Posted on 10/23/2009 8:02:19 AM PDT by Grunthor
The U.S. government should abolish its sanctioning of marriage, argued Cass Sunstein, President Obama's regulatory czar.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Child support. Your words, not mine.
“Child support. Your words, not mine”
LOL! You honestly believe that a state sponsored wedding is required before the state can order child support? Wow, initially you come off smarter than that.
Uh, son.... you do realize that, 'state-sponsored' or otherwise, we're talking about how marriage has legal ramifications for things like child support and division of common assets.
You know that ... and yet you're still nattering on as if those ramifications don't exist.
So...are children of couples that never got married just out of luck where child support is concerned?
You know I’m right.
“You know I’m right.”
I know that you believe you are right. That is all that matters in the end.
What matters, FRiend, is that you needed a lawyer for your divorce, right?
That's because divorce has legal ramifications, which is why government gets involved.
You keep pretending otherwise -- you're adamant about it. I begin to suspect you have different motives.
I agree. Government should not be involved. Maybe thats why 50% of all marriages fail. Alimoney is BS too. If you havent guessed yet, Molemans wife of 17 years is leaving....
completely differnt — they are born outside an established societal system. The person who posted that (I simply agreed with him/her) was describing what would happen in the absence of that structure.
no, but neither do I want a free-for all wtih people marrying their siblings and their pets.
“What matters, FRiend, is that you needed a lawyer for your divorce, right?”
Nope. I do recognize however that others might.
“no, but neither do I want a free-for all wtih people marrying their siblings and their pets.”
I wouldn’t want that either, but unless you could show how that directly affected you.....what right would you have to stop it? **THIS SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS AN ARGUMENT FOR SAID RELATIONSHIPS OR FOR QUEER MARRIAGE** I am simply following the progression of things here. If homos get “marriage” then what IS marriage? If they get all of the rights of marriage, but they can’t call it marriage...like when they have “comittment ceremonies” why shouldn’t normal (hetero) couples that just want the givernment out of their lives do the same thing?
As I understand things, any two people can effectively bind themselves in a marriage-like relationship through the use of contracts and other legal instruments. And people who are married are only getting certain default rights and obligations from the marriage. A married couple can come up with any number of alternative arrangements to govern how property should be shared, how custody of children should be decided, the penalties to be incurred in case of infidelity, etc. by waiving or modifying the default rights and obligations they take on when getting married.
So really, whether the state does or does not recognize something called "marriage" won't prevent two people from joining together and making binding arrangements for how to split up if things don't work out. The debate is really about whether the government will apply a special term to describe certain of those relationships. I guess there is some importance to that question, but not really enough to get all hot and bothered if your particular relationship doesn't get that label.
“approving of this abolition of marriage”
I didn’t see a single post talking about the “abolition of marriage.”
I saw posts talking about getting the government out of the marriage business and leaving it to God & their religion, the people involved, and any offspring.
“I saw posts talking about getting the government out of the marriage business and leaving it to God & their religion, the people involved, and any offspring.”
This appears to be a foreign and threatening concept even to conservatives.
State sanctioned marriage has hundreds of years of legal precedence and history behind it, somewhat protected by the tradition of stare decisis.
Let the government scrap that history and tradition and start over with all new law and regulations is just inviting them to rewrite it the way the radicals deem politically correct.
The 50% of all marriages is an abused factoid. The truth is that 70+% of all first marriages succeed. It is the high rate of failure for 2nd, 3rd and 4th marriages that creates that misleading 50% of ALL marriages fail statistic.
Marriage isn’t nearly as endangered as those who wish to destroy it would like it to be.
Sorry to hear about Mrs. Moleman.
I don't think scrapping state sanctioned marriage would require a total rewrite of the law. We already have existing contract law to cover the binding relationships people might enter.
I guess there would need to be some changes to the tax code for joint filing, to how Social Security benefits are assigned, and to the spousal immunity privileges in trials. None of that seems too significant. Is there any other area of the law that would have to be rewritten in a significant way?
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
“Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List”
Do you have a pro-life and non Catholic list or know who does?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.