| sc94597 said: Yes the communicative and testimonial priveleges should be abolished. Such laws already vary among states. Notice that in most cases that the first only protects private conversations after they were married. What is so special about marriage that gives them this privelege? Why couldn't they be afforded this privelege when they were dating? Alimony agreements can be made through written (or as in the case of marriage) verbal contracts which are rewarded among the judge's reasoning. Again, if forming contracts is too much of a bother, you can use the money you would have paid for a marriage license to purchase a pre-formatted contract bundle which your lawyer would summarize for you and your partner(s). If you are that lazy that is and you don't want to put in the work for a fool-proof legal contract that you both agree with. The statual law =/= common law. All a person needs to do is tell a judge he/she is married and the judge is obliged to accept it, as long as there is evidence to substantiate this (a signed contract or some other record.) Common law is the law created by precedent cases of judges, and it works very differently from statutes. The state will enforce contracts in any system in which the state has a monopoly on the issuance of law. It will not oblige state mandated licensing (what it does now), it will not impose its own stipulations to these contracts (as it does now) , nor will it give special priveleges to certain contracts over others (as it does now.) The argument is not to get the state to stop enforcing contracts (that is a different argument to be made.) The argument is for them to enforce them equally and fairly and for it to not alter said contracts with its own statutes. |
strongly disgree with your first paragraph. and there is a big diffrerence between dating someone and getting married to them. I don't want to give the state more room for abuse by trying to lock up one partner "for not talking" to get to the other one even if they do know nothing.
second paragraph, and how well have things like that worked out for same sex comples? to much doubt left it for many who have been committed for decades.
third paragraph, far too libertarian for me, ifthe state will the one enforcing it, it should meet certain standards or be thrown out. such as someone has already committed to something in a contract and can't commit to it again,state laws aren't just there for the betterment of the state but for legal protections of it's citizens.
beyond that. Social security benefits and other types of death benefits, from pensions, vetrans benefits et. You want to say they aren't fair to people who were single, but the people who were given those benefits new that there spose would get them, taking them away to be "equal" would be very wrong.
getting citizenship to a spose. how would you replace this or this anther one that should just go away?
