From: Gary Wiltshire 

On Mon, 22 May 2000 16:41:26 -0700, Steven Durrett
 wrote:

>Gary -
>
><< I'd rather get the government OUT of marriage altogether.  Once
>upon a time marriage was a matter between the spouses-to-be and
>whatever religion they subscribed to.  Many, many pioneers went out
>west and considered themselves married when no clergy was available or
>relevent.  I'd rather see "marriage" handled by legal contracts,
>wills, powers-of-attorney, etc. >>
>
>Your last sentence explains why the government has to be involved in
>marriage. There are simply too many areas in which the state should
>recognize the rights of a spouse when no written agreement exists:
>intestate inheritance, medical consent on behalf of an incompetent
>spouse, visitation rights in hospitals, etc. The list of issues runs
>into the dozens and maybe the hundreds, and there has to be some test
>for determining who has what rights. The state's involvement in
>determining who is "married" could be as simple as recognizing that two
>people view themselves as married (my choice), but as we've seen
>recently, a large portion of our society don't think that is acceptable.
>
The courts certainly can or should get involved when there is a dispute
regarding a contract.  People should frankly take more responsibility for
their lives and things like wills.  A case in point is my wife's return to
smoking after being off the shit for many years.  I've tried to explain to
her that she is not only defrauding her life insurance company, but also
that an autopsy or a simple blood test could invalidate her policy,
received at a substantial discount for nonsmokers.  I'm trying to get her
to understand that because it's our SON who loses out if that were to
happen.

Courts are a proper part of government.

><< Should heterosexuals beyond child-rearing age be allowed to
marry? >>
>
>Why limit it to age issues? I married at 25, and knew then that I'd
>never be able to have children.
>
This was intended as an ironical response to Randall's assertion about
marriage being for child-rearing, but this is part of my problem with the
State defining this sort of stuff.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5