Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,099
- 245
No, the government shouldn't get out of marriage "all together". Who arbitrates a split of assets or custody in the event of a divorce, who enforces child support, who recognizes tax breaks and DNR orders?
If people want to merge their assets they should write a contract and iron out all the details in advance. If they then want to split those assets the courts have a contract to go buy if their is disagreement. That is how it works for everything but marriage, why is marriage special? That would also eliminate the tax breaks question, because the government would have no reason to punish people for getting married and still having the audacity to earn money.
What do DNRs have to with this? They will simply be handled the way they currently are. If there is a question about it you can sign a medical power of attorney, something a lot of people do already.
Either two adults consensually enter into a civil union, where the title of marriage is granted by a religious institution or,
two adults enter consensually into a marriage ordained by the state
Why only two adults?
I'm biased to the first, because imo it fits with the 1stA. Whether or not the state wants to classify me and my future wife as a civil union on our 1040 or whatever is immaterial to me; it will still be a marriage in my mind.
Marriage and civil union should just be nothing more than a difference of semantics, with equal rights granted regardless, one legal one sentimental/religious. To me marriage has been about two adults loving each other enough to commit to sharing their lives and assets and decisions together, and, imo, the sex of both is and should be immaterial. I think it is just a matter of time.
If we get the government out of marriage it will not be restricting the rights of people based on their marital status. Doesn't that make more sense than trying to force the government to stop restricting some marriages, and still allow them to restrict others?