But if marriage were removed from the law, the government would be dealing with contractual issues under the civil law.
In order to transform the way our society regulates marriage, there would necessarily have to be some transitional regulations.
Under the non-marital regulation, if people wanted to have community property, they could make such a binding agreement
Gridlock must be a lawyer, because he wants everyone in his any-kind-of-marriage-is-ok world to have a lawyer to draw up contracts and create binding agreements between two people who want to be "married". What a hassle - who wants to deal with that? Lawyers, that's who! More money for them!
A constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman is the best way to combat the creeping deviancy, not more laws, regulations and contracts. Don't be fooled by those who support the homosexual agenda!
And turning lead into gold is the best way to make tons and tons of money.
Absent a constitutional amendment, how do you propose to stop this government from destroying the institution of marriage?
Or do you actually think the FMA is possible?