Empty argument, i can do it too.Trapping people into unhappy marriages is hardly the sort of proposition any moral person would want to support. I can see why Reagan didn't.
Trapping people into unhappy divorces is hardly the sort of proposition any moral person would want to support.
That would be also fine. But it would take stripping all legal powers regarding economic and child matters from marriage to make it purely a symbolic thing, leaving any consequences for creating, keeping and terminating it up to social reputational effects and religious ones if the people involved believe in such.The government has no business telling us how we conduct marriage. If any man or woman wants a divorce for whatever reason, that's their responsibility. The only thing the government can do in this situation is to accept their signatures.
Just like you and your neighbor can sign a piece of paper saying that you will be your BFFs forever until death does you apart, but no one will have to care (or even know) about it.
You can even swear upon Cthulhu that you will never break this promise.
But as long as such very material effects exist for marriage and state enforces those, state unavoidably has business in marriage.
Last edited: