End Marriage Laws - a good idea?

[Billy T]

An “equality alternative” to government recognition of marriage for homosexuals, is for government to not sanction any marriage. (Religious organization can do this for people wishing it done, but it has no force in law.) People could register with the government, if they chose, who could visit them in hospitals, and the other rights conferred now by marriage with more flexibility (Why are these “marriage rights” now not divisible to different people, if one so desires?). For people too lazy to register individual choices, there could be a standard, sex-independent, “couples’ default” registration, effective after one (or x) years of cohabitation and activated by the request of either cohabitant and terminated by individual registration at anytime, by either party .

But this would never fly - Divorce lawyers will stop it. They are a drain on the finances of half the population and needless in the internet age with this plan.

Society (government as agent) has an interest in children, not yet able to decide for them selves. Laws relating to them would still be required. Mother, with one or more consenting adults in binding CCC, Child Care Contract, could care for them, in accord with these laws. A standard CCC should be encouraged, but unemployed divorce lawyers could customize it. All members of the society should pay for the care of the next generation, as they do now for public schools, even if they have no children. (Mother in conforming to the child laws gets financial aid for them and loses them if serious violations are repeated etc.) Equality of financial support for child care, at least at some minimal level, would do a lot towards eradication of social problems in one generation. Society would still need the stimulus “work to get rich as rich have more choices, ” but it should not produce mal-nourished, underdeveloped, poorly-educated youth who currently fill our jails etc. IMHO

 

[c20H25N3o]

Laws are for the lawless. As for you, well live in love and you fulfill the law!

easy

 

[geodesic]

Laws are for the lawless

And without laws we are all lawless
More seriously, I'm not too sure about how well your plan would work in practice. It kind of assumes that because marriage/divorce will be less serious, couples will separate less acrimoniously. Also, custody of children should be agreed upon separation (there's a job for all those lawyers) rather than automatically decided in favour of the female partner, except for very young children.
Other ideas you could consider are the family as a pure economic unit, temporary marriage registration, group marriages...

 

[Billy T]

Your point that the mother should not automatically get child custody is well taken. - I agree, but for pre-school children, I think this should be automatic if no one objects and provides valid reasons for their objection. There are plenty of bad mothers out there.

You also miss understood partially. I am sure that the animosity that often is associated with the termination of a cohabitation union, will NOT be reduced by getting rid of marriage as a government specified union. That was not the purpose. I think plan has several advantages, so it is hard to succinctly state the purpose, but I’ll try. - Basic idea is (1) for the legal system to treat all consenting cohabitation unions the same. (three woman+two men, one man+one woman, two women, two men, etc. any combination that all the participants freely chose.) and (2) to provide a minimum level of support / supervision of children. They are raised with the cost paid by the society as a whole to not have inadequate care provided as often occurs in poor families under the current system where money is not available for both shoes and beer, etc. ( Some sort of coupons that can be spent only for items on the approved list given to all mothers, including the rich ones, etc.)

I also agree and intended, that upon the dissolution of a union that has children, if the parties agree on how the children should be raised, I.e. visiting rights, supplemental support costs (above the government supplied minimum) , etc. should be divided, then the government normally only records the agreement and it has force of law. Clearly, custody / care dissolutions agreements that require sexual services from the child etc. don’t meet the government’s requirements and are not automatically given the force of law. I.e. there would be a minue of standard dissolution child care agreements that were granted automatic approval, and 90+% of the cases could avoid legal disputes with one of them. In disputed cases, the child’s interest, as society as a whole defines it, come first.

And without laws we are all lawless
More seriously, I'm not too sure about how well your plan would work in practice. It kind of assumes that because marriage/divorce will be less serious, couples will separate less acrimoniously. Also, custody of children should be agreed upon separation (there's a job for all those lawyers) rather than automatically decided in favour of the female partner, except for very young children.
Other ideas you could consider are the family as a pure economic unit, temporary marriage registration, group marriages...

 

[lixluke]

Why does government sanction marriage anyway when they sanction divorce?
It just goes to show how amazingly retarded the governemnt is.