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.
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."
You'll get plenty of posts saying those czars are nothing but "advisors" with no power.
Well that pay czar has power. He has the authority to limit the paychecks of the fat cats in the banks.
Feinberg himself says he has the authority to regulate pay.
So, let's just sit back and see how these other czars do more than just "advise".
Regarding the pay cuts..no one can say that the government, Congress to be specific, would be passing any "Bill of Attainder". You see, Feinberg is not a member of Congress.
Well he is right... the government should be out of the "marriage" business. Civil Unions or contracts for couples, but the role of marriage should be left to individuals and churches.
I agree. Marriage is a religious institution. It should be left to Churches. Civil Union as a legal contract should be filed with government entities.
This doesn't address any religious aspects. I suspect "marriage" would still be for everyone, it just won't hold a special place legally anymore so anyone can do it and nobody can ****** about it.
Let me get this straight: The business regulatory advisory holds a common view about "civil unions" and "marriage" -- that the legal contract should be renamed "civil unions" and the religious sacrament should be "marriage" -- and we're suppose to run in circles, scream and shout? Anyone who falls for this needs to get a grip.
Well he is right... the government should be out of the "marriage" business. Civil Unions or contracts for couples, but the role of marriage should be left to individuals and churches.
Civil unions provide the legal standing for a marriage as well as divorce.
Religious ceremonies have no legal standing in America and shouldn't be pertinent to this discussion.
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.
