apocalypsos: (Default)
[personal profile] apocalypsos
[Error: unknown template qotd]

You know what I think? I think government should get out of the marriage game in every way, shape, and form, I think marriage licenses should only expire if you're one of those fucknuts who thinks marriage is what locks straight people into procreating and you haven't knocked up your wife or been knocked up by the end of the first year of marriage, and I think this is one of the stupider fucking questions the writer's block has generated.

Date: 2010-03-01 06:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dorei.livejournal.com
the problem with that is that marriage is very much a part of our taxation system. How would you propose separating those?

Date: 2010-03-01 06:46 pm (UTC)
conuly: (Default)
From: [personal profile] conuly
Tax according to dependents, and allow one - and only one! - adult non-blood-relative to count.

Date: 2010-03-01 07:12 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dorei.livejournal.com
This doesn't work if you're married to your cousin. ;)

Date: 2010-03-01 07:33 pm (UTC)
conuly: (Default)
From: [personal profile] conuly
Make your cousin/spouse get a job.

Date: 2010-03-01 06:57 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lothlorienbaby.livejournal.com
Agreed, this is a stupid question. Are we going to require that people pass a vision test in order to stay married?

Date: 2010-03-01 07:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] insidian.livejournal.com
On the one hand, yes, government should stay out of my relationships. But on the other hand...

*shrug* I don't know. I think there's something logical and thoughtful at work if, every once in a while, you had to take a look at the marriage/union/friendship/convenient farce/whatever and decide whether it's working or not.

Probably totes apocryphal, but I remember at one time reading about ancient Irish marriage rites, and how once a year, couples would decide if they would stay together or not. Then it's not that you're "stuck with" whoever you married, but you get to choose them, over and over again.

I love it as a concept, but as a law? um... no thanks.

Date: 2010-03-01 07:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dorei.livejournal.com
You're thinking of "handfasting" and it's a year and a day.

Date: 2010-03-01 07:41 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gretazreta.livejournal.com
As someone who's married, I think this is a great question at heart. Because yeah, like the commenter above says, rethinking (and reaffirming) your commitment is an excellent thing.

But pshaw. They'd just charge you a hundred bucks to stay married each year and that would suck. Also DUH. It's not like divorce isn't an option for all the people who might think - yeah, no! - about wanting to stay married if they had to renew.

And I agree, the government should really just STAY OUT OF IT. And as someone who's CAR REGISTRATION regularly lapses for months at a time while I get cash... there is not enough NO in the world.

Date: 2010-03-01 07:51 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lavenderfrost.livejournal.com
IDK - I keep thinking of the really disastrous marriages that end not only in divorce, but things like having to hunt a dead-beat ex-spouse down for child support. We NEED state intervention in some cases to make sure people and their children are cared for.

People can screw each other over so easily if the state doesn't meddle in marriage at all - that means all the protections that make marriage such a Safety Net (and make people so anal about urging against pre-marital sex and unwed mothers) will be gone.

Not to say I think we should have marriage license renewals - only if they're free or sufficiently low in cost. (Like, $10 a year or so?) Maybe it could be a source of income to help states that are struggling to balance their budgets?

Date: 2010-03-01 09:01 pm (UTC)
fyrdrakken: (Balance)
From: [personal profile] fyrdrakken
This, yes. Homosexuals are fighting so hard for the right to marry precisely because there are so many rights and protections inherent in the ability to legally designate another person of your choosing as your closest kin, in addition to the special claims people are allowed to have on one another when severing such a legally-recognized partnership. I'd rather have religion give up its pretended exclusive claim on the "sacrament" of marriage, and loosen up the legal restrictions on who's allowed to marry.

Date: 2010-03-01 09:05 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lavenderfrost.livejournal.com
Word. As long as marriage has federal/state benefits, it's religious organizations that need to back the fuck out. Marriage is, first and foremost, a legal contract.

Date: 2010-03-01 08:58 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vire-volte.livejournal.com
I don't know. Should nationalities have expiration dates?

Profile

apocalypsos: (Default)
tatty bojangles

November 2017

S M T W T F S
   1 234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags