Rhodri
Well-Known Member
'for' or 'against' and why.
Agree 100%, very well said. Its only there as a political football that politicians can kick around to score points with their base and maintain a partisan divide.Neither. The future of marital equality lies in deregulating marriage, not in adding more regulation. Take the whole thing - heterosexual and homosexual - out of the government's hands. I don't see any compelling reason for it to be there in the first place.
Agree 100%, very well said. Its only there as a political football that politicians can kick around to score points with their base and maintain a partisan divide.
Neither. The future of marital equality lies in deregulating marriage, not in adding more regulation. Take the whole thing - heterosexual and homosexual - out of the government's hands. I don't see any compelling reason for it to be there in the first place.
Haven't done a comprehensive study into all the relative codification, but I expect that a lot of the defining intent within laws pertaining to marriage have to do with the idea of a continuance of property ownership within the family structure. We probably codified all of that proceeding from a basic need to maintain mutual respect of life, property and family in order to preserve domestic order and cooperation. A true family produces heirs from the physical body and the continuation of our species requires a certain level of legal concern be taken. It's one of those basic truths that's so obvious that it's pretty easy to miss it entirely.
You read that paragraph above and might get an uncontrollable urge to say, "well... duh!" However, it is very important for codified law to be so completely delineated in one form or another, else anarchy can and will destroy everything.