government and marriage
I've been wondering about this for some time now... and hoping that someone can point me to a discussion from either side. Rather than argue about what constitutes a legitimate marriage... shouldn't we be arguing to remove the government from marriage altogether? Marriage should either be a convenant with God or a legal contract - why do we need a fed involvement?
Obviously this would mean we'd have to remove ALL federal involvement (taxes, etc) but it seems so simple I assume I'm missing something obvious :/
- Answer (2)
- · Comment
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Answer by Roberto
No, not something obvious but something subtle. It has long been my inclination that removing government involvement was the solution to many issues. However Ricochet member Robert Lux in his post Nietzsche on Love & Marriage. Or: What is the Common Amidst the Private? raises some very troubling concerns regarding this course.
Answer by Barkha Herman
Marriage laws were created in Europe to protect women; since they were neither allowed to inherit nor vote. Hence the entire "married man and woman are the same under law" business.
Since both these issues have been resolved, imho, the government involvement in marriage should also disappear.
A distant second excuse for marriage laws is inheritance by progeny - but since genetics has pretty much taken care of that - that is no excuse for having marriage laws,
One of the consequences of such a repeal on the "married man and woman considered the same person under law" would be that widows of fallen soldiers, fire fighters and policemen will have to start paying up inheritance taxes. What could be better for an argument against inheritance tax?
Join Ricochet or Sign In to add your comment.