[Mrs. Don-o]

I am open to this argument. There is no need for civil marriage as long as the State will defend the rights of dependent children to the the support and nurturance of their natural parents (which the State is not doing now, anyhow, so it's a null point.)

There's a case to be made for the POV that the various churches can take care of the sacramental or ceremonial aspects of marriage, and private contract could take care of the rest.

Class: discuss.

[MrB]

It IS in the state’s interest to promote and support the basic unit of society.

“Libertarians” may not think the gov’t has any business promoting morals or traditions, but the founders thought differently.

[Lurker]

Nothing to discuss actually. In a rational world that would be the way things were.

"Civil" marriage shouldn't even exist. Period.

It's nothing more than an excuse for further State intrusion into areas it has no business being.

Most States are failing miserably at fulfilling their most basic responsibilities as it is. Allowing them any say into what is or is not a 'marriage' is simply silly.

L