while gay couples obtain a way and means to acquire the benefits and tax advantages of a couple. It also has an added bonus, in that such a contract could be used for a variety of platonic relationship arrangements, like a daughter caring for her aging mother, or two spinster sisters living together.

It's a purely sensible approach that resolves the issue once and for all.

Was the cake voluntarily baked and provided by a friend or family member, by a willing business owner? Was the photographer for this homo wedding there voluntarily or was he "a bible-thumper" compelled by a law supported by vicious little pricks, those "prudish sticks in the mud" of cultural Marxism, like Clayton Jones?

Get my drift?

Make no mistake about it. Depravity is tyranny. It's the biggest bully of all. These kinds of violations of religious freedom, free-association and private property rights weren't supposed to happen either. There's good reason why bible-thumpers oppose homo marriage. The latter understand what these leftist thugs are all about better than anyone else. The pagan has always been, and will always be the latter's mortal enemy.

 

[bodecea]

Times have changed and what offended once, does not necessarily offend now.

You're OK with pedophilia, then? Pedophiles have rights, too, don't they?

I can only speak for myself and that is an loud NO!

 

[MaryL]

That "slippery slope" is a truism. If you are going to legalize one perversion, why would you not legalize all the perversions? Why not Incest? Why not beastiality? Why not Man and young boy?

Are their "rights" not as important as the gays? So, are the limp wrists opposed to some guy marrying his sister? How dare they!

Like I said - that slippery slope is a son-of-a-bitch.


Perverts gonna be perverts..........

Exactamundo. The Ancient Greeks, that invented the idea of Democracy, used to accept Older male-younger male coupling as a sort of mentoring father/son relationship. The Greeks had no problem with homosexuality at all. And, they also owned slaves... Is that the kind of world we want to live in NOW, in the 21st Century? We have to dare to stand up and be responsible and be consistent morally or our society will just end up in the junk yard of history as a forgotten group of amoral nihilists.

 

[Slyhunter]

You do have enough sense to realize that civil marriage, i.e., legally recognized marriage, is not going away, eh?

No. Because lefty's agenda is not about live and let live at all. It's about social engineering. He'll never allow that the government get out of the marriage business. It's the foundational institution of that last bastion of tribal superstition standing in the way of Big Daddy government's absolute autonomy: namely, the biological family of nature.

Conservatives will never vote to ban civil marriage. Are you fucking insane? Oh wait, we've already established that.

I would. I want the US government out of the marriage business completely. No more filing taxes jointly, every person files taxes for themselves and only themselves. Anyone should be free to make a contract with anyone else to cohabitate if that is what they want and it would be covered under contract law.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

No. Because lefty's agenda is not about live and let live at all. It's about social engineering. He'll never allow that the government get out of the marriage business. It's the foundational institution of that last bastion of tribal superstition standing in the way of Big Daddy government's absolute autonomy: namely, the biological family of nature.

Conservatives will never vote to ban civil marriage. Are you fucking insane? Oh wait, we've already established that.

I would. I want the US government out of the marriage business completely. No more filing taxes jointly, every person files taxes for themselves and only themselves. Anyone should be free to make a contract with anyone else to cohabitate if that is what they want and it would be covered under contract law.

That would hurt the very people that civil contracts (like marriage) are designed to protect.

 

[bodecea]

No. Because lefty's agenda is not about live and let live at all. It's about social engineering. He'll never allow that the government get out of the marriage business. It's the foundational institution of that last bastion of tribal superstition standing in the way of Big Daddy government's absolute autonomy: namely, the biological family of nature.

Conservatives will never vote to ban civil marriage. Are you fucking insane? Oh wait, we've already established that.

I would. I want the US government out of the marriage business completely. No more filing taxes jointly, every person files taxes for themselves and only themselves. Anyone should be free to make a contract with anyone else to cohabitate if that is what they want and it would be covered under contract law.

Totally disagree! Thanks to the current Administration we can finally file joint state and federal taxes and it was a HUGE improvement for us.