RB Scott wrote:
Then there are economic issues to be considered.  For instance:
suppose two good friends, both widowed mothers of minor children
decided their chances for remarriage were nil.  Yet, in the
interest of keeping their families out the poorhouse, to
eliminate the need to leave children unsupervised for long
periods of time, etc., etc., etc. concluded that the solution was
to form legal domestic partnership that provided all the health
insurance and tax benefits that accrue to married couples. Money,
a more stable family set-up, not sex, are the drivers.  Would we
argue that such women are not entitled to form such a union?
And, if so, what would be the basis for our objections?  Might
precisely this kind of arrangement be one way society could help
get single-parent families on more stable ground.

Oh, come on. Who is doing that? Show me an example of someone who is doing that? Even if you can find one, it is an anomaly. Should we then change our marriage laws throughout the union to encourage "this kind of arrangement" just for a few freaky exceptions? --JWR

Once marriage becomes meaningless, they will begin to do that. Wanna hear something even more creepy? How about if a man and a corporation chose to become married? What about two corporations? What would be the ramifications of something like that?

What if a man with a child married a corporation and then the man died? Would the corporation gain custody of the child? What kind of hellish things could happen as a result of that?
Jonathan Scott

///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:

Reply via email to