Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[ciao_yall]

I think the government should not be in the "marriage" business.

The government is in the "marriage" business because the people wanted a legal definition of marriage for purposes of inheritance, property rights and other factors.

If someone dies, what happens to their property if there is no will? What about the people living in their house? Are they a spouse or descendent? Roommates?

[Wahoo Redux]

I think we have no conflicts!

People may have their prejudices but they will simply have to froth and vent as the rest of us go about our business.

[marshwiggle]

I think the government should not be in the "marriage" business.

The government is in the "marriage" business because the people wanted a legal definition of marriage for purposes of inheritance, property rights and other factors.

If someone dies, what happens to their property if there is no will? What about the people living in their house? Are they a spouse or descendent? Roommates?

Exactly. Issues with property are economic, not "romantic".  The government has not regulated sexual relationships between consenting adults for a long time, so the only concerns the government has with "marriage" are financial (inheritance, pension, benefits, etc.). The government has a completely legitimate interest in these, whether they call it "marriage" or not. If they didn't, it would make that distinction much more clear.

[ciao_yall]

I think the government should not be in the "marriage" business.

The government is in the "marriage" business because the people wanted a legal definition of marriage for purposes of inheritance, property rights and other factors.

If someone dies, what happens to their property if there is no will? What about the people living in their house? Are they a spouse or descendent? Roommates?

Exactly. Issues with property are economic, not "romantic".  The government has not regulated sexual relationships between consenting adults for a long time, so the only concerns the government has with "marriage" are financial (inheritance, pension, benefits, etc.). The government has a completely legitimate interest in these, whether they call it "marriage" or not. If they didn't, it would make that distinction much more clear.

So, that's it. We are in "violent agreement," as they say. There is a legal definition of marriage, under which a whole range of rights and responsibilities are conferred.

Who can get married? Right now the legal definition is two consenting adults.

Some churches have different definitions, such as polygamy, but these are not considered to be legally enforceable. Maybe someone will decide the government has a compelling interest for defining these but so far, hasn't happened.

[marshwiggle]

I think the government should not be in the "marriage" business.

The government is in the "marriage" business because the people wanted a legal definition of marriage for purposes of inheritance, property rights and other factors.

If someone dies, what happens to their property if there is no will? What about the people living in their house? Are they a spouse or descendent? Roommates?

Exactly. Issues with property are economic, not "romantic".  The government has not regulated sexual relationships between consenting adults for a long time, so the only concerns the government has with "marriage" are financial (inheritance, pension, benefits, etc.). The government has a completely legitimate interest in these, whether they call it "marriage" or not. If they didn't, it would make that distinction much more clear.

So, that's it. We are in "violent agreement," as they say. There is a legal definition of marriage, under which a whole range of rights and responsibilities are conferred.

Who can get married? Right now the legal definition is two consenting adults.

Some churches have different definitions, such as polygamy, but these are not considered to be legally enforceable. Maybe someone will decide the government has a compelling interest for defining these but so far, hasn't happened.

The two is going to be challenged in the courts soon, if it hasn't already. The government will have a hard time defending that one.

[Langue_doc]

I think the government should not be in the "marriage" business.

The government is in the "marriage" business because the people wanted a legal definition of marriage for purposes of inheritance, property rights and other factors.

If someone dies, what happens to their property if there is no will? What about the people living in their house? Are they a spouse or descendent? Roommates?

Exactly. Issues with property are economic, not "romantic".  The government has not regulated sexual relationships between consenting adults for a long time, so the only concerns the government has with "marriage" are financial (inheritance, pension, benefits, etc.). The government has a completely legitimate interest in these, whether they call it "marriage" or not. If they didn't, it would make that distinction much more clear.

So, that's it. We are in "violent agreement," as they say. There is a legal definition of marriage, under which a whole range of rights and responsibilities are conferred.

Who can get married? Right now the legal definition is two consenting adults.

Some churches have different definitions, such as polygamy, but these are not considered to be legally enforceable. Maybe someone will decide the government has a compelling interest for defining these but so far, hasn't happened.

The two is going to be challenged in the courts soon, if it hasn't already. The government will have a hard time defending that one.

Ha! I've been told that immigrants who apply for green cards and for naturalization here in the US have to raise their right hands and swear that they haven't committed polygamy, in addition to a laundry list of other "offenses".

[Wahoo Redux]

The two is going to be challenged in the courts soon, if it hasn't already. The government will have a hard time defending that one.

Why will the government have a hard time defending...what exactly?

Since government should be out of the marriage business, what is your feeling about this challenge?

[marshwiggle]

The two is going to be challenged in the courts soon, if it hasn't already. The government will have a hard time defending that one.

Why will the government have a hard time defending...what exactly?

Since government should be out of the marriage business, what is your feeling about this challenge?

The only grounds for the government to stipulate that marriage is between two people is economic. (The government has not remotely suggested that sexual relationships must be restricted to two people.) On the other hand, the government is highly unlikely to argue that a relationship that has not been sexual for a certain period of time should automatically lose it's "marriage" status, so again it underlines the fact that the government's interest is essentially economic. Being explicit about that would be much more transparent.

