Regulatory Czar--urges Abolish Marriage

[ImnoMensa]

Sunstein urges: Abolish marriage

Sunstein slammed current government recognition of marriage as "an official license scheme."


Sunstein's proposal regarding marriage is hardly the only controversial section of his book. WND reported last week that in the same book, Sunstein defended the possibility of removing organs from terminally ill patients without their permission.

How does that grab you?

[vraiblonde]

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.

What's wrong with this? I have long argued that the government shouldn't be involved in marriages.

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

What's wrong with this? I have long argued that the government shouldn't be involved in marriages.

Agreed. It completely solves the issue of gay marriage. If a church wants to marry them, they can.

The only sore point is the myriad of legal questions regarding the legal rights of spouses. Without some oversight, you can potentially have any number of issues from tax fraud to immigration fraud and so forth.

[Tilted]

He's not urging the abolishing of marriage. He's saying the government should stay out of marriage.

He's right. Marriage should have nothing to do with the government. People should be free to enter into whatever relationship contract they want - and establish whatever rules or terms or conditions they want to agree on for that contract (whether specified or not). As with all contracts, the government should provide a means of enforcement and settling disputes that arise there from (the civil court system), but that is it. You shouldn't be forced to fit your relationship into a pre-defined, government established, generic contract in order to enjoy the same benefits and rights that other people in relationships do. I and my significant other (or others) should be able to form a relationship under terms that work for us.

It should be pretty apparent what happens when you force people into cookie cutter arrangements that don't necessarily fit their sensibilities, desires, temperaments, strengths and weaknesses.

The only relationship status that the government needs to define and establish generic rules for is that of mutual parentage. There is a party involved in that contract that has no ability to agree to the terms and conditions, and there is a necessity (or, at least, often a desire) for a relationship there even in the absence of the parties being able to come to agreement - so the government has to be involved in establishing the rules and identifying the parties.

To the extent that marriage is a secular institution, it shouldn't be bound by fundamentally religious precepts. To the extent that marriage is a religious institution, it shouldn't need the validation of the government - even without that, it already has everything it needs to be what it is.

[Toxick]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

What's wrong with this? I have long argued that the government shouldn't be involved in marriages.

I absolutely think the government should be involved in marriages.

Do you not agree that the person I choose to spend my days and nights with is a matter of National Security?

My wife and I both agree that a federal agent should be present whenever we make a large decision, such as moving and buying a house, purchasing a vehicle, choosing a doctor for our children, picking medical coverage and life insurance, and deciding which Octane we use in our vehicles.

We also make sure the agent is there to help us bathe our children and brush their teeth, when we go grocery shopping, and he's there to issue written permission when we wish to engage in marital relations. (He hasn't allowed me to use the "alternate entrance" yet, usually after consulting with various local state authorities - but we can still hope!)

And when I got up to pee this morning he made sure that I shook it off before pulling my PJ's back up.

My marriage - and everyone else's - is most definitely the business of the government. My only regret is that we can't be MORE subserviant and subject to the whims of our elected officials.

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by Toxick

I absolutely think the government should be involved in marriages.

Do you not agree that the person I choose to spend my days and nights with is a matter of National Security?

My wife and I both agree that a federal agent should be present whenever we make a large decision, such as moving and buying a house, purchasing a vehicle, choosing a doctor for our children, picking medical coverage and life insurance, and deciding which Octane we use in our vehicles.

We also make sure the agent is there to help us bathe our children and brush their teeth, when we go grocery shopping, and he's there to issue written permission when we wish to engage in marital relations. (He hasn't allowed me to use the "alternate entrance" yet, usually after consulting with various local state authorities - but we can still hope!)

And when I got up to pee this morning he made sure that I shook it off before pulling my PJ's back up.

My marriage - and everyone else's - is most definitely the business of the government. My only regret is that we can't be MORE subserviant and subject to the whims of our elected officials.

Funniest post I've read in a long time. Absolutely made my day.

[Merlin99 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

Agreed. It completely solves the issue of gay marriage. If a church wants to marry them, they can.

The only sore point is the myriad of legal questions regarding the legal rights of spouses. Without some oversight, you can potentially have any number of issues from tax fraud to immigration fraud and so forth.

Would this solve your issues with gay marriage? Remove the incentive from the traditional situation and just leave it up to the clergy? I'm going to guess the answer is no, but I could be wrong.

[bcp (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Merlin99

Would this solve your issues with gay marriage? Remove the incentive from the traditional situation and just leave it up to the clergy? I'm going to guess the answer is no, but I could be wrong.

By your even asking that I can pretty much tell you have no clue what my thoughts are and have been on this subject for the last few years.

If you knew, you certainly would not have to ask.

[Pandora]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

Funniest post I've read in a long time. Absolutely made my day.

[Merlin99 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by bcp

By your even asking that I can pretty much tell you have no clue what my thoughts are and have been on this subject for the last few years.

If you knew, you certainly would not have to ask.

Expound upon them then, maybe I've been misinterpreting you all this time by looking at your posts on the subject and applying my views of your opinion to them.