No, the government should NOT be poking into people's bedrooms! One of the reasons they got involved in marriage as an institution was to be sure children were being cared for, to protect inheritance, and like that. We now have sufficient other laws for those things, because so many parents are not married. But the marriage laws persist due to tax breaks, the coverage issues on insurance, and things like that. In all cases, there are more reasonable ways to handle the questions than to continue the antiquated concept of marriage licenses and marriage being something the government does. It ought to be completely private, and between any two or more people who want to make a commitment to one another. If they want the commitment to be legally enforceable, contract law should cover it. Or we could have "domestic corporations" or partnerships in the sense that businesses are partnerships. There are plenty of laws which can cover all bases; we don't need the marriage license bureau at all!
2006-07-09 14:43:55
·
answer #1
·
answered by auntb93again 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Hmm...I'd have to say that the state has an interest in a marriage, that's why they have those laws.
Making abortions illegal isn't my call, the law says that a man can never have legal control over a woman's body, when a state supreme court rejected a case where a husband wanted his wife to keep the baby. But I am all for creating a system where abortions are no longer necessary!
You got me on the gay thing, I don't understand what the problem is, it's not like I will ever marry one so I don't see how it will affect me...
2006-07-09 14:40:49
·
answer #2
·
answered by yars232c 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
in some circumstances the left is going so some distance to the left that evidently like it fairly is on the some distance suitable. As an severe, look on the tiny distinction between Hitler and Stalin. there is in right here a sprint of why we don't have known wellbeing coverage. The left needs too plenty administration and could have a organic tendency, often couched in terms of "being honest," to shrink the care available outdoors the government gadget. the main suitable suited will basically as clearly dislike any government gadget basically for the reason that's governmental. As regularly occurring, the two factors are very incorrect. we desire a elementary point of known wellbeing care, for a number of motives: (one million) there is the straight forward humanitarian ingredient, (2) we land up procuring a super variety of care that greater preventive centers could desire to ward off, and (3) some ingredient of wellbeing care are such as a public application. on the different hand, we choose the internal maximum sector for innovation and greater care, and no volume of altruism will replace for the earnings reason. Washington politics is so polarized these days, however, that there is surprisingly much no probability of sensible compromise.
2016-12-14 06:06:23
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
no i dont think they should control our love lives however, i have known a few situations where a mother who doesnt care for her children that she has..continues to have children that she doesnt care for and when something like that happens and they are on government assistance i think someone should be able to step in and say when enough is enough. for the childrens sake and the sake of the tax payers.
2006-07-09 14:39:40
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
No that is not government controling our life. the government is only doing what the majority of the population wants. for better or for worse.
2006-07-09 14:45:01
·
answer #5
·
answered by Augie 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
i WOULD SAY SO. SO IF YOU THINK THE GOV'T CONTROLLED OUR LOVE LIFE BUSH AND THE MRS. WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO PRO-CREATE. I MEAN THEY HAD TWO BASS-*** PARTY-WHORES AS DAUGHTERS, NOW THATS GENETIC.
SEE THATS WHERE STEM CELL RESEARCH WOULD HAVE WORKED.
BUT CONSIDERING WE HAVE BUSH AS THE PREZ. NADA WILL HAPPEN. THEY'RE 21 NOW, AND CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT???
OH YEAH CHENNEYS DAUGHTER, NOW SHES THE BRAVEHEART, SHES THE WOMAN.
go LIBERALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ggggggggrrrrrrrrr
2006-07-09 14:48:26
·
answer #6
·
answered by Robin G 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
in china your allowed 1 baby.
2006-07-09 14:39:25
·
answer #7
·
answered by filthymaddog 2
·
0⤊
0⤋