Comments on: “Get the government out of marriage”

By: Robert

Robert — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:46:01 +0000

It would be nice if unmarried people could declare someone to be their “next of kin” for Social Security survivor’s benefits, inheritance tax exemptions, etc.

Think of two unmarried siblings who live together in old age, for example.

Once they figure out all the benefits that come with Marriage, it would be nice to see them available to any two people.

By: mb

mb — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:41:02 +0000

No one in government wants to answer tough constitutional questions because, for one, they don’t understand the oath that they’ve taken to uphold it, and two, most members of Congress feel that it is much more important for Big Brother to be centrally involved in intimate personal decision-making, rather than leaving it to the discretion of individuals. Quite simply, they can’t fathom a world where people engage in voluntary associations. The truth that they so very much like to avoid is that government destroys everything it touches. Social conservatives love to intermingle issues related to children as the cause for protecting traditional marriage. Yet they along with Progressives have been supporting policies that have been having a much more damaging effect on both marriage and children for decades, starting with no-fault divorce, income-based child support and alimony, expanded definitions for domestic violence that make anything count as an infraction, and reducing divorced and unmarried fathers to that of “visitor” status. The next time you hear a social conservative talk about protecting traditional marriage, they have no idea what they’re talking about.

If government were truly interested in supporting healthy, intact marriages, it would have thought of a way quite a long time ago through financial incentives, PR campaigns, or a combination of things. But the fact of the matter is that the family has long been the principle check on government, so having policies that support marriage and family are bad policy for government. It’s much more profitable to conquer and divide through harmful divorce policies that ruin the head of it, (the father), and attempt to assume the new role as the custodian of children. Dr. Stephen Baskerville’s book “Taken into Custody: The War on Fathers, Marriage and the Family” does a masterful job of laying this out and should be a must-read for libertarians who are looking for better answers to the marriage debate.

By: charles platt

charles platt — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 04:47:57 +0000

The quotes from legal scholars in the Reason article make no sense to me at all. They ask, what about the status of children if the government wasn’t involved in marriage. I imagine it would be much the same as the status of children in the millions of couples who have procreated without bothering to get married. Apparently family courts are able to deal with this supposed legal nightmare. The declining popularity of formal marriage is a clear indicator that it is no longer serving the needs of many people, and the lack of legal repercussions seems to indicate that eliminating the statutory status of marriage would cause no problems at all. Or am I missing something here? Seems to me, statutory marriage was a necessary safeguard when paternity was not easily proved, but DNA testing changed that long ago. And contrary to the claims of the Scottish legal scholar, early US colonies did not have statutory interference in marriage; it was simply not practical at a time when the population was so thin and dispersed. There is good evidence that government only got involved in marriage during the French revolution, according to the books that I have read.

By: mb

mb — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 16:14:39 +0000

Walter- I think it’s quite simple. That absent a compelling gov’t interest, there is no need for State involvement, period. Why should the gov’t be required to hear every legal matter that is brought before the courts, when it would be far less costly to send people to mediation, couples counseling, parenting classes, etc.