Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: rhema

I have often said that people should be allowed to define their own households. Traditionally people have always done this, grandparents raise grandkids, take in family members or close friends who then become a part of the family. You used to hear of families taking in orphans without a lot of fanfare and raising them as their own. Problems can arise though in the modern era when you are dealing with school issues, medical issues, and the so-forth. I’d be happy to see a legal space for people to define for themselves their own household.

But only marriage is marriage.


6 posted on 10/24/2012 11:50:17 AM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: marron

What this would lead to is massive immigration fraud.

Marriage is defined, by the common law which predates the establishment of the US, and the states. Putting it to the states would be like putting Habeaus Corpus to the states. Letting people ‘choose their own’, would be a disaster.

We don’t negotiate away the essential components like trial by jury, so why are we negotiating marriage between one man and one woman just because some people don’t like it? When it comes to trial by jury, we tell people, “This is america. Don’t like it, leave it, and we should be telling them the same with respect to marriage.


8 posted on 10/24/2012 12:16:36 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: marron
In the 19th century, say, there were good argments for being against civil marriage altogether. But now in 21st century America, abolishing civil marriage would mean abolishing automatic inheritance for spouses, and various insurance and taxation benefits. Maybe you want to do that, but it would under many widows'/widowers' economic security and possibly force many into poverty.

Maybe that would be worth it? I don't know. Real questions.

13 posted on 10/24/2012 1:01:57 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Some learn from reading; some by others' experience; the rest just *have* to pee on the third rail.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: marron

Typo. I meant “undermine”.


14 posted on 10/24/2012 1:02:40 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Some learn from reading; some by others' experience; the rest just *have* to pee on the third rail.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: marron
I’d be happy to see a legal space for people to define for themselves their own household. But only marriage is marriage.

I agree. I've often suggested that states should have something like a "contractual household" status, with a standardized package of legal arrangements for inheritance, power of attorney, medical issues, real property ownership, and so on.

People can put together their own arrangements now, whether they're romantic couples or other associations such as siblings or parent-and-adult-child, but it could be made easier and more predictable for people, without reference to their motives for wishing to form a legal unit.

20 posted on 10/24/2012 1:17:31 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Now a hit television series starring Judi Dench!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson