Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Little Joe who wrote (132703)	3/21/2001 7:52:08 PM
From: MKTBUZZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

That would be great, that way we could eliminate some of the "I get half" issues. The only way someone could get half is if they were breeding. No more "marrying" just for money.

To: Little Joe who wrote (132703)	3/22/2001 11:04:15 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

There can be no doubt that marriage has historically existed, not for the protection of the parties involved in the marriage but for the protection of children The institution of marriage has evolved so fast over the last few decades. When I was married in 1964, I entertained the idea of skipping the ceremony. That was really avant-garde at the time. I clearly remember that, at that fairly recent point in history, skipping the formalities was "simply not done." The Supremes recorded "Love Child in 1968. Divorce still required grounds where it was available, which wasn't everywhere. It was just afterwards that things began to change fairly quickly. I also recall that there was a tax advantage to marriage until the early to mid 70's when the tax law was changed because it was brutally unfair to singles. Things moved fast. I don't think that we, as a society, are thinking about the implications in any coherent way. Were it not for gays pushing the envelope, the secular community probably wouldn't be talking about it now. I agree that marriage has historically been about the children. It also has been used for the joining of families for power or political reasons. We see residual elements of both in our current law and practice. But I don't see how any law we have now regarding marriage helps the children appreciably. Suppose we redefined marriage and said it could only occur when there are children. That two people who have children either biological or adopted are deemed married by that fact. I wonder where that would lead us. Any thoughts? Unless their religious tradition required it, I have never advised any young couple to get married until and unless they were ready to produce children. I don't see the advantages outweighing the disadvantages although that depends on individual circumstances. I was noodling around on another thread and suggested maybe we could insert a contract for the care of children into their birth certificate. It would identify the parents and what responsibilities each had to the child. That's more on point than a marriage certificate. Your notion is interesting. Of course, it would become problematic when the two people becomming automatically married by having produced a child together each has offspring with others. We'd end up with a group marriage. I think it's about time we analyzed what we're doing with marriage and came up with some new ideas. There was an earlier discussion about having a religious marriage with or without the civil marriage. That makes some sense to me as a way to better tailor the contract between the two parties and on behalf of their offspring. I also think it's about time we looked at the legal side benefits of marriage and see whether we shouldn't either skip them or apply them to everyone evenly. I just signed my retirement paperwork. Both married and non-married have the option to take a reduced annuity and name a beneficiary. The beneficiary can be someone other than the spouse if there is no spouse. One could name a sister or domestic partner or best friend. We need to think about these things. Karen