by Dylan » Sun Dec 09, 2012 12:54 pm
(1) you stated that there are other ways to accomplish the background default rules besides marriage. No, I'm not saying that marriage isn't proactively doing these things. Your response makes no sense. My point is that the guvt has expressed an interest in marriage by imposing certain default rules on marriages. Your point that these cn be achieved through private contracting beyond marriage is irrelevant. The issue I'm discussing isn't access it's whether or not the guvt has an interest beyond trapping accidentally preggers people.
(2) sure. If its constitutional.
You still have failed to address the obvious fact that locking people in to marriage applies as forceful to adoptive parents as biological parents.