This article is marked as 'retired'. The information here may be out of date, incomplete, and/or incorrect.
There are real criminals roving our streets. Law enforcement knows about them. Law enforcement has apprehended them; in fact, the justice system has already convicted them. The criminals have been sentenced, imprisoned, and release after only a bare fraction of their term because there wasn’t room in “the system”.
Not enough money or resources to detain known and proven criminals, and we’re squandering the time of lawyers and judges and courthouses to mediate marital problems between couples.
The government shouldn’t be involved in our marriages to begin with. We don’t need Uncle Sam telling us who we can or cannot marry. It’s really none of his business is it? Who wants the feds in their bed?
Maybe it’s a somewhat laissez-faire attitude, but what is the purpose of a marriage license? Does the government do anything to facilitate the union—besides update their records for tax purposes? Why are we paying judges to dismantle marriages when there are criminals with a Sixth Amendment Right waiting months or years for trial? Why are there debates over allowing gay marriage or polygamy?
It’s high time to get the government out of the marriage racket.
Marriage is a personal matter, not a legal one. As is divorce. Wouldn’t it be better to bend the use of current divorce courts to handling accused criminals? And there is a way:
The state no longer cares about who you marry. Replace the current need for a license with a legal contract between two people. It can be set up with a term, set to expire after an appointed amount of time if not specifically renewed, and have conditions on what will occur when the contract is dissolved. It’s like a super-prenup, but now the state is out of the entire business and can devote its attention to other things.
A couple can still have a ceremony, those are often religious in nature anyhow, so the state shouldn’t care, but unlike the current system there needn’t be one if it’s not wanted.
There will be some backlash, of course. Under this system anyone could “marry”, a man and a man, a woman and a woman, 4 men and 12 women, but what’s wrong with that? So long as all are adult, and entering into the contract with ken of the situation, what’s it matter. They’ll have the same contract detailing means of escaping a bad marriage, and the same recourse as anyone else in a contract.
Sure, the government won’t go for such an idea easily. They’ll lose the income of marriage fees, which is really easy money for them. Some will complain that dissolution of a marriage is too easy, or that entering into it needs to be restricted, but who elected any state official based on his/her judgement on whom we should love?