It could be whatever one wants. How is this hard to follow exactly? You either sign on the terms of contract and get married or you don't and still get married. It is up for people to decide on what they want. One involves handling conflicts by the government and the other doesn't.
Check the transcript. You are going back and forth. You said some could have a contract and others could have marriage without a contract. I asked what marriage without a contract would be and you respond that it would be marriage with a contract they define.
Unless there is a conflict or thoughts of a breach of the terms of the contract there is no reason to involve the courts. Sure I guess the state is still involved, but its only to those that wish to sign a contract and only if there is an issue.
If people want to be forced into a contract with terms they can't control that is up to them, but I will not agree with it.
Of course, there is no reason to involve the courts unless there is a dispute. That is true with the default marital contract.
Are you arguing that the state should not insist on use of its contract? That is, allow for a custom contract and then have the default? A pre nup can be used to handle much of that. The state is still involved and we get back to the problem of contracts that pervert justice. I am sorry, I certainly do not believe OUR courts should enforce some other standard that perverts our legal standards (e.g, Sharia). It is not only the possible injustice but it would make the whole process more costly for the state as they would have to study each individual marital contract in detail. I would be fine with allowing the married parties to pick their arbiter and standard as long as they can appeal to US courts using our standards. That really, is not that big of a change though, and marriage arbitration is available.
This is my point. This idea of getting the state out of marriage entirely is often half baked as used by many or seems so to me. It would make divorce too difficult for the state and the parties involved. That MAY be your goal, but I don't see how it is in the state's interest to promote that. I also don't see it as being very libertarian as it would likely just lead to a loss of rights for women.
I don't want the state going too far in defining who may marry. Their involvement should be limited as as possible, but they must be involved in some way or we end marriage entirely.
Interim to what? There is no Interim. The path is set out for what will happen and what I want will not be part of it. People want the benefits from the state and don't think they are wise enough to handle the process without their intervention. I know this and I'm not thinking it is otherwise.
The issue really is over federal benefits and its really is all that many liberals, conservative and in between care about. People want to marry who they want, sure, but they also want much more than that.
So then, you DO oppose or withhold support for any advancement of marriage equality and do so by hiding behind some half baked fairy tale that you pretend is libertarian?
It is not about federal benefits. The courts are not ruling that any one has a right to benefits. Congress can end them and the courts would/could not interfere. But Congress and States can not favor some over others and we should not want them to do so. The courts will and should interfere if they do.
Now let me ask, why is it okay for you to assume/invent what the "liberal" argument is about while decrying when I do that to you? I think it is important to listen to everyone's postion and try to understand it in the best light possible. I welcome your correction if I am misrepresenting your views, but I don't count them as libertarian in this regard.
