Replies

He doesn't get it. If he wants the govt. to get completely out of regulating marriage, he'd have to change 10,000 laws and regs in 50 states and eliminate all marriage-based benefits, including those related to taxation, property, insurance, survivors' rights of all kinds, liability for debts, custody of/responsibility to children, etc.

Well, if Beck were being consistent here, he'd call for the govt to get 100% out of...
(a) Holding dead-beat dads accountable;
(b) Putting up safety nets, financial & otherwise, for broken homes

'CAUSE IF THE GOVT DIDN'T HAVE TO FUND THE AFTERMATH OF WHATEVER MARITAL MESSES MEN (& WOMEN) MAKE, THEN HE COULD AT LEAST CONSIDER BRINGING UP THE QUESTIONS HE'S MAKING.

But BECAUSE the govt is heavily financially invested in making marriage & family work, then, yes, it has a right to speak into how marriages work to benefit the family.

Experimental families = more broken families. Experimental "unions" = more broken covenants.

And families LOSE in the process.

So go ahead Beck. Go ahead FREEPER surfer. Be consistent. Start telling the govt to get out of holding dead-beat dads accountable; get out of the business of putting up safety nets for broken marriages & broken homes.

Divest yourself, Uncle Sam of these investments, and thereby rid yourself of practical considerations as to why it's important to you that marriages & families remain healthy.

Interesting POV. I do get the impression that marriages were in better shape 200 years ago, when here in Tennessee it took an act of the State Legislature to get a divorce, and the govt. "sugar daddy" role was non-existent.

Under those conditions --- marriage a no-exit proposition, no easy divorce, and no safety net --- I'm pretty sure man/man "couples" would want to have no part of it.

How well man-woman couples would accept it --- real marriage --- is a different subject :o|