Louisiana JP Refuses Interracial Marriage License

[TheStatutoryApe]

How do you call someone who has a problem with people from interracial descent and thus wishes that they do not exist? Someone who thinks in black and white? Would racialist or racial separatist be a better description?

If I were to say that I feel bad for the things that children that are born into poverty go through in life and wished to do something to prevent children from being born into poverty would that make me bigoted against poor people?
I believe the judge said that he would prefer not to put children through the experience of dealing with discrimination. If you have a source for your assertion that he "has a problem with" mixed race people and "wishes that they do not exist" then please cite it. Otherwise you are just putting words in the man's mouth based on a perception born out of ignorance. Unless of course you know him and have failed to note that so far?

He stated that the reason for denial was based on the ostracization faced by their children based on them being mixed. That is discriminatory, and that is factual. I think based on those statements the most logical conclusion is that he holds racial biases. So my statements don't disprove anything. His arguments are not factually valid- it's an assumption fueled by prejuidice. I have not heard of him having black friends, but being friends with another race does not automatically disqualify him from being racist.

You are twisting many points. There is a definition of discriminate that fits your argument but the general definition of the word does not equate to the general definition of 'racial discrimination' which is possessed of the connotation that hatred and intolerance are involved. The same with your use of the term 'racial bias'. You seem to be taking the technical appropriateness of the application of these terms and leaping from there to conclusions based on the general application of terms. Conclusions about the inner thoughts and convictions of a man whom you do not know and have extremely limited knowledge of.



For anyone here that likes to make assumptions about people they do not know and couch biased accusations in the technical appropriateness of the terms used in 'logical deductions' of things impossible to know, you might be interested in a site called StormFront. Careful though, they like to cover up the logical failings of their arguments by slapping on a veneer of moral superiority.

 

[Galteeth]

I once found myself in a rather suprising argument with a very liberal friend of mine who was against interracial/cultural marriage. She was not at all racist. She was actually very fond of other cultures and concerned about the dilution and subversion of other people's cultures through homogeneity.

To believe that this man could not in fact have some sort of altruistic if misguided motivation because he's a white man in the south is rather bigoted in and of itself.

There can be racists on all sides of the political spectrum. The idea that links between race and culture are worth preserving is in itself a racist notion.

 

[Galteeth]

LOL

The states versus the US is a bizarre and confusing thing. I don't think states should be able to do their own thing, as it is often misguided, short sighted and serves the priviledged few.

This is a particularly big deal in american politics right now. I would have a lot to say on this subject but it somewhat tangenital to the thread topic.

 

[Monique]

If I were to say that I feel bad for the things that children that are born into poverty go through in life and wished to do something to prevent children from being born into poverty would that make me bigoted against poor people?

If you would say that poor people can't marry: yes. You are being totally ignorant here, if you feel so concerned about people you should help them to improve their position and not ostracize them.

If you want a citation: "I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way", if that is not an oxymoron than what is.

If he feels so concerned about people who are not of a pure race than he should start a campaign that would lead to the acceptance of people of all descents and not reinforce the differences. Enough said.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If you would say that poor people can't marry: yes. You are being totally ignorant here, if you feel so concerned about people you should help them to improve their position and not ostracize them.

If you want a citation: "I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way", if that is not an oxymoron than what is.

If he feels so concerned about people who are not of a pure race than he should start a campaign that would lead to the acceptance of people of all descents and not reinforce the differences. Enough said.

So you would say the idea to prevent the marriages would be a poor choice of remedy. Does having misguided ideas of how to help people make one a bigot?

Edit: and in your citation I do not see where he says he wishes interracial people to not exist.

I am not anti-religion. I just don't believe in going to church and using mythology as a crutch for a lack of understanding of the world around us. That does not mean however that I have a problem with religious people or wish that they did not exist.

 

[xxChrisxx]

If he feels so concerned about people who are not of a pure race than he should start a campaign that would lead to the acceptance of people of all descents and not reinforce the differences. Enough said.

Damn right.

Last time I checked being married was not strictly necessary for having a baby, the bolidy functions work just as well between unmarried couples. So they could have a child anyway, making denying the marriage utterly pointless.

It's also a jump to believe that the child will with 100% certainly have a difficult life because of its mixed origin.It's time to both beg the question and make some assumptions here.

