I oppose SSM but could accept no government recognized marriage as a compromise.
I support SSM but could accept no government reconized marriage as a compromise
I oppose SSM It's a function of government to recognize legitimate marriages. No compromise.
I support SSM. It's a function of government to recognize legitimate marriages. No compromise.
Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.
AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.
I am married for a long time now. We (two atheists coming from dramatically different cultural backgrounds) never had bothered to register our relationship with any government or church. She doesn't need a sanction from the Japanese consulate or any Shinto temple to be what she is to me; and I don't need a certificate from Uncle Sam (or any Sam's mini-mes on the municipal level), or from the RCC - despite being ("genetically, historically") as Catholic as they get.
If at some point we decide to formalize our union, for whatever reason, why should we insist on the uniform semantics?
(Not that I can imagine any such necessity: my will and all corollary papers are in good order, and the rest of our de facto family is taken care of).
Divisions of property and issues of children should be exactly the same - whether the parents are married or not, straight or gay, and in terms of property however many people are in the failed relationship.
Courts decide all manners of civil disputes without specific statutes, and if there are no specific statutes then the principles of "common law" is the relevant law for the court to use.
Courts involving in the economics and parentage issues in relationship break ups is NO reason for government to be involved in deciding what relationships are allowed, rewarded, punished or will be recognized by government - no more than the government has any reason to involve in private contracts - though will decide contract disputes later if brought to court.
It was the 16th amendment which allowed the income tax to become legal where being married actually resulted in a benefit. The amendment was ratified in 1913. As for inheritance, wills ruled the day and still do. There are still many very religious people and some churches who will not recognize you ware married unless it was in a church ceremony.
So in reality, those who are not married in a church ceremony with the churches blessing are still viewed as living in sin. Those of us married outside of the church one could say we have a civil union. A civil union recognized by the states and the federal government for income tax purposes. But we have continued to use the term marriage.
Early voting in Georgia. On the 20th of October this old Goldwater conservative voted against both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton by casting my vote for Gary Johnson. Neither Trump or Clinton belong within a million miles of the Oval Office.
2.) that doesnt answer the question
do you honestly think goverment can abolish marriage, replace it with other contracts nd get it right even in 10 years?
There is no reason it would or needs to be weaker. And you haven't even explained what that means.
All it has to do is remove all of the qualifiers on getting married, as a start.
And by the way, when the hell did "it's too haaard" become a good argument, even assuming it actually was that hard?