Quote:
Originally Posted by NetStalker
Yep sounds good when the union is between person a and person b, but when you add in 3 or more persons to the union, or divorces and remarriage then once again, it takes government to step in to figure it all out, or what about the "I was married to him for 25 years with 3 kids" and "she just married him 3 months ago" then again, back to the courts.
Look, im a dyed in the wool Republican, and Im all for smaller government, but in this area, the more regulation the better. Too many damn people dont even know what marriage means anymore. Much less commitment.
I refer to my previous post...cow and milk  |
Yes, it takes government to regulate agreements no doubt. that is why there is a contract!
However government has no business being involved in religious ceremony. If you stop and consider for a moment you would realize the contract would take care of all your concerns. The problem is not the legal aspects the problem is the government being involved in the religious aspects.
If three people agree to a binding contract that decides who gets what possessions in case of death or a violation of any of the clauses of the contract who should really care?
Does anyone care if Sally, Bill and Ted enter into a business contract that decides the same things for all manner of business chattels?
Why does it matter if those same people wish to live together and jointly own possessions of a personal nature. In fact in can be done. Its just that Marriage confuses the entire issue because of the religious aspect being intertwined with the legal aspect.
If the two were separated then you could save a great deal of hassle.
Sadly the legal and religious lobbies would never let it happen.
Dex
