On Lawn's Journal: Why the marriage-is-just-a-contract shippers are wrong

A friend of mine (a self proclaimed liberal democrat) put up a post on Opine about privatizing marriage. I know it is a popular refrain from many here on /. They feel that marriage should be "just a contract" that anyone can write up as they please.

Well, that seems to be like an Escher painting. Looks good on paper but is sevierly self-conflicting in real life. I underline that point in my comment to his post.

[Update: Check out XRLQ's absolute scewering of "Mass Marrier"]

I totally agree with you

[rk]

Which is why I also support the elimination of those benefits, as well. And I say this as a married guy.

Re:

[On Lawn]

As long as you are honest.

Personally I see marriage as an institution that needs protection/recognition/definition because it is such an obvious and inseperable appendage to personal freedom.

Re:

[robi2106]

I see the protections asnecessary because no other person has as much access to another person as a spouse does. That other person can do more damage than any other person. So that relationship should have the most protections and safegaurds.

jason

Re:

[On Lawn]

That, but probably more important the children are the most vulerable. For instance check out this exchange [blogspot.com] with Dan Morgan. When you cannot see past the adults needs, the children most often suffer. And that is the easiest explaination of why the state is involved. Children have a right to be born and raised in a family where the parents are devoted in marriage and stay married.