Quote:
Originally Posted by Elephant Walk
Right.
But the vast multitude of laws inherent in the marriage laws are not necessarily applicable to every marriage/every relationship. Therein lies the rub.
|
No, though it provides a baseline. If couples wish to modify those standards they can through additional paperwork. Honestly it makes sense to have a standard contract that can be modified as the couples see fit. But because it's so intertwined into law - for example requiring insurance companies to cover spouses, requiring hospitals allow spouses to visit, allowing spouses to obtain citizenship) spouses lose a lot of protection as well as responsibility without it.
Quote:
|
What's plausible is not always moral. For me, the intervention of government into marriage is a moral issue (and not in the weird Christian assumptions). Presumably, one may always be pragmatic but I don't feel thats always a simple assertion.
|
But plausiblity and morality have nothing to do with each other. I don't think I understand your use of morality there. I don't think government should interfere with marriage - any couple should be allowed to get married. However, I don't think that the government truly can get out of the marriage business either. Unless it were to adopt the idea of the state offering civil unions and marriages being the personal or religious ceremony. However it is perfectly possible for people who do not want the government involved in their relationship now to have a marriage ceremony without signing the certificate and being legally married.
As for being pragmatic, it's not the ideal solution ever, true. But personally I'd rather see equality in marriage law now than hold out for an ideal.*
*At least when it comes to the kind of first world problems we're talking about here.