On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:43:04 -0500, tar~bal wrote:

> "KK" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:29:32 -0500, tar~bal wrote:
>>
>>> "KK" > wrote in message
>>> news >>>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:08:05 -0800, Salmon Egg wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Everyone seems to miss the point that marriage is fundamentally
>>>>> about protecting children.
>>>>
>>>> Says you.
>>>>
>>>> If you want to be pedantic about it, to begin with it was about
>>>> dividing and combining property.
>>>>
>>>>> It is not a means of giving rights to spouses
>>>>
>>>> Much of it absolutely is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> whether heterosexual or not. A corollary was to combine power from
>>>>> separate families. Even for that purpose, children, especially male.
>>>>> children who could inherit land, were necessary. Marriage may be
>>>>> outmoded in many ways because much protection of children is
>>>>> provided by law even if parents are not married.. In my opinion. ALL
>>>>> so called rights from marriage should be because they benefit
>>>>> children--not sexual partners.
>>>>
>>>> You can imagine what your opinion is worth to someone who's told they
>>>> can't make the same legal commitment to another that you can.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I liked the idea I saw in TRUE magazine decades ago. Marriage
>>>>> licenses and consequent obligations expire after two years. Renewal
>>>>> is possible. If children result from the marriage, the license
>>>>> becomes permanent. Anything else, including civil unions among two
>>>>> or more adults can be handled by contract law.
>>>>
>>>> Close. It can *all* be handled by contract law. Either everyone has
>>>> to do it that way, or nobody should be forced to.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Including siblings?
>>
>> Two siblings can certainly draw up papers assigning one another medical
>> proxy decisions, estate details. If they share a home they can include
>> the details of who owes what portion of the mortgage, and agree
>> beforehand who's to keep the house (and its contents) if they part
>> ways.
>>
>> The only thing that's left is the marriage tax benefit (which is crap
>> IMO).
>
>
> Why should they be subjected to go through all of the extra steps that
> other married people don't have to go through.


I said above that *all* "marriages" can be handled by contract law. All
those things (and anything else they'd like) can be specified in the fine
print - for siblings, *** couples, straight couples.


>> There's no reason to call it "marriage" except to put a government
>> stamp on a religious ceremony.
>>
>> My academic, laboratory opinion of marriage is that government
>> shouldn't be involved in it at all. There should be some ceremony (the
>> marriage) with no legally binding ramifications, and then a civil
>> contract that goes hand in hand with it, with all the legal/secular
>> responsibilities.
>
> The ceremony is actually a contract between the man and the woman
> separate from all of the financial aspects. It's a verbal agreement to
> a lifelong commitment to be faithful and stand by each other's side.
> There is nothing religious about that concept.


And there's nothing "legal" about "standing by each other's side". And
the "faithful" part can certainly be part of the contract.


>
> Just an aside, I was married at Rolling Hills country club where they
> filmed Caddy Shack, a movie that was released the year my wife and I
> started dating.

That's awesome!