>
> He can marry all he wants. He can't have spousal rights extended to
> more than one of them. The way spousal rights are written, such
> an attempt would be in conflict with themselves. I've pointed out
> more than once, the simplest solution to the whole thing is to
> abandon the legal recognition of marriage. We don't recognize
> baptism, we don't really need any reason to recognize marriages.
>
In the 1950's, 15% of black children were born out of wedlock, now
it's around 70-75%. This is just an example. Any attempt to further
destroy the tradiational family unit upon which this counrty is built
will lead to this nation's downfall. We simply don't have the money to
support more and more people's irresponsibility, and consequent
societal costs ( mental illness from abandonment, life-long trauma and
inadequacy, bastard children with no means of getting support from
so-called parents, and etc )
> You want to enter into a legal partnership with someone, write
> the contract. You want to extend power of attorney or other
> similar powers, write the necessary paperwork. The problem
> is right now that under most state laws, these arrangements won't
> be recognized UNLESS there is a marriage license.
>
Legal contracts? Go ahead and go nuts, be my guest. It's another
question whether you or anyone else signing your contracts should get
my tax dollar supporting you. Marriage is created not for love, but
for the best and only best environment for the raising of a family.
Almost every single psychological, social, economic, and other study
done for the last 100 years has pointed to the utter importance of
maintaining this to avoid sentencing the innocent children to a
lifetime of maltreatment, inadequate support, and ultimately, tragic
lives.
Is it too much to ask to have parents be ready to take good care of
children they have?
--multiplaza.nl.nu-- |