did you mean to imply i am a wet-behind-the-ears youngster who'll see the light once i grow up just like you and learn what all the government does for us good people? i am the other side of 50, and at 15 i was already responsible for an entire household. :)
IF the government were only interested in fiscal matters and not in sexual ones, we wouldn't be talking about gay marriage at all because it would be standard. no, most governments have other interests than fiscal matters; they're involved in a great deal of social engineering. and that's what i'd prefer to see done a little more justly.
i think the government's involvement in marriage should lie in resolving conflict, not in its promotion of a very limited form of partnership at the expense of others. fiscal responsibility in relationships motivated primarily by love can be handled like so many other fiscal agreements: via contracts. contracts that cannot be changed willy-nilly by a third party with all the power and none of the responsibility. contracts that don't care what sex the parties are, only that they are of sound mind and of age. i actually think it would be beneficial for people if marriage wasn't quite as automatic; many don't even realize exactly how many different contracts they're signing with that, and what exactly they spell out. corporate laws already handle all sorts of unions and partnerships and their dissolutions. children should be offered the same governmental protection whether or not their biological parents are married.
student loans should be available to students in need, regardless of whether their parents are well off -- the parents might not be supportive, or might even be toxic/abusive. i am glad i grew up in a country where education basically was free, and student loans only covered secondary expenses, or i would have not been able to go to university because my parents would have never supported it, and on my own i couldn't have afforded it.
that's the way i envision a fair society: supporting individuals with continuity of care, with equitable opportunities for all. the precise webs between individuals are much too complex for the law to fathom and codify.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-22 01:44 am (UTC)IF the government were only interested in fiscal matters and not in sexual ones, we wouldn't be talking about gay marriage at all because it would be standard. no, most governments have other interests than fiscal matters; they're involved in a great deal of social engineering. and that's what i'd prefer to see done a little more justly.
i think the government's involvement in marriage should lie in resolving conflict, not in its promotion of a very limited form of partnership at the expense of others. fiscal responsibility in relationships motivated primarily by love can be handled like so many other fiscal agreements: via contracts. contracts that cannot be changed willy-nilly by a third party with all the power and none of the responsibility. contracts that don't care what sex the parties are, only that they are of sound mind and of age. i actually think it would be beneficial for people if marriage wasn't quite as automatic; many don't even realize exactly how many different contracts they're signing with that, and what exactly they spell out. corporate laws already handle all sorts of unions and partnerships and their dissolutions. children should be offered the same governmental protection whether or not their biological parents are married.
student loans should be available to students in need, regardless of whether their parents are well off -- the parents might not be supportive, or might even be toxic/abusive. i am glad i grew up in a country where education basically was free, and student loans only covered secondary expenses, or i would have not been able to go to university because my parents would have never supported it, and on my own i couldn't have afforded it.
that's the way i envision a fair society: supporting individuals with continuity of care, with equitable opportunities for all. the precise webs between individuals are much too complex for the law to fathom and codify.