sc94597 said:
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 who 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 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. |
perhaps not, there are many powers that the states have with the criminal justices systesm that are far too large. the "special" rights are ones they signed up for, all couples that aren'y maried yet don't have it, those that are do. Since you aren't legally married to your bf, they wouldn't think of you as attached to him and thus don't think of him as leverage.
14th constitutional amendmemnt. considering that it had to go to the supreme court, I'd say on the state level people weren't doing that well. if it wasn't an issue it wouldn't have gone that far. most people in most states coudn't just tell judges they were married and get the benefits.
I believe in a unified law, I don't believe in people trying to make their own law outside the law then expecting it to have the same standing. I don't believe people should be allowed to put anything in a contract, that's not that I don't think some people, all people. You can try and say I'm not for equality, but contracts aren't people, you had NO qualifiers in there, I don't agree with contracts that would then infringe on other people rights, (a contract to kill someone) contracts that significantly take away people right, slavey, opressive work conditions, you can say people had to agree to them, but if you take the state out of the equation, that leave too much room for coertion. Peoples rights aren't limited by their own abilities to defend them. That's why I'm in favor of the state having limitations on what people can do with contracts.
I think we are talking around eachother here. The simple thing is many institutions offer benefits to spouces, some do to significant others, those get paid out because the people were married, those do discriminate agains those who are single, they themselves lose nothing. If they have a significant other but aren't married, well then they lose out, but they know that is the fact currently with the system as it is. Before same sex mairages were legal it wasn't a choice of being married or not, it was just no. But in those cases it's not the state the decides who gets the benefits, it's the couple that got married that did. People when they make their wills determine who gets what, if they don't then things
It was enough of a thing that it's in the constitution as a requirement for president. There were also plenty of laws passed involving it including the Aliens and sedition acts back in 1798. Though those had controversies and some were let to expire in 1800 and 1801, others were used during WWII though that's movie away from citizenship through getting married, the point is that it is important to have that as a way of not having people deported. Yes there needs to be plenty of reform with imigration , though I don't think taking this away is part of the solution.