Posted on 05/13/2008 10:35:21 AM PDT by bs9021
How to Commit Marriage
by: Malcolm A. Kline, May 13, 2008
A couple of professors from the University of Chicago think they have found a way out of what they see as a national impasse over state marriage laws. “To respect the liberty of religious groups while protecting individual freedom in general, we propose that marriage, as such, should be completely privatized,” Richard A. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein write in Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness.
“Under our proposal, the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government.”
Thaler is a professor of Behavioral Science and Economics at UChi, Sunstein is a visiting professor in the law school there.
“Under our approach, the only legal status states would confer on couples would be a civil union, which would be a domestic partnership agreement between any two people,” the authors of Nudge promise. In an asterisk attached to that sentence just quoted the authors set off more alarm bells.
“We duck the question of whether civil unions can involve more than two people,” they admit. Judges with lifetime appointments have not been known to duck such questions.
In tackling them, moreover, many magistrates show a bias towards the novel at the expense of the traditional. Thaler and Sunstein’s text is one that such jurists are likely to find inspirational.
“Within broad limits, marriage-granting organizations would be free to choose whatever rules they like for a marriage conducted under their auspices,” Thaler and Sunstein avow. “So, for example, a church could decide that it would marry only members of that church, and a scuba-diving club could decide that it would restrict its ceremonies to certified divers.”...
(Excerpt) Read more at campusreportonline.net ...
In other words....”How to break down our society in one easy lesson.”
Why is marriage something the government has it’s hands in anyway?
Why do I need a licence like a dog? It isn’t like there is a test or something. It’s just a money maker.
Yup. We’ve just GOTTA change those rules. We’re real professors. We have absolutely NO accomplishments (save for those in useless journals that no one ever reads). Trust us.
“Under our approach, the only legal status states would confer on couples would be a civil union, which would be a domestic partnership agreement between any two people,” the authors of Nudge promise. In an asterisk attached to that sentence just quoted the authors set off more alarm bells.
“We duck the question of whether civil unions can involve more than two people,” they admit. Judges with lifetime appointments have not been known to duck such questions.
So then marriage as we know it will just not exist in the law if these people have their way. That side steps the issue of same-sex marriage, because marriage itself won’t be a state or governmental issue any longer. How clever of them. Yep, we should leave it up to the scuba diving club to decide if their members can be “married”.
But in the end, judges could still come along and declare a 2 person civil union discriminatory against those who want more than 1 other partner.
If there is no marriage, then the children belong to the state.
Marriage is the foundation of society. It seems evident that these professors have not considered one awkward matter—children. Children need stable families to thrive, and a nation needs healthy children to thrive. Without stable marriage, there is no hope for the future—of the children, of the society, of the nation.
I would venture to guess that these professors favor abortion.
Enforcement of contract law. Full Faith and Credit. Etc...
No, it isn’t just a money-maker. Governments don’t concern themselves with marriages just to sanction cultural traditions. Government derives a real benefit from marriages, including having a stable institution (ideally) to raise young citizens and gaining the stability of two unrelated clans being indissolubly joined in the DNA of the offspring. Due to this anticipated benefit to the government, that government has a legitimate interest in ensuring the proposed unions are best for that offspring in terms of age, mental capacity and gender. In the past, those safeguards for offspring included laws against miscegenation but is no longer an issue. Nevertheless, the licensing procedure is prelude to obtaining certain rights and benefits from the government for creating a relation to produce these stabilizing offspring. Now you can argue that other relationships can provide at least some of these stabilizing influences for government, and you would be right, but no other relationship, except legal marriage between the potential mother and potential father can do it all. This is why traditional marriage is favored all around the world and why it is worthy of being protected to the point of allowing it certain privileges and requiring certain safeguards as evidenced by the license. It is not equal to all other adult relationships and shouldn’t be treated as such.
So when I did that with my mom it wasn't legal?
This is the thing, when my mom and I lived together, I couldn't put her on my insurance, but everything else we owned together. The house, the cars, the bank accounts, etc.
So let's take the word marriage out of it. Let me go to my priest and get married. Sign a contract and it's done. Why does the Government have to license me?
Richard “Hey” Thaler is a behavioral finance professor at UofC. Again, a professor that is opining outside of his area of expertise.
His solution is not meant to be optimal, simply a way to minimize costs.
But why not take away all laws governing sex with children? That would lower the number of court cases as well. But, Professor Thaler, reducing costs is not the only criteria.
Because our society is based on moral underpinnings.
Alimony. Community property. Child custody. Visitation agreements. Child support. Tax-free inheritance rights. Etc. Etc.
>>Alimony. Community property. Child custody. Visitation agreements. Child support. Tax-free inheritance rights. Etc. Etc.<<
Can all be taken care of with planning and contracts.
I did it with my mom.
...legitimacy of children. Prevention of polygamy. Etc...
“We duck the question of whether civil unions can involve more than two people,” they admit.
Why stop at two? I have always been against gay marriage because it leaves bisexuals without an ability to marry each partner.
I’m not against marriage. I’m married and am for it all the way.
But I lived with my mom and we combined things, yet I couldn’t put her on my health insurance.
I lived with my sister and her two kids, same thing, she couldn’t include me.
The government want 120.00 bucks to say that my hubby is my hubby when actually, we pledged to each other.
Licensing marriage is the government's way of giving the relationship legal recognition and standing. That has wide legal implications, from parental rights to property rights. It also allows the government to regulate the institution - forbidding polygamy, incest, young teenage girls in intimate relationships with much older men, etc. In fact, the government may, by establishing age limits, be guarding against even pedophilia. Mohammed was married to the nine-year-old he fooled around with, and to this day Muslim men have been known to marry young girls.
You name a father on a birth certificate. Legitimate means nothing.
That license has done nothing to prevent polygamy, seriously.
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.