Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, although I agree with the substance of Sustein's argument, I worry about his underlying agenda and implications. What would abolishing marriage do to set up the next domino to knock over for the cultural Marxists. Remember, destroy the family and religion, and the people have no other choice than to turn to the State.
Nevertheless, it takes the bite out of all the gay crap that takes too much of our mental political energy.
From the article:
"Under our proposal, the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government," wrote Sunstein..."
He proposes a private partnership agreement. Throw all of it back at people themselves.
"Marriages", "civil-unions", and any preferential law that uses such terms by our government should be abolished. A contract can be drawn up between any two people. End of story.
Now back to the world of tyrants and special interests...
I agree with this. Government really has no business dictating the terms of a marriage; it should be a religious institution. Let people (gay and straight) who want government civil unions have them, and also give people the option to go to their faith for a religious marriage with the the terms defined by the church. It seems fair to everyone.
I agree with this. Government really has no business dictating the terms of a marriage; it should be a religious institution. Let people (gay and straight) who want government civil unions have them, and also give people the option to go to their faith for a religious marriage with the the terms defined by the church. It seems fair to everyone.
Until a divorce happens and the ex-hubby walks away leaving mom and the kids with no support or any legal means to get it.
With a contract that can be enforced by the state, the man and woman can say, if spouse x leaves, I'm entitled to x amount of child support.
The OP states government at all levels would be out of the marriage game.
It becomes a private partnership..enforcible, not by the state, but by lawyers you hire yourself.
The OP states government at all levels would be out of the marriage game.
It becomes a private partnership..enforcible, not by the state, but by lawyers you hire yourself.
It's not necessarily a marriage. It's just a contract drawn up between two individuals just like if you loan someone money and draw up a contract stating when you want all your money back, etc.
Quote:
The U.S. government should abolish its sanctioning of marriage, argued Cass Sunstein, President Obama's regulatory czar.
Sunstein proposed that the concept of marriage should become privatized, with the state only granting civil union contracts to couples wishing to enter into an agreement.
Sunstein explained marriage licensing is unnecessary, pointing out people stay committed to organizations like country clubs and homeowner associations without any government interference.
"Under our proposal, the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
