Quote:
|
Our society most definitely can do away with the governmental recognition of marriage entirely. And for the record, it took "radical surgery" to instill the institution into our public law in the first place. So it should be relatively easier to erase these laws than it was to unlawfully instill them.
|
Two points here. First, when you say we can do away with the governmental recognition of marriage, then let's consider this question:
What law are you going to use to determine who gets the house when two people decide to split up after 25 years of living together, if in fact the male is the person who signed the deed, while the female stayed at home, raised the children, and supported the male?
Currently, marriage laws, including common-law marriages (a decidedly non-religious form of marriage) govern the dissolution of such relationships. Do you propose to re-write the law in it's entirety? Without marriage, what possible claim does the female have to any portion of the house? Her name isn't on the deed, and she never paid a single cent toward the purchase of the property. Is there some magic word you are going to substitute for "marriage" so that you can still use the law to protect people in these situations, or does the woman just get the shaft in this case?
The other thing I'd like to point out is your RIDICLOUS claim that it took "radical surgery" to put marriage into the law. This statement proves that you are either clueless or just making stuff up in order to sound intelligent. The fact of the matter is that marriage has existed long before federal and state law did, and the law formed itself around the institution over a great many years. There was no "radical injection" of marriage into the law as you claim.