Posted on 02/23/2006 1:53:52 PM PST by Quick1
In any case, I hope it's up to the voters and not a federal appeals court's whim.
Oxymoron alert. If they cant "commit" to a marriage "contract", then what exactly are they "committed " to? Whats your definition of "committed" And for how long is this commitment? and so on?
Okay- how about this: Limit residents to x per bedroom, unless all of the residents are related, in which case there is no limit?
This would keep the 35 illegals out, while not bothering the family of 10 or the unmarried couple who decide to buy a house together.
"Why the hell not? I know a couple that has been together 20 years, and they are better than most married couples. The non-marriage thing isn't for everyone, but for a few couples, it's perfect. Why should the government be deciding for this couple?"
Iti s commonly accepted that society is based on the family and families are based on marriage. That is why govts and societies provide incentives for people to marry. If folks like your hippy friends want to disregard societal custom then they should be denied the protections/benefits given to married couples.
um, the oldest child is not the father's biological offspring....or, more simply, he ain't the daddy.
But . . . but . . . but . . . then they might FEEL BAD!!!
This used to be the rule in most communities. Unrelated individuals could not live together in residential neighborhoods zoned for single family housing. One of the first cases to overturn this involved Timothy Leary and his coterie of LSD-taking friends in Newton, Mass. This led to the redefinition of "family" for the purposes of zoning laws.
I'm a conservative on most things, but a libertarian on only a few. One of them is that the government shouldn't even be involved in marriage. (If you're wondering why that's a Libertarian view, just think of all the ways government gets involved in your personal life after you marry.)
Marriage should be a church matter or, in my case, a committment between me and the woman I choose to marry. I don't understand how having the state decide the status of the committment between two people before their god (or not) is a conservative value.
yes, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate. Sort of.
13 years together is not enough? Somebody needs to get a hobby, harrassing grown-ups about their living arrangements isn't a good use of time.
Exactly.
Quick is good at tossing out non sequitors.
I have met a wonderful girl who I am dating, and the idea that I would somehow just decide to shack up with her is unconscionable.
Like it or not, marriage is a closer union than a free relationship, even ones that last for 30 years.
True. But the government does have the right to determine how many people may reside in a particular structure. In this particular case, the government uses the familial relationship between the parties as part of that determination. As many others pointed out, that is done in order to prevent illegal boarding houses, etc.
A church witnesses a marriage. A state makes sure it is legal - licensed.
It sounds like that would be okay. But you would have to take turns living there.
The way the law is described, they are not limited to one child as Olivia asserts.
Since two of the three children are blood relatives of both Olivia and Fondray, two children would be allowed.
Since the oldest child is not related by blood, marriage or adoption to all the other occupants (including Fondray) but only to his mother and siblings, he's disqualified.
So, apparently Fondray would rather go through a court battle than suffer the indignity of (a) making an honest woman of Olivia or (b) acknowledging himself as a father, if only an adoptive one, to the oldest boy that he is purportedly raising.
Must be nice for the 15 year old that his mother's gigolo refuses to acknowledge any legal responsibility for him.
I'm pretty sure the right to own and use one's home is a Constitutional right.
Marriage is a state contract, not a religious idea.
Doesn't matter what happens to kids. All that matters is that the "adults"--like our wonderful crew of FReeper libertarians--get to do whatever they want when it comes to sexual relationships.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.