[Wahoo Redux]

The two is going to be challenged in the courts soon, if it hasn't already. The government will have a hard time defending that one.

Why will the government have a hard time defending...what exactly?

Since government should be out of the marriage business, what is your feeling about this challenge?

The only grounds for the government to stipulate that marriage is between two people is economic. (The government has not remotely suggested that sexual relationships must be restricted to two people.) On the other hand, the government is highly unlikely to argue that a relationship that has not been sexual for a certain period of time should automatically lose it's "marriage" status, so again it underlines the fact that the government's interest is essentially economic. Being explicit about that would be much more transparent.

Okay...but you are answering a question I did not ask.

I think most of us know what you just posted, anyway.

I was asking about this statement:

The two is going to be challenged in the courts soon, if it hasn't already. The government will have a hard time defending that one.

And I was asking how the government is going to "challenged in the courts soon" and why they will have a "hard time defending that one."

What are you talking about?

[marshwiggle]

The two is going to be challenged in the courts soon, if it hasn't already. The government will have a hard time defending that one.

Why will the government have a hard time defending...what exactly?

Since government should be out of the marriage business, what is your feeling about this challenge?

The only grounds for the government to stipulate that marriage is between two people is economic. (The government has not remotely suggested that sexual relationships must be restricted to two people.) On the other hand, the government is highly unlikely to argue that a relationship that has not been sexual for a certain period of time should automatically lose it's "marriage" status, so again it underlines the fact that the government's interest is essentially economic. Being explicit about that would be much more transparent.

Okay...but you are answering a question I did not ask.

I think most of us know what you just posted, anyway.

I was asking about this statement:

The two is going to be challenged in the courts soon, if it hasn't already. The government will have a hard time defending that one.

And I was asking how the government is going to "challenged in the courts soon" and why they will have a "hard time defending that one."

What are you talking about?

Sooner or later, someone is going to go to court to argue that some number greater than 2, (perhaps 3, perhaps more), should be able to be "married" so that they are all eligible for each others' pensions, benefits, etc. (I'd suspect within 5 years; certainly within 10.)
The government will only be able to defend the limit on economic grounds; they don't really have any other basis to to argue why "marriage" should be restricted, as long as it's between consenting adults. And I don't think they'll even want to get into the sexual nature of the relationship part much, since they accept sexual relationships that they don't define as marriage, and they don't revoke marital status automatically for lack of sexual activity as I said above.

[Wahoo Redux]

Okay.  I have not heard anything about that.  Certainly we can devise laws to accommodate more than one spouse.  I'm not sure I see the problem there.

[marshwiggle]

Okay.  I have not heard anything about that.  Certainly we can devise laws to accommodate more than one spouse.  I'm not sure I see the problem there.

It will blow the social security system to high heaven! And every other *pension system! Suppose a bunch of people decide to create a "marriage" so they're all able to access each others' benefits. As each one dies off , all of the rest get survivor benefits until the last ones dies. If it's possible to add more people to the "marriage", then it could be a cash cow in perpetuity as everyone joining would be eligible for the benefits of everyone before them.

*and benefits, if everyone has to be covered by any one person's benefits.

[onthefringe]

Okay.  I have not heard anything about that.  Certainly we can devise laws to accommodate more than one spouse.  I'm not sure I see the problem there.

It will blow the social security system to high heaven! And every other *pension system! Suppose a bunch of people decide to create a "marriage" so they're all able to access each others' benefits. As each one dies off , all of the rest get survivor benefits until the last ones dies. If it's possible to add more people to the "marriage", then it could be a cash cow in perpetuity as everyone joining would be eligible for the benefits of everyone before them.

*and benefits, if everyone has to be covered by any one person's benefits.

One straighforward way to handle it would be to say "spousal" benefits are "X" dollars and you can divide them up among however many eligible spouses there are.

Healthcare access could be fixed by disentangling insurance from employment.

Obviously there will be edge cases that challenge any model, but that's true now.

[marshwiggle]

Okay.  I have not heard anything about that.  Certainly we can devise laws to accommodate more than one spouse.  I'm not sure I see the problem there.

It will blow the social security system to high heaven! And every other *pension system! Suppose a bunch of people decide to create a "marriage" so they're all able to access each others' benefits. As each one dies off , all of the rest get survivor benefits until the last ones dies. If it's possible to add more people to the "marriage", then it could be a cash cow in perpetuity as everyone joining would be eligible for the benefits of everyone before them.

*and benefits, if everyone has to be covered by any one person's benefits.

One straighforward way to handle it would be to say "spousal" benefits are "X" dollars and you can divide them up among however many eligible spouses there are.

So for survivor's pensions it becomes a tontine.

[Wahoo Redux]

Well, again, I suspect we can figure out how to deal legally with such issues should polyamorous marriage actually become a thing (which doesn't seem to be happening).  I worked with the bank to make sure my parent's estate was divided equitably between my nieces and myself even though my nieces' mother, the second name on the will, had died.  These things can be done.

And in any event, the laws should adapt to peoples' lives, not the other way around. 

But why bring that up on a thread about cancel culture?  Are you suggesting we are opening a Pandora's jar?