This article actually makes me believe this position less than I did to begin with. I wish it went into more depth about saying what the guidelines replacing marriage should be.
I suppose for most benefits, I'd rather most of these were made public. I'm sure that'll raise the hackles of the libertarians in the group. I can come to something we'd agree on: Having health benefits handle by employers and government-funded insurance companies is a very bad idea.
Abolishing marriage would make childcare amorphous, but maybe childcare should be amorphous. Or, if the arangement is about parenting child, maybe you could formalize that union instead of the one between the parents. It could be a not-quite-adoption step to formally recognize responsibility for a child.
Health care is hideously expensive because of the government enforced monopolies granted to pharmaceutical companies and doctors. Additionally, government regulations cause a short supply of doctors and drugs by placing restrictions on what existing doctors and pharmaceutical companies can do. These restrictions all make sense on their own, but the overall effect collectively is to increase the cost of health care so much that it causes harm by making health care inaccessible
( ... )
Parenting childrenelegantelbowJuly 8 2003, 12:27:21 UTC
I think the legal system has already adjusted to deal with child parenting.
I believe there're courts demanding that non-custodial parents contribute cash, even if there was no marriage. In this age of DNA testing, courts are more willing to believe that they've correctly identified the father (i.d.ing the mother usually proves no trouble).
In a fantastical, wouldn't-it-be-interesting-if kind of way, I like the idea of parents writing up vows to their children. It could be written in such a way that genetically-unrelated folks could enter into these contracts as well, if they wanted to.
My G.A. from last year, A., told me that in Holland, people in their 20s and 30s don't get married any more, because the laws there uphold parental responsibility, and partner rights regardless of marriage state.
Well, I was thinking about someone basically getting step-parent status without having to be married to a parent. That way, it'd be possible to recognize guardians in several contexts.
I've got to see Holland some day. I can't think of it without laughing at the Eddie Izzard joke, "They have six official languages. They speak six languages, and they smoke pot. Where do they find the time?" I think it says something about the meaning of marriage that people are so less interested in doing it without this kind of government encouragement.
Comments 7
Reply
Reply
I feel like a broken record, both because I say the same thing over and over again, and because noone ever listens to me. *sigh*
-Ogre
Reply
I suppose for most benefits, I'd rather most of these were made public. I'm sure that'll raise the hackles of the libertarians in the group. I can come to something we'd agree on: Having health benefits handle by employers and government-funded insurance companies is a very bad idea.
Abolishing marriage would make childcare amorphous, but maybe childcare should be amorphous. Or, if the arangement is about parenting child, maybe you could formalize that union instead of the one between the parents. It could be a not-quite-adoption step to formally recognize responsibility for a child.
Reply
Reply
I believe there're courts demanding that non-custodial parents contribute cash, even if there was no marriage. In this age of DNA testing, courts are more willing to believe that they've correctly identified the father (i.d.ing the mother usually proves no trouble).
In a fantastical, wouldn't-it-be-interesting-if kind of way, I like the idea of parents writing up vows to their children. It could be written in such a way that genetically-unrelated folks could enter into these contracts as well, if they wanted to.
My G.A. from last year, A., told me that in Holland, people in their 20s and 30s don't get married any more, because the laws there uphold parental responsibility, and partner rights regardless of marriage state.
Reply
I've got to see Holland some day. I can't think of it without laughing at the Eddie Izzard joke, "They have six official languages. They speak six languages, and they smoke pot. Where do they find the time?" I think it says something about the meaning of marriage that people are so less interested in doing it without this kind of government encouragement.
Reply
Leave a comment