From: Randall Parker 

In article <39294aa9{at}w3.nls.net>, richhong{at}hawksci.com says...
> >> Maybe the marriage contract should kick into a state-recognized
> relationship only once the kids are born or adopted.
>
> Randall,
>
> Why?  This makes little sense to me, as the legal responsibility of raising
> a child falls to the natural parents, not the married parents.  I think this
> becomes clearer when you consider the case of a child whose mother is
> married, but was impregnated by someone other than her husband.

Fine, then I agree that the state could be gotten out of it entirely. Make
people make binding contracts with each other in their personal
relationships. But once the biological parents are identified have a
different set of legal obligations kick in.

My point is that practically speaking there is no single one-size-fits- all
legal contract that will work for all relationships. The very idea that one
is either married or not with such different kinds of people in such
different relationships all falling into the same state-sponsored agreement
is just not realistic.

Plus, I am opposed to anything that is used for hand-outs. I mean, why
should there be spousal benefits for couples?

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