[King Prout]

I still say, get the government at all levels entirely out of the marriage business.
Let private citizens and groups thereof settle this matter in their own way.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Hear, hear!

[risk]

I still say, get the government at all levels entirely out of the marriage business.

That bypasses the issue: the left wants to continue redefining the English language so that our laws no longer mean what they used to mean. Once they succeed, the Constitution will actually be meaningless. We must not allow them to redefine the word "marriage."

I think we have an interest in lowering taxes for everyone, but our traditional family unit is especially vulnerable to taxation. That's why we recognize traditional families with social security and tax exemptions. If the government can't rely on a given county's marriage proofs, then we shouldn't trust them enough to pay spousal benefits to people trying to use those documents to prove their elegibility.

About equal protection: this should be debated and cast aside. We have equal protection for the unions blessed by our civilization for 4,000 years. Men and women who marry are equally protected by our laws that say men and women who are not relatives can be married.

[longtermmemmory]

Was tried, caused open abuse for fraud and no records were 100% reliable. There are also problems when it comes to intestasy and inheritance.

There are just too many "what if" scenarios to cause problems.

What if a man leaves his live in commonlaw wife, goes to another state legally marries a woman. After earning a financial fortune he dies. The commonlaw wife comes forward and demands an equal widows share (usually 1/3). The issue becomes does the dead man believe in polygamy since he did not formally divorce? What happens if there are minor children?

It is one big mess, this is part of the "least" in best governance. Keep marriage one man and one woman. Outside of marrige adults can do whatever cohabitation agreements they want within their particular state laws.