This takes place in Louisiana, the JOP is, with a reasonable degree of certainty, Christian. Further to that, being in the bible belt, he is also morelikely to have stricter interpretation of the Bible, meaning he is likely to be against abortion.

In the above case, who gives him the right to essentially play God by deciding who should and should not be born. Which acts also essentially like a preemptive abortion.

His justification was that 'the child is likely to suffer later'.

I wonder how far to take this statement, what constitutes suffering? How much suffering is ok? Should:

People who are ginger.
People who are poor.
People who are ugly.
People who are thick.
People who short sighted.
People who are predisposed to genetic conditions.

Now not be allowed to get married or have children. As each of the above will lead then to have a less than perfect life, and will at somestage lead to difficulties or persecution (mostly in childhood) I used to rip people for being a 'carrot top' all the time. I also got teased for my glasses.My thoughts:

Couple should have the baby and move to somewhere that isn't filled with idiots who don't like black people. (Let's face it odds are it's not the white person he has a problem with)

EDIT: In fact they should definitely get pregnant then ask to be married again. They can't tell them to abort the child, and they would have to marry them to reduce the child suffering. Not letting them get married will open the child to be ostracised for being a bastard as well.
TSA

Edit: and in your citation I do not see where he says he wishes interracial people to not exist.

"I just don't believe in mixing the races that way"

This.

You can be stubborn and say that strictly it doesn't mean that he wants all mixed race people to disappear in a poof of smoke. Which i'd have to agree it doesn't.

But what a curious thing to say. Mixing the races. Why not?

Surely for inclusion that's the best thing that could happen, we all intermix and produce a whole generation of nicely homogeneous babies. There certainly can't be any colour discrimination we we all the same hue.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

My thoughts:

Couple should have the baby and move to somewhere that isn't filled with idiots who don't like black people. (Let's face it odds are it's not the white person he has a problem with)

Note that there are quite a few black people in Louisiana and that the governor, Piyush Jindal, is a fairly dark skinned fellow. Note also that there are plenty of people of all colours who have issues with interracial marriages, including black people. This man did not pluck his idea that mixed race children have greater difficulty with discrimination (from both whites and blacks) out of thin air.

TSA


"I just don't believe in mixing the races that way"

This.

You can be stubborn and say that strictly it doesn't mean that he wants all mixed race people to disappear in a poof of smoke. Which i'd have to agree it doesn't.

But what a curious thing to say. Mixing the races. Why not?

Surely for inclusion that's the best thing that could happen, we all intermix and produce a whole generation of nicely homogeneous babies. There certainly can't be any colour discrimination we we all the same hue.

I do not agree with the man and I am not defending his position. I am being stubborn about people making the same sorts of broad generalizations about people that they are criticizing and feeling it is ok because they feel they have the moral high ground, much like the people whom they are criticizing.


Bigotry is not about the colour of people's skin or their sexuality or gender. Bigotry comes from a way of thinking and perceiving. To prevent discrimination against black people or homosexuals or women does not do much for the issue at large if the way of thinking is not changed.

 

[Galteeth]

People who are predisposed to genetic conditions.

I personally have a severe genetic disease, and I am not oppossed to the idea of VOLUNTARY eugenics (I'm not talking about races, or height, or any of the other things you mentioned, just the specific notion of trying to eradicate genetic diseases.) I feel like it would be extremely irresponsible for me to have children, especially given the facts of overpopulation. This is a bit offtopic but it might make for a good discussion in a different post. Perhaps there is a term for this that doesn't carry the negative connotations of "eugenics". Directed evolution perhaps? "Intelligent" Design?

 

[Monique]

I personally have a severe genetic disease, and I am not oppossed to the idea of VOLUNTARY eugenics (I'm not talking about races, or height, or any of the other things you mentioned, just the specific notion of trying to eradicate genetic diseases.) I feel like it would be extremely irresponsible for me to have children, especially given the facts of overpopulation. This is a bit offtopic but it might make for a good discussion in a different post. Perhaps there is a term for this that doesn't carry the negative connotations of "eugenics". Directed evolution perhaps? "Intelligent" Design?

If there is a risk for serious genetic disease that has a high penetrance (you can be sure that the child will be afflicted with the debilitating disease) you can opt for preimplantation or prenatal diagnosis. Only a few conditions qualify and this is reviewed by an ethical board.

