A couple points about this special session of Colorado State Legislature that Governor Hickenlooper has called. First of all the Republicans are saying that it is an expensive and unnecessary session being used to divert public attention from the real issues, particularly the economy. The fact is, the Governor wouldn't have had the opportunity to call the special session if legislators on both sides of the aisle had done their jobs in the first place and gotten the bill to a vote before adjourning. This isn't just the Republicans' fault as the Democrats stalled the issue in the first place knowing they probably didn't have the votes, at the time, to even get this through committee. They waited until they could throw the spotlight on it and force the Republicans to stall until the end of the session in order to not have to vote "No" on it. Furthermore, given the nationl attention the issue has gotten, both with the vote in NC and with VPOTUS and POTUS commenting on it, it seems this very much is an issue that the voters are concerned with now.
Secondly, government should no longer be determining what does or does not constitute a legal marriage. Many of these laws regarding marriage and sexual norms in general stem from the early notions that government should encourage a strong population by encouraging procreation in monogamous relationships between a man and woman. A strong population was a LARGE population. This is an outdated notion. The government's involvement in who should and should not procreate, in my opinion, should have been nullified at some point in history before the Nazi's started saying that blond-haired, blue-eyed citizens made the best babies.
That said, there are certain legal ramifications accorded to married individuals that the government should have some say in to maintain a relatively orderly society. What constitutes a family in regards to shared health care? Who should have hospital visitation rights? Who should get implicit guardianship of children following the death of a parent? How does should legal inheritance of possessions be dealt with? The contract of marriage has been relied up on to deal with many of these issues. However, why shouldn't any two people be able to draw up a similar contract? Why should they need to be married?
For legal purposes, I can see why the contract would necessarily be between two-and-only-two human beings. Of course both would have to be of a legal age to understand and consent to a legal contract. I would propose that the government would stop registering marriages altogether. I think that marriage is inherently religious or spiritual or at the very least a moral issue that the government should not be concerned with. Instead, they register these "civil unions" between any two people who are at least 18 years of age. The government would also need to administer to the dissolution of these contracts as they do divorce currently. A person could not enter into such a contract with more than one person. I frankly don't understand what is so difficult about this.
Secondly, government should no longer be determining what does or does not constitute a legal marriage. Many of these laws regarding marriage and sexual norms in general stem from the early notions that government should encourage a strong population by encouraging procreation in monogamous relationships between a man and woman. A strong population was a LARGE population. This is an outdated notion. The government's involvement in who should and should not procreate, in my opinion, should have been nullified at some point in history before the Nazi's started saying that blond-haired, blue-eyed citizens made the best babies.
That said, there are certain legal ramifications accorded to married individuals that the government should have some say in to maintain a relatively orderly society. What constitutes a family in regards to shared health care? Who should have hospital visitation rights? Who should get implicit guardianship of children following the death of a parent? How does should legal inheritance of possessions be dealt with? The contract of marriage has been relied up on to deal with many of these issues. However, why shouldn't any two people be able to draw up a similar contract? Why should they need to be married?
For legal purposes, I can see why the contract would necessarily be between two-and-only-two human beings. Of course both would have to be of a legal age to understand and consent to a legal contract. I would propose that the government would stop registering marriages altogether. I think that marriage is inherently religious or spiritual or at the very least a moral issue that the government should not be concerned with. Instead, they register these "civil unions" between any two people who are at least 18 years of age. The government would also need to administer to the dissolution of these contracts as they do divorce currently. A person could not enter into such a contract with more than one person. I frankly don't understand what is so difficult about this.
No comments:
Post a Comment