[ijcr]

Your argument that government recognition be withdrawn from
marriage is straight from Marxs' lips.

When you advocate for your ideas,you must also realize the possible consequences of your thoughts.

The rationale that marriage when removed from State protection will prosper fails to take into account inheritance rights,immigration issues, plus the over 1000
Federal benefits and occasionally set backs that are available for married couples.

As any Sociologist will admit marriage is the vehicle for wealth generation and as many have pointed out the fundamental building block of society in general.

At best your premise is poorly researched,flawed,and dangerous.At worst it is intentionally so.

[tortoise]

As any Sociologist will admit marriage is the vehicle for wealth generation and as many have pointed out the fundamental building block of society in general.

Family is, not marriage. It is a distinction that matters, and which many people here are oblivious to. "Marriage" is currently just a government bureaucratic institution, not to be confused with anything relating to "family".

Those two words stopped being synonymous a long time ago. Its time to stop pretending they are the same, because it certainly won't be true as long as the government is defining it. Marriage was nothing more than a popular social mechanism for achieving family. Family is not dependent on marriage, nor vice versa.

[Voice in your head]

"Your argument that government recognition be withdrawn from marriage is straight from Marxs' lips."

Even if that were true, which it is not, your posts in this thread have been straight from your intestines. Which is worse?

"The rationale that marriage when removed from State protection will prosper fails to take into account inheritance rights,immigration issues, plus the over 1000 Federal benefits and occasionally set backs that are available for married couples."

Did you read the article or are you just commenting on the title?