 

[xxChrisxx]

I personally have a severe genetic disease, and I am not oppossed to the idea of VOLUNTARY eugenics (I'm not talking about races, or height, or any of the other things you mentioned, just the specific notion of trying to eradicate genetic diseases.) I feel like it would be extremely irresponsible for me to have children, especially given the facts of overpopulation. This is a bit offtopic but it might make for a good discussion in a different post. Perhaps there is a term for this that doesn't carry the negative connotations of "eugenics". Directed evolution perhaps? "Intelligent" Design?

Well maybe that was a bad example as a physical condition is different from being shunned by a few idiots.

I don't think it affects my point too much, yes it would be irresponsible and maybe unwise for you to have children, but there is nothing to stop you having children if you so wirshed 'running the risk so to speak'.

This couple have probably already considered that a mixed race child could be shunned by a few bigoted members of both the black and white comminites. It is highly unlikely to be completely oustedfrom society however. They have decided that it's 'a risk' they are willling to take. Only for someone to veto their decision.

Note that there are quite a few black people in Louisiana and that the governor, Piyush Jindal, is a fairly dark skinned fellow. Note also that there are plenty of people of all colours who have issues with interracial marriages, including black people. This man did not pluck his idea that mixed race children have greater difficulty with discrimination (from both whites and blacks) out of thin air.

It's true they have problems with discrimination, it seems that being born is unthinkable. This is societies problem, society should be changed. Not attempting the voluntary elimination of mixed children.

I do not agree with the man and I am not defending his position. I am being stubborn about people making the same sorts of broad generalizations about people that they are criticizing and feeling it is ok because they feel they have the moral high ground, much like the people whom they are criticizing.Bigotry is not about the colour of people's skin or their sexuality or gender. Bigotry comes from a way of thinking and perceiving. To prevent discrimination against black people or homosexuals or women does not do much for the issue at large if the way of thinking is not changed.

I agree with pretty much everything here.

However, in this case I feel the snap conclusion that this JoP is a <insert crude term here> is perfectly justified. It's a BS and feeble case NOT to allow someone to get married as they can have children anyway

 

[BobG]

Um, you need to get a marriage license BEFORE you're allowed to get married at all, even in a church. The church would then sign the marriage certificate that says you did the deed, not the license that says you're allowed to do it legally.

Yes, you do need the marriage license before you're allowed to get married. But, you're not married until the license is signed by the person performing the ceremony. http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/louisiana/index.shtml

And, believe it or not, just because you have your marriage license sent to you in the mail does not mean you are officially married. You need to have a justice of the peace or a religious clergyman sign the document. On your wedding day, you'll give your chaplain your marriage license, then after the ceremony, he'll sign it and send it to the proper government agency for validation.

The process does make one wonder under what circumstances a justice of the peace or a church official should refuse to marry a couple since the screening is done before the license is ever given to the couple.

For a church official, the decisions are made for religious reasons ("You haven't stepped foot in the church for 15 years, and now you want a church wedding because why?! Quit reading fairy tales and either actually join our church or get married by a justice of the peace!"; "Yes, I'll be glad to marry you in the church, but we have a class we require all newlyweds to take before we'll do the ceremony"; etc). To get married in a Catholic church, I think at least one of the couple has to be Catholic, but both do have to agree to raise the kids in the Catholic religion.

I have no idea what criteria a Justice of the Peace should use to decide whether to sign the marriage license, since the couple had to be old enough, single, etc before they ever obtained the license.

 

[Alfi]

but around here ANYone can be a "justice of the peace." Take a quick test, get a certificate, sign a pledge and now you can marry people.

Knowing what was in the pledge might answer the question if he over stepped his bounds.

 

[mheslep]

...The states versus the US is a bizarre and confusing thing. I don't think states should be able to do their own thing, as it is often misguided, short sighted and serves the priviledged few.

That tosses out 200 years of federalism in two sentences. I'd like to see state power and recognition of the 10th amendment substantially restored to a balance w/ the federal government. Why? Because:

[...]It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.[...]

On the other hand we know it is unwise to allow all power to remain with local factional interests, this JoP a good demonstration as to why. So a balance was wisely drawn:

[...]It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors [e.g. in the case of single national government], you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; [the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.[...]

