In response to:

The Goodness of Marriage

M444ss Wrote: Feb 11, 2013 6:11 PM
...in which case there would be no benefit from government for being married (such as tax breaks) and no harm from being unmarried. Don't ask the govt to get out of the marriage business unless you’re willing to give up tax breaks, inheritance laws, mandated health benefits, and all the rest that’s within the govt's purview (and maybe you're okay with that). By the way, govt will never get completely out of marriage willingly, even at the local level - think they'll give up their paltry license fees? And giving benefits (like tax breaks or health benefits) gives politicians power. Good luck with taking that away.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Feb 11, 2013 6:18 PM
Again you miss the point M44ss

If gov can marry one couple that cant have kids like an 80 year old man to a 75 year old woman.

Then why should the fact that an 80 year old Man like Jim Nabors (Gomer Pyle ) not be able to marry his Lover whom he has been with for 35 years just because they can't reproduce?

NOTE: This is the third column in a series of columns related to National Marriage Week, Feb. 7-14, 2013. The second column is available here.

G.K. Chesterton observed in The Superstition of Divorce that “reformers of marriage . . . do not know what it is, or what it is meant to be, or what its supporters suppose it to be . . . .” Marriage opponents, who today seek not to reform but rather redefine marriage, appear to suffer from the problem diagnosed by Chesterton almost a century ago.

In their heedless rush to establish the legitimacy of...