Wonktonodi said:
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? |
The state shouldn't have the ability to do that to anybody. If I or my casual boyfriend decided not to testify against each-other the state should respect that and not assume that we are lieing just as much as if two married persons did the same. Don't you agree? We both live in the same house, and share privacy. Also, what is the difference between two persons being a couple and marriage? They decided to sign a paper declaring that they are a couple and added in some contractual obligations. I don't see how that is anything that should afford them special legal priveleges over other people.
Quite well actually. The supreme court (via common law) just outlawed legislation as unconstitutional that says two persons of the same sex can't form a specific contract. It wasn't a statute which did this.
So you don't believe in equal treatment? You only believe in equal treatment for those whose contracts you agree with. I get it. In that case please don't paint yourself as an arbitrator of equality. You are not.
I don't say take those benefits away specifically from spouses (although there is an argument to be made about reforming these things.) I am saying that the person should clearly denote who gets the benefits upon their death. How exactly can the state determine who that person wants their property to go to more than they can?
Citzenship shouldn't be a thing. It wasn't a thing for the first hundred or so years of the existence of the United States of America. I believe in free immigration as an ideal. But if we are to talk about our current reality, I think the immigration system should be reformed to allow anybody to sponsor an immigrant for a variety of reasons and contracts. Common-law marriage could be among these reasons.