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

 

[BobG]

The states versus the US is a bizarre and confusing thing. I don't think states should be able to do their own thing, as it is often misguided, short sighted and serves the priviledged few.

That tosses out 200 years of federalism in two sentences. I'd like to see state power and recognition of the 10th amendment substantially restored to a balance w/ the federal government. Why? Because:

On the other hand we know it is unwise to allow all power to remain with local factional interests, this JoP a good demonstration as to why. So a balance was wisely drawn:

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

Not only that, but any resident of small midwestern states should be very happy about states' rights. The majority of the US populations currently bribe residents in most of the states to implement policies the majority of the US population favors.

States like New York, California, and Illinois (plus a few others) pay more money in taxes to the federal government than the federal government returns to the state in benefits. Small states like Alaska, New Mexico, Mississippi, and, yes, even Kansas, receive more benefits from the federal government than residents pay to the federal government.

For example, when Bush was President, many states implemented abstinence only sex education simply because the federal government gave more money for education to states that did so. On the other hand, some states found the abstinence only sex education programs to be so objectionable that you couldn't pay them to teach it (literally).

Likewise, Palin and Sanford at least talked about rejecting stimulus funds because of the perceived strings attached to the money. The states could choose the money or choose to think independently of the federal government and the individual currently in charge.

 

[Evo]

Not only that, but any resident of small midwestern states should be very happy about states' rights. The majority of the US populations currently bribe residents in most of the states to implement policies the majority of the US population favors.

States like New York, California, and Illinois (plus a few others) pay more money in taxes to the federal government than the federal government returns to the state in benefits. Small states like Alaska, New Mexico, Mississippi, and, yes, even Kansas, receive more benefits from the federal government than residents pay to the federal government.

For example, when Bush was President, many states implemented abstinence only sex education simply because the federal government gave more money for education to states that did so. On the other hand, some states found the abstinence only sex education programs to be so objectionable that you couldn't pay them to teach it (literally).

Likewise, Palin and Sanford at least talked about rejecting stimulus funds because of the perceived strings attached to the money. The states could choose the money or choose to think independently of the federal government and the individual currently in charge.

This is the kind of thing I am against, too much of what goes on in Kansas is controlled by the bible thumping crowd. There was a serious economic impact to Kansas a few years ago when the schoolboard decided to re-write science and allow the teaching of ID. Several very large employers that had decided to build and create jobs here backed out, specifically citing the fact that they did not feel that they would be able to recruit top notch employees due to the impression that Kansas was so backwards academically.

 

[ideasrule]

There was a serious economic impact to Kansas a few years ago when the schoolboard decided to re-write science and allow the teaching of ID. Several very large employers that had decided to build and create jobs here backed out, specifically citing the fact that they did not feel that they would be able to recruit top notch employees due to the impression that Kansas was so backwards academically.

Interesting. That's the sort of economic pressure we need more of: if you don't stay sane (or at least refrain from publicly showing off your insanity), you don't get the jobs.

 

[ideasrule]

His justification was that 'the child is likely to suffer later'.

I wonder how far to take this statement, what constitutes suffering? How much suffering is ok? Should:

People who are ginger.
People who are poor.
People who are ugly.
People who are thick.
People who short sighted.
People who are predisposed to genetic conditions.

Now not be allowed to get married or have children.

That's like saying people shouldn't drink water because drinking 14 L causes water intoxication. The fact that anything is harmful when taken to extremes doesn't prove that this judge should not have denied the marriage. It certainly doesn't prove the judge was racist, even if he was stupid or flat-out wrong.

To answer your questions, I certainly believe people who have serious genetic conditions should not have children. Would you want your kids to have cystic fibrosis or harlequin ichthyosis, for example? You probably wouldn't mind color blindless, but how about severe autism or Duchenne muscular dystrophy? People yet to be born will nevertheless become "real" one day, and I think their right to not suffer from cystic fibrosis trumps whatever reasons their parents have for having unprotected sex.

I already addressed poverty: I simply do not believe parents too poor to support children should be allowed to give birth. As for the others, being ugly/ginger is borderline, and I wouldn't recommend people who are thick or short sighted to have children. My philosophy is that if you can't take care of the children, you shouldn't have them.

