0 Votes
RE: Why not?
Personally, I think the government needs to get out of the marriage business.
Agreed.
Protect unions of two consenting adults and allow them the same benefits.
Are you saying they should specify two, or was that a slip up? Because really, why should the government care if there are more?
Call your union whatever you want, but one name under the law for legal purposes.
Would you oppose using something other than “marriage” as that name? Say, something sterile and generally undesirable like “designated legal partner in personal matters” – or, DLPIPM?
RE: Why not? by Jackson
Are you saying they should specify two, or was that a slip up? Because really, why should the government care if there are more?
Not a slip up. We already have the infrastructure to handle parties of two. Adding another person creates a lot of new situations that we don’t currently have processes to deal with. The added complexity in a legal relationship between three (or more) people is a great deal more than is perhaps obvious.
Would you oppose using something other than “marriage” as that name?…
Not really. Partnership. Legal Union. Marriage. I don’t care as long as there’s one set of rules for them across the board so groups can’t work around extending the benefits to the participants in said unions. If your church wants to “marry” (or “seal”) you, then you are married. But the legal term is independent. Though it is entirely possible that I am overlooking a downside to this. It’s hard to take the goggles off.