So, just because it’s normal for stupid people to show up and leave rude comments on blogs calling other people morons, doesn’t mean its desirable.

Caio!

John P.

Well, “Dr. John”, lets assume for a moment that I’m “boning” every woman I see! I mean, I’m playing so much “hide the salami” that my nickname is actually “The Butcher”. Would it be any of your damn business? The answer to that rhetorical question, because I assume anyone stupid enough to post the question you posted wouldn’t know that, is NO.

To try and bring this completely off-topic comment back to the subject at hand, whatever the hell happens between consenting adults is their own business. And legally speaking people can have nasty sweaty sex in great big groups for days on end. But as soon as two people of the same sex, or three people of any sex, want to make a commitment to one another and join in marriage somehow we’ve crossed an invisible line.

Well, just like it’s none of your business who I’m having sex with, its none of anyone’s business who I’m married to.

Love,
John P.

PS – I hope you get a brain tumor.

Secondly, I have an idea… stop me if you’ve heard this one before: I believe that if any amount of people are sharing the same home, and have been doing so for longer than 3 years, then they should have all the legal rights afforded to someone that’s married in a religious ceremony. This common-law marriage should apply whether it’s two men, two women, a man and a woman, or any combination of men and women living together. Of course there would be exceptions to the law… people living at work (i.e. firefighters, seamen, college roommates, hookers living in a brothel), underage people, people in the same family, etc., however these situations would have much easier work-arounds then the legal quagmires presented currently by refusing anyone the right to declare themselves family. I mean, come on: If you’re willing to live with someone for longer than 3 years, you’ve obviously made a commitment to that person; it may not be that you will “put your dick in them and them alone for all eternity”, but it could very well be even more meaningful than that.

As for divorce, the same thing applies… if you haven’t been living together for 3 years (with a grace period of 6 months at the end), you’re legally divorced unless you otherwise inform the state of your intent to remain married despite your distance. This way divorces can be more civil if all participants are inclined, because currently all divorces (including civil, event free divorces) involve some legal hoop jumping. If he takes his things, she agrees that they’re his things; and she takes her things, and he agrees that they’re her things; and they both go their separate ways peacefully, why do we need to go and gum up the legal system with unnecessary divorce proceedings? It’s estimated that in 95% of divorces, the decisions over who gets what are made by the couples themselves anyway… yet this still has to be processed by our judicial system? That’s a waste of the legal system’s time and the tax payers’ resources. Of course, if you’re in the 5% who wish to debate whether or not property, custody and/or debt is being divided fairly, you can always file for divorce with an attorney, and the spouse would receive a summons to appear for a divorce hearing. None of this “waiting around for years for the asshole to sign the divorce papers” nonsense.

The only problem I foresee in this situation is power of attorney. In that case I think that the person that’s been living with the individual in question should have power of attorney, unless directed otherwise in a living will. Living wills should be mandatory (send ‘em out with your W-2s), and they should be mandatorily updated annually, with an option to update at any time through an attorney. Even though every state does not allow common law marriage these days (and 13 never did), they all recognize them as legit… so they know how to operate with that being the case.

The thing is… I know I can’t be the first person to think of this: I’m sure that there’s got to be some legal reason why what I’m saying doesn’t make sense. Anyone want to shoot some holes through my idea?

I agree with many of the folks above: marriage shouldn’t even be a part of the government’s job. The only reason it is is because of privacy laws (which is silly, and easily amendable to stop excluding nontraditional marriages) and the tax code, which is really stupid, but the IRS is so convoluted that unfortunately the laws that we’d wish to see will probably never be enacted.

Because at the end of the day, the politicians want their money.

Btw awesome article.

I hate being an American right now because my fellow citizens in majority reject the rights of same-sex couples to marry. Those are not the values of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. I also hate that people screwed up and elected a marxist as president.

Ultimately … love has nothing to do with law. Only law has anything to do with law. Right now, as a nation, we’re connecting personal prejudice to law and it’s a sad shame. Let’s be libertarians and let freedom be what matters.

I do have my views about this in an old post of mine about same sex marriage. John, I hope it’s alright to post the link.

Again, great post John!!

Marriage in my mind is a personal decision with everyone that is involved, and if they are not free to choose how the marriage is setup, then that clearly is an infringement on their rights. Many people feel they can weigh in on other people’s lives, which in fact, they have no say. They are merely outsiders looking in. We are more connected than ever with this thing called internet, but that doesn’t mean that I want to know about every Tom, Dick and Sally’s lovelife or personal decisions.

Personal decision = a person’s own choice

Isn’t that was marriage should be centered on?