 

[xxChrisxx]

It certainly doesn't prove the judge was racist, even if he was stupid or flat-out wrong.

I already addressed poverty: I simply do not believe parents too poor to support children should be allowed to give birth. As for the others, being ugly/ginger is borderline, and I wouldn't recommend people who are thick or short sighted to have children. My philosophy is that if you can't take care of the children, you shouldn't have them.

Glad you agree the JoP was an idiot.

I've already conceded that a genetic condition was a bad example above.

I agree that people shouldn't have childern if they con't support their needs. However what level of wealth constitues poor? If they can meet the childs basic needs, but not treat them often. Is this the minimum requirement? The child will be teased for not having the best things, is this grounds to deny a birth?

However your comments on ugly/short sighted/ginger/ low intelligence parents are all crap and actually really irritate me for some reason.

If a child is to be born into a loving family who can support their needs, what the hell I say. Thats all that matters.

 

[Alfi]

Since this thread is already side tracked, I'll ask.
On the idea of, if you got it don't spread it.
Am I correct in thinking that, in just a few generations, type 1 diabetics could be eliminated or at least the number of people with it could be seriously reduced?

 

[xxChrisxx]

No it coudn't be eliminated (totally), as its not directly genetically related (hereditary). Ie if you've got it, its not 100% certain that your child would have it. However stopping people with it from breeding would reduce the likelyhood of occurence.

You can be genetically predisposed to some autoimmunity, increasing the likelyhood of the onset of type 1 diabetes, but almost all people are genetically predisposed to something detrimental. If you rigidly implemented 'if you've got it don't spread it' the vast majority of the population of the planet shoudnt reproduce.


This has now totally exhausted my knowledge of anything biologically related.

 

[Sorry!]

I'm just wondering. Why exactly are we comparing a person of mixed race to a person who has a genetic disease?

They are completely different. And I'm feeling slightly offended...
It's like what some people are trying to say is:
Do you want your child to be born blind? No? Then we should prevent it and while we're at it let's prevent interracial marriages to prevent mixed-babies from potentially being conceived. (which marriage has NOTHING to do with anyways IMO)

 

[Monique]

I'm just wondering. Why exactly are we comparing a person of mixed race to a person who has a genetic disease?




They are completely different. And I'm feeling slightly offended...

Both would have a poor outcome in life, the comparison is ridiculous. The ethics of pre-implantation diagnosis are very strict, exactly to prevent people from selecting and out-casting certain conditions. That some people here don't see a problem and feel the need to protect such an individual in mind-boggling.

 

[Galteeth]

Both would have a poor outcome in life, the comparison is ridiculous. The ethics of pre-implantation diagnosis are very strict, exactly to prevent people from selecting and out-casting certain conditions. That some people here don't see a problem and feel the need to protect such an individual in mind-boggling.

I assume "pre-implantation" refers to artificial insemination? What are the general ethical arguments against genetic screening (not related to races)?

 

[JasonRox]

I do not understand the logic.

What logic is there to understand?

 

[mgb_phys]

I do not understand the logic.

Mixed marriages (ie between a man and a women) often lead to babies - which are a terrible source of both noise and chemical pollution.
There is also the very real risk in America that they will grow up to become either politicians or lawyers.

Although banning these 'odd-sex' marriages won't entirely prevent babies it is a good start.

 

[Sorry!]

As well how are people claiming that this action was not racist... whether he meant to be racist or not he still was.

Unless of course people of mixed-race now are 'raceless' people who can not be discriminated against.

 

[Monique]

I assume "pre-implantation" refers to artificial insemination? What are the general ethical arguments against genetic screening (not related to races)?

No, pre-implantation would mean in vitro fertilization, followed by diagnosis and then implantation. You can select for things that are not a medical necessity, opening the way for designer babies. It means that you can decide what kind of individuals are going to be born. An example is that a family had a sick child with an inherited blood disease that needed a bone-marrow transplant. Both parents could not be donors, so they had to wait for a suitable donor to come along.

They wanted to have another baby and decided for pre-implantation diagnostics, out of the blue the parents asked whether the doctor could also match the immunity-genes of the unborn baby with their sick child (so that it could be a donor). Of course the doctor was dumb founded and had to deliberate the ethics of the request.

