“Either way, their state of marriage, being single, or perhaps marital infidelity, is irrelevant to The State.”
Thank you DTogo - very well put.
I don’t understand why you and I appear to be in the small minority of people who see it this way. Why?
Why doesn’t Mitt come out and say this? Why don’t the Repubs put in in their platform?
It’s a simple idea, and it’s the way our Founding Fathers wanted it.
Are we missing something?
Sincere question: didn' t English common law, largely adopted into American law, recognize marriage as a natural relation, and the family as a natural society? I don't know the history here, and stand ready to be educated.
My impression is not that the Founding Fathers saw marriage as irrelevant, but that they saw it as pre-existing the State, and as foundational.
How did the Commonwealth of Virginia handle it? Or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania?
I do remember that in Tennessee in Andrew Jackson's time, you couldn't get a divorce without a specific act of the Tennessee Legislative Assembly. It was an issue in his personal life, and in his campaign.