Posted on 10/23/2009 1:01:12 PM PDT by thisisthetime
The U.S. government should abolish its sanctioning of marriage, argued Cass Sunstein, President Obama's regulatory czar.
Sunstein proposed that the concept of marriage should become privatized, with the state only granting civil union contracts to couples wishing to enter into an agreement.
Sunstein explained marriage licensing is unnecessary, pointing out people stay committed to organizations like country clubs and homeowner associations without any government interference.
"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," wrote Sunstein and co-author Richard Thaler in their 2008 book, "Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness."
In the book – obtained and reviewed by WND – Sunstein explains his approach would ensure that "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."
He proposed marriage not be recognized by the government. Marriages would instead be "strictly private matters, performed by religious and other private organizations," he wrote.
"Governments would not be asked to endorse any particular relationships by conferring on them the term marriage," added Sunstein.
Sunstein slammed current government recognition of marriage as "an official license scheme."
"When the state grants marriage it gives both maternal and symbolic benefits to the couples it recognizes. But why combine the two functions? And what is added by the term marriage?" he asked.
(Excerpt) Read more at thewoodwardreport.com ...
The institution exists legally because the state has a vested interest in the ongoing creation of more citizens at at least a basic sustaining rate. End that recognition, risk population implosion with all the sociopolitical consequences for the leadership thereof (to wit: not enough population to govern, at least in current terms).
Oddly I a agree with sunstein here.
There must be a hitch.
Time to revive some tribal customs like two people jumping over the broomstick together, this to signify commitment. To dissolve the commitment, jump backwards over the broomstick (not as simple as it might sound).
Cass Sunstein is even loopier than that faux-Indian Ward Churchill.
Talk about rewriting our entire history to what these arse wipes wish it to be. I am so fed up it isn’t funny!
Why only two?
The label put on marriage or civil union is less important than what the state, and church, define it to mean, and the consequences it brings.
Remember, to the state, marriage is a special form of contract which obliges 3rd parties to recognize it, and do things. It also obliges the state itself to do things.
Other contracts do not enjoy this special characteristic.
Heterosexual marriage is a positive interest of the state. Homosexual partnerships are not.
“Civil unions” is a meaningless term until you specify what 3rd parties are obliged to do on behalf of this contract to which the 3rd party is not a party.
Thirty guys and gals can contract amongst themselves to form a civil union, label it whatever they want, and obligate themselves to do whatever they agree to. They cannot obligate third parties to do things.
The guy is a freaking idiot trying to find a loophole for queers to get married and the ‘stay at home’ queer to get free insurance from the working queer. Paid for by the employer stupid enough to hire a freak in the first place!
Abolishment of the “term” “marriage” under the illusion of wanting to privatize the institution is a move designed to allow any type of union to occur - so, unions with animals will be okay. Unions between adults and children would be okay. What a frightening world we are living in today.
Marriage and the traditional family is the basis of society. This is of positive interest to the state, if the state is acting within its role of promoting a stable, productive, and prosperous society.
However, if the goals of the statISTS who take over a state are to require fealty to the state, and ultimately, to the statists, or if you want to destroy the society of that state
then the destruction of the family unit is the necessary step (Orwell new this as well).
Homo "marriage" is just one of the tools the statists are using to destroy the family and ultimately, the society, because they see this society as unjust and deserving of failure.
oops, Orwell “Knew”
“...and can pay more tax.”
In my case, less tax. Two incomes puts a lot of it into the high bracket. It’s why there’s a whole separate table for ‘married filing separately’. It’s higher than the individual rates.
“The marriage licnese etc is for the benefit of the CHILDREN and rights of inheritance.”
Right, but there’s nothing a “marriage” license confers that a civil union license couldn’t confer. I concur the state really shouldn’t be in the business of defining what a “marriage” is—since for many, religious beliefs determine the answer to that question. A “night watchman” state should only be concerned about protecting property—not promulgating religious beliefs.
But the property rights being protected include those of the couple itself, not just their kids. Virtually all states have inheritance laws that give priority to spouses when it comes to figuring out what to do with property left by the death of someone without a will.
Cass..YOU IGNORANT SLUT.....The marriage license etc is for the benefit of the CHILDREN and rights of inheritance. Gawd can these people be anymore stupid. Braindead a- holes.
BTTT
ROFLOL!!
How about forming a civil union with an adult son or daughter. They get health insurance and other benefits possibly, while working construction or bartending or under-the-table jobs, and maybe going to school. Then when they get a real job with benefits, just dissolve the union and form a new one with the next kid in line or with an out-of-work drinking buddy.
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
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 ]
You err at your own peril in believing that these people are stupid and brain dead.
They are far from either. It is only their deciples that are stupid and brain dead.
These individuals are intelligent,without principles, and evil.
They have an agenda that they are advancing and implementing each day.
I think you need to study up on tax law. Google “marriage penalty” to start with. Then think about how many elderly widows and widowers can’t marry without devastating financial consequences, due to government edicts about the distribution of both pension and Social Security benefits.
"Marriage" is a Christian religious sacrament for many Americans.
Above and beyond the authority of secular statist government.
The statistic that half (50%) of marriages end in divorce has always been terribly deceptive. As a glaring example of what I mean look at Elizabeth Taylor and her husbands, with 8 marriages and 7 divorces.
Add her messed up life with that of six couples who stayed happily married for life. 19 people, with a total of 14 marriages (including Richard Burton twice) and 7 divorces.
Which proves that half of marriages end in divorce. No, it proves that Elizabeth Taylor had a messed up life. Add to that several of her husbands also had multiple marriages ending in divorces, and your statistics are thrown off kilter, needing more than a dozen monogamous marriages to balance them out.
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.