Replies

The state shouldn't be in the practice of giving anyone benefit for being married, or being single, or for living with their dowager aunt and flea-bitten dog.

The issue in all of this is the tax code and the benefits conferred by it. With a national retail sales tax system instead of our "reward/punishment via the income taxation system," then benefits wouldn't be conferred by tax schedules, deductions, and special benefits.

All the other so-called marital issues are easily handled by a decent will disposing of one's estate.

(Donning flame suit)

I agree that the state should not be giving anyone benefit for being married, but it is the state that for all practical purposes marries people. If any of you think it is a religious thing, just ask your local clergy to marry you. I am sure he will ask to see your marriage license, which is of course issued by the state.

On the other hand, run on down to the court house and ask a judge to marry you, and again with a state issued license the ceremony will be held. A marriage just does not happen until two people go and get permission from the state to enter into a legally binding contract to share their resources and wealth. (This is were the flames will start) A marriage should be just that, a legally binding contract between two consenting adults, who chose to share their lives and fortunes together "till death do they part".

And as you pointed a decent will would handle everything after that.

Always amazes me when we agree..the state is the regulator of contracts. Secular marriage is a three way contract..man , woman and state

A Christian marriage is a covenant between a man , a woman and God...in the case of the elect of God ..we do not NEED the state to regulate our marriage.

As I was writing this it occurred to me that probably no other civil contract is treated with as little respect nor so often broken.

My concern is always for the children. I have become much more a libertarian in my old age..I feel little desire or need to control the lives of others, in any way. The exception is helpless kids..

The state has an interest in minors..for that reason the "Domestic Partnership" idea is troubling..kids could end up with many many "mommydaddys " to visit..because the state says they have an "interest" in them..imagine the possibilty for abuse..

Other than that I do not care what they call themselves