Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous Next Next
A little less than a happy high
Aren't liberals supposed to be the irrational ones?
12 comments or Leave a comment
komos From: komos Date: February 6th, 2004 06:30 am (UTC) (Link)
You know, it might not be the most popular view, but I really couldn't agree more. Once you shove aside the knee-jerk moral posturing, civil marriage is nothing more than a contract allowing two individuals sufficient rights and priviledges to muck around in each other's lives. Where this has gotten tangled is in the assumed meaning that both camps have carried to the table. Why you would enter into such a contract is entirely your own business. The government's only role here should be to make such an arrangement possible for all parties concerned and without making distinctions based on gender, pairing, or moral qualms.
shelbyg From: shelbyg Date: February 6th, 2004 07:07 am (UTC) (Link)

Lawyers' Boon

I have been preaching since the “Defense of Marriage Act” in 96 that the Government should get out of the marriage business (of course, then they need to replace it with some way of making unrelated people legally related). The concept of a secular legal recognition of the religious union in Anglican society is relatively new.

It was very interesting going to a Jewish ceremony where they sign a contract as part of the union. So the answer is contract law.

The term marriage can be reserved for religious unions in the eyes of the various churches that do them. The government should only recognize people who have signed contract with each other stating that they are now to be considered related. These contracts can be set up however the parties want: open for more participants, closed, defining the sharing of wealth. They would need to follow the rules of contracts today: defining dissolution, having a set length (there can be a review clause that makes it easy to renew, but this in perpetuity thing is ridiculous).

As for taxation, they should get rid of “joint filing.” Unemployed or underemployed spouses should be redefined as dependents. This would eliminate the “Marriage Tax” and the “Singles Tax” (an argument was made in the 70’s by the singles lobby that joint filing created a “singles tax” where two people could save money by being married. They argued that this lead to marriages of convenience to avoid paying taxes. The tax laws were changed but this created a “marriage tax”. Apparently with the structure of our tax system, either singles or married people or both get taxed unfairly.)

Children and goats would be left out because people under age and animals can’t legally sign contracts. Polygamy would be allowed as long as long at it is okay with all the signers of the contracts.

The government would still be involved; mostly the court system. However, instead of family law, it would be contract law, which is ancient, and well understood. Lawyers would get a big boon, as they would draw up the contracts.

Okay, that might be a bad thing. : )

(Deleted comment)
komos From: komos Date: February 6th, 2004 08:03 am (UTC) (Link)
I'm guessing that at some point there will be picketing for fair wages.

(Deleted comment)
komos From: komos Date: February 6th, 2004 08:46 am (UTC) (Link)
That's the best thing ever.
12 comments or Leave a comment