DJA wrote: >.. > Sorry. In the real world that just does not seem to be the norm. And if > marriage were not a government-sanctioned institution (i.e. one needs > official permission to both marry and unmarry) >..
I believe I have seen words like ~"..it being in the state's interest to encourage [marriage or family or something-like-that].." as justification for putting marriage benefits (supposedly [1]) into tax policy. So my questions: 1) why is it in the country's interest? - what are the objectives? - are the original objectives still relevant? - are there different objectives now? 2) is marriage (the traditional meaning) the only effective way to accomplish the state's objectives? ... [1] I guess there have been situations where it turns out to be a marriage penalty. Regards, ..jim, -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
