Journal zogger's Journal: Abolish state marriage 11
I've been saying this all along for several years now,(heck, it is really DECADES IRL since I had this idea) just abolish state licensed marriage completely and be done with it, then straights and gays and otherwise would have a level political and economic playing field. Here is an Obama administrator saying the same thing (similar) now.
I think his proposal doesn't go far enough though, and even state licensed "civil unions" can be stricken, they violate freedom of association, and there should be no overall "numbers" attached either, like just two people. Even using past historical precedent, just two people has never been all there was. Pluralities have been quite common in many cultures, and there is nothing odd about it at all.
If you want a ceremony and recognition inside your "community" whatever that is, swell, nothing stopping you, that's between you, your partner or partners, and your pastor, padre, rabbi, ayatollah, shaman, kahuna, grand lunar priestess, dudes down to the bar, your bowling league friends, whatever, because that is YOUR business and no one else's. I celebrate your celebration and declared commitment..whatever it is. Ya'all have fun, live long and prosper, or get long and perspire, and all of that, *your choice*.
As per the government and economics, it should be one human by one human by one human, and that's it. Any stuff you want to codify into law to salt to taste, you do it with a normal contract. Anything. There isn't any exception there I can think of that can't be addressed with a normal contract, a cheap one to boot, something you all sign in front of a notary.
End state discrimination. It is just wrong.
There's some other junk in the article, but I found that part interesting because we were just talking about that the other day. I see no reason why in particular straights and gays can't unite around this single and obvious human rights issue and get the state OUT of "recognizing or not" your personal relationships. Why would heavily traditional religious people even WANT the state to have a say in their relationship in the first place? And why would gay folks DEMAND that they be included in this ridiculous charade and abrogation of born with freedoms?
It is NONE of the state's business *at all* who you hang around with, fool around with, or live with. As such, no permit whatsoever should be required. When you have to get a permit, permission, a slip that says you have some "right",a "license", it has ceased to be a right and has turned into a state owned privilege, and you just lost an important aspect of your freedoms.
So, no benefits? (Score:2)
It seems you are advocating for no special benefits for married couples. I could argue that committed relationships benefit society, and therefore, society should encourage them, but I won't. I'm actually pretty cool with the state getting out of the marriage business altogether. As long as contracts valid in one state are valid in another, there should be no problem.
Should be.
But what happens when you and your polyamorous group of hippies sign a contract in Maine, but you need to move to, say, Idaho. Now,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Part of the solution is for companies and insurance to provide benefits on a per person basis, with a cost per person. Right now -- or the last few times I had company sponsored insurance -- the plan was me, or me and wife for a bit more, or me and wife and one kid for even more, or "family" for a lot more. Just make the cost per person, regardless of relationship and you can cover as many people as you feel like chipping in for.
Stop letting the State refer to it as "marriage", and they have no grounds to
Re: (Score:2)
Nice. I liked the idea when I first heard it (On Real Time maybe? I forget, it was within the last year.) so I've been thinking about any holes there might be in it.
I like it because it splits the legal aspects off from the social and religious aspects. It does it for everyone, so nobody will get their panties in a bunch over the definition of a word. If you and Mr. Slave and The Gimp want to call what you've got a marriage, and you sign the contract, then you are married in the eyes of the law. What kind o
Re: (Score:2)
The only hitch I see is getting people to understand that "marriage" no longer means anything in a court or to the gov't and it is only a symbolic term. I have a feeling that many people will knee-jerk react and see this as an attack on their beliefs. I've already had half-a-dozen people I know ranting about how the gov't is going bonkers -- next going to declare "up is down, black is white", etc. Fortunately, after a brief explanation, they seem to think it might be a good idea. "This allows you to sim
Re: (Score:2)
I could argue that committed relationships benefit society
Then please do so, because I, for one, am damned sick and tired of being discriminated against because I'm single. And there are the old couples who have been married for decades and have to divorce because one of them becomes ill, putting them both in poverty.
I can see tax breaks for parents, whether single, married, or cohabitating, but to give tax breaks to a couple is more than unfair. They can have two salaries, but only one houuse payment and n
Re: (Score:2)
Oh honestly, childless couples don't necessarily benefit society at all. The main legal benefits couples need are: power of attorney, visitation rights, and inheritance. That can all be covered with a contract. Couples already get tons of gifts just for announcing their plans for permanent couple-hood, why should we get tax breaks too?
I can see providing tax breaks to anyone with kids, the little buggers are expensive and you know, what with mortality and all we need those little carpet apes to carry on soc
Close, but not quite (Score:2)
The right answer is to stop trying to make marriage special. It should not be necessary for a government to recognize marriage (by any name). For instance, I would like to think I'm fully capable of remembering to include my wife in my will, though I haven't had an opportunity to put that to the test. (... or do I have a wife but already forgot about her?)
Re: (Score:1)
I'll go you two better than that, while agreeing!
Abolish the abolishing of abolishment!
(If you look at that sentence for awhile and think about it... you will swear that abolish is misspelled.)
amen, brotha (Score:1)
Too bad it would never pass, as both the gay lobby and the Religious Right lobby would be against it. Not to mention the whole political Left, who are knee-jerk against "privatizing" (as Sunstein put it) anything, and are heavily in favor of social engineering (AKA his "nudging") as one of the main tools of achieving Leftist outcomes. It would tho solve the gay marriage issue in this country, quite handily, and maybe that's how otherwise an idiot (pets suing their owners) and monster (forced organ removal)
Moo (Score:1)
I agree [slashdot.org].
The state should keep out of these things. If it wants to define a group for taxes, for foster care, or whatever, make a group for that.