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 ...
Not exactly. Until 1924, there was no required recordkeeping of births, deaths and marriages by state, county or local entities. It was hit-or-miss. In that year Congress passed a number of laws aimed at curbing immigration, establishing criteria of citizenship and standardizing recordkeeping. Congress laid an unfunded mandate upon the states to maintain birth, death and marriage records. President Coolidge signed these bills into law.
The prime mover for the birth-death-marriage recordkeeping provisions was the Federal Reserve. (Don't ask me why; I don't know.) So it's only been 84 years since government has been involved in these matters.
Interesting information - thank you.
Actually it does.
The regulations for employer provided group coverage support traditional families. You have to draw the line somewhere. That’s a logical place to draw it. Just because there is no provision for extended family members or even adult non-spousal immediate family members, doesn’t mean it doesn’t make sense.
What I think doesn’t make sense is that if you get a protracted illness you are almost certain to lose your job, then your health insurance goes through the roof with Cobra and ends in 6 months.
1924 was about 11 years after the Income Tax in 1913. I bet income taxes had a lot to do with it.
“... regulations for employer provided health coverage support traditional families.”
The local state university recently did a random place-of-residence audit on employees and their “spouses” who were covered under a family health insurance plan. A surprisingly large number of “marriages” were determined to be complete shams that were entered into for the sole purpose of obtaining insurance coverage for the non-employee.
But far from prevented it.
One marriage is legal, all the other women are “wives” but not legally. Doesn’t make a bit of difference.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping lists.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
>>The regulations for employer provided group coverage support traditional families.<<
Why?
My mom and I were related, owned a house together, cars together, bank accounts together, so why shouldn’t I be able to carry her on my health insurance.
Other people put another adult on. Make the regulation that they must be in contract somehow. Why punish my mom who has been with me longer than any husband could be>
At the same time, my hubby and I had a commuter marriage. He was in Detroit and I was in Cleveland and I carried him on my health insurance.
That was fair?
Exactly. As goes our marriages, so goes America.
From a social, moral, economic and political standpoint, marriages matter to the viability of the US.
This is true of any country. Throughout history.
It is no accident that feminism and homosexuals have convinced the government to destabilize marriages with no fault divorces, civil unions, welfare checks replacing fathers and on and on.
And as a direct result of the breakdown of marriage, we have a breakdown of America. Clinton and Clinton is a perfect case in point of the political fallout that comes as a result of our disintergation.
Remember the recent study showing 112 Billion Dollars per year is wasted annually by bastard chidlren?
Marriage Matters.
Our prison are full of felons from broken homes.
Marriage Matters.
Our schools are turning out idiots who can’t read. Why? They come from broken homes.
Marriage Matters.
I could go on and on with more points but either you get it or you don’t.
As goes our marriages... so goes America.
Isn’t this what Israel already does? Marriage is just a private, religious institution.
Nonsense. The children have a documented claim on the resources of their parents, who are thereby legally linked, whether or not anyone wants to call it a marriage.
The alternative is the collective social responsiblity for the rearing of children, which has been a goal of totalitarians since the time of Plato.
Why? Marriage is a covenant between man, woman, and God. If that covenant requires (or, indeed, allows) the state to recognize it, then society is already breaking down, irrespective of the recognition.
Agreed, our society is (as is every other society, whether their moral underpinnings are inferior or not). Our government is not, although the Founder's decisions may have been informed and guided by them. It's based on a Constitution, a contract.
That contract only has value because it exists in a society that values honesty and integrity in keeping contracts. Without that underlying morality that is based on Judeo-Christian spirituality, that contract is just words hanging on a piece of paper.
And usually, not always but usually, it's the very people who disdain that underlying morality that attempt to do end runs around that contract.
Why? First the covenant doesn't "require" gov't to recognize it. It's gov't that requires that gov't recognize it in order for it to be "legal" under the gov't. But that doesn't impair society at all. Indeed, it brings order and accountability to it. After all, God delegated dominion over the earth to man, and authorized man to handle civil matters.
How on earth does allowing a gov't to recognize marriage break down society? It doesn't.
That's exactly my point. The government should be out of the marriage recognition, dissolution, regulation or any other marriage business. Marriage has nothing to do with government, except to the extent that government butts into it.
You put words in my mouth. I never for one moment said anything about, "allowing a gov't to recognize marriage break down society?." I said that government interference in a marriage covenant is a symptom of the breakdown.
:::sigh::: Just because someone breaks the law doesn't mean we should do away with the law.
But the sad truth is government is often called on to butt into it. Especially as the result of divorce. But even Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of men's hearts.
That may be a breakdown from God's ideal, but it's not really a breakdown in society, because we've pretty much always had divorce. We never lived up to that ideal in the first place to breakdown from it.
Okay, your implacable position is that the government can and should butt into it. My implacable position is that government can, but should not, butt into it. So let’s leave it at that.
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.