This is what happened: "I was very worried about it,” he says. “We had meetings. We published in a serious bioethics journal.” Hughes is not the kind of person who finds it easy to say no, and it’s not hard to imagine him taking pains to avoid the impatient parents. One day the husband tracked him down at his lab unannounced. “I'll never forget what he told me,” says Hughes. “He says, ‘While you’re running around the world sitting at mahogany tables debating the bioethics of this, our daughter is dying.'” (Newsweek International June 30/ July 7 issue).

Finally it was decided to select both against the mutation that caused the genetic disease and for the genes that would match with the sick child's immune system and a healthy baby was born. The youngest child could be a bone marrow donor and the older child was cured. In a sense you are creating a baby with the purpose to act as a donor, interventions such as this should not be taken lightly.

 

[mgb_phys]

As well how are people claiming that this action was not racist.

Depends on your definition of racist.
If racist = taking into account race when making the decision then yes it is racist (in the same way that affirmative action would be)
However, if racist = treating somebody detrimentally because of their race then he could argue that this isn't racist since he treated the black and white partners equally. (see the virginia vs love discussion with evo)

What he has done is make himself, his town, his state and country (or at least the southern half of it) look like a bunch of backwards morons to the rest of the world.

 

[Sorry!]

Depends on your definition of racist.
If racist = taking into account race when making the decision then yes it is racist (in the same way that affirmative action would be)
However, if racist = treating somebody detrimentally because of their race then he could argue that this isn't racist since he treated the black and white partners equally. (see the virginia vs love discussion with evo)

What he has done is make himself, his town, his state and country (or at least the southern half of it) look like a bunch of backwards morons to the rest of the world.

So you don't think that he's treating mix-raced people detrimentally based on their race? I'm not talking about the people he refused to marry I'm talking about the reason he stated.

 

[mgb_phys]

So you don't think that he's treating mix-raced people detrimentally based on their race?

But there was no 'mixed race' person involved (except in the sense that everyone is mixed race)
I don't think potential future children have a lot of legal standing.

I'm not talking about the people he refused to marry I'm talking about the reason he stated.

Yes the guy is obviously a mouth breathing moronic product of several generations of somewhat un-biblical sex between close family relatives, but he is from Louisiana! (or am I being racist ?)

 

[Sorry!]

But there was no 'mixed race' person involved (except in the sense that everyone is mixed race)
I don't think potential future children have a lot of legal standing.

I'm not talking about the legal standing of what he said (we already know it was illegal) or about the action that occured. I'm talking about the rational behind the action. That being that they should not get married because they will have children who will be mixed and he was worried about how society would accept them. This is clearly against mixed people.Racism can't be determined by actions, it must be determined by the reasoning behind the actions.

If I say that black people are not allowed to enter my house because I am afraid they'll steal things am I being racist? No black people are involved yet... is it only racism when it involves me stopping a black person from attempting to enter my house?

++ Is being from Louisiana considered a race?

 

[Galteeth]

I'm not talking about the legal standing of what he said (we already know it was illegal) or about the action that occured. I'm talking about the rational behind the action. That being that they should not get married because they will have children who will be mixed and he was worried about how society would accept them. This is clearly against mixed people.


Racism can't be determined by actions, it must be determined by the reasoning behind the actions.

If I say that black people are not allowed to enter my house because I am afraid they'll steal things am I being racist? No black people are involved yet... is it only racism when it involves me stopping a black person from attempting to enter my house?

++ Is being from Louisiana considered a race?

All of this would have been avoided if the government would just get out of marriage and allow people to freely contract with each other in any way they want.

 

[xxChrisxx]

All of this would have been avoided if the government would just get out of marriage and allow people to freely contract with each other in any way they want.

That would allow same sex marriages, and the christians would have kittens at that.

+1 to the post below too.

 

[Sorry!]

All of this would have been avoided if the government would just get out of marriage and allow people to freely contract with each other in any way they want.

It's true but marriage still has to be legal... and documented...

 

[mgb_phys]

It's true but marriage still has to be legal... and documented...

Only if you have this theory that inheritance, property, tax and hospital visiting rights should be correlated with where you put your penis.

and the christians would have kittens at that.

I think any marriage that results in having kittens is also probably banned.