Adviser compares institution to country club membership
The U.S. government should abolish its sanctioning of marriage, argued Cass Sunstein, President Obama's regulatory czar.
Sunstein proposed that the concept of marriage should become privatized, with the state only granting civil union contracts to couples wishing to enter into an agreement.
Sunstein explained marriage licensing is unnecessary, pointing out people stay committed to organizations like country clubs and homeowner associations without any government interference.
"Under our proposal, the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government," wrote Sunstein and co-author Richard Thaler in their 2008 book, "Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness."
In the book – obtained and reviewed by WND – Sunstein explains his approach would ensure that "the only legal status states would confer on couples would be a civil union, which would be a domestic partnership agreement between any two people."
GO HERE to read more.
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
Another communist czar trying to undermine the fabric of America.
ReplyDeleteHussien and all his people are dangerous and need to go before it is too late!
Socialists trying to destroy every value this country has and/or had !
ReplyDeleteSo....you want the federal government out of everything except marriage...
ReplyDeleteGot it.
There are plenty of social conservatives that agree with this. Marriage would only be a religious institution. This way the whole concept of gay marriage would not exist except for those churches that would do such a ceremony.
ReplyDeleteAnother attack on morality, God. religion, and decencey.
ReplyDeleteAlmost like registering a motor vehicle.
Not a 'nudge', but a shove into the left's morally corrupt world.
Really is the perfect solution, let the churches keep marriage. All the objection to gay marriage are religious so then you have nothing to complain about. A committed relationship would be a civil union gay or straight for federal recognition.
ReplyDeleteI really do not see how this is a huge deal. He is saying marriage is a private matter between two people and their church is they so choose. Why should the government have anything to do marriage. As long as the rights of the two people are recognized by the government in a civil union. You can still call it marriage if you like. It just means the government does not treat a marriage as some political idea you have to apply for.
ReplyDeleteAs far as any governmental interest in promoting "traditional marriage", that is, a union between one man and one woman, that horse left the barn long ago.
ReplyDeleteAt one time men went out and worked, and women stayed home and raised children. Women didn't work outside the home, and were relatively unable to support themselves. To protect the traditional nuclear family, and women in particular, divorce was difficult and expensive, and men were usually required to pay alimony to support the ex-spouse if their was a divorce.
Along comes the sixties and the ascendancy of feminism. Women were now considered to be "equal" and a result of the feminist agenda is that government actively promotes the "equality" of woman in the workplace and society generally.
Traditional marriage, shall we say, started circling the bowl around that time. Divorce got easier, obtaining alimony got harder, stay-at-home moms got rarer, single moms got more common, abortion got easier, and so on. The idea of "traditional marriage" became a quaint old-fashioned notion. Changes in the attitudes and expectations of society, along with changes in governmental policy began to discourage the nuclear family, and by implication, traditional marriage.
Later, the homosexual lobby began agitating, with some success, for the same rights as heterosexual married couples. Gay marriage is not generally considered to be traditional in the commonly understood sense, but is increasingly being sanctioned by the government.
I am not a tax accountant, but my understanding is that under many circumstances, there is a "marriage penalty" built into the tax code, and a married couple can end up paying more taxes as a consequence of being married. In other words, the government's social engineering driven tax code actually penalizes marriage in general!
Well what are we left with? As the years have gone by, whatever may have been the government's underlying policy basis for traditional marriage, for better or worse, has evaporated leaving little more than lip service to marriage between a man and woman.
If indeed we want to promote traditional marriage (and I would suggest that more specifically that means we really want to promote the traditional nuclear family) we need consistent policy. By that I mean encourage men to marry one woman, take care of that woman, encourage giving birth to children in wedlock, discourage women from working outside the home, and remove disincentives to marriage from the tax code and remove incentives to produce out-of-wedlock children from welfare policy.
Now before the howls if indignation become overwhelming please recall where we started: The horse has already left the barn. Realistically, it is too late in the day to revive the governments alleged interest in "traditional marriage". In the same way that society has tried to get the government out of the bedroom, it is time to get the government out of the wedding chapel.
Now don't get me wrong, I personally believe in traditional marriage, and for that matter, my wife and I both believe in the idea of stay-at-home moms. But to each his own, n'est-ce pas? Isn't that really what America is all about?
Couples should be free to enter into a contractual arrangement for a civil union under whatever terms they see fit. Moreover, they should be free to get married in whatever religious tradition they desire and that will have them.
It is inconsistent for the government on one hand to promote the feminist agenda, the homosexual agenda and create tax disincentives for marriage, but then pay lip service to the notion of "traditional Marriage" on the other. In the end, the only interest the government truly has in this area is the enforcement of child support obligations, which presumably is fairly non-controversial. As far as "traditional marriage" goes, lets just be intellectually honest and consistent with our policy choices, that's all.
10:23 Hey stupid we want Government to leave marriage alone too ! marriage = 1 man + 1 woman .
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with this, as it would end the "gay marriage" debate immediately. Marriage is a sacred religious institution and the government should have NO say in the matter. The government should decide civil unions for tax and legal purposes however they feel, but MARRIAGE should be left up to the church.
ReplyDeleteAnyone that does not think that marriage is between a man and a woman can go to Russia.
ReplyDelete@1:44:
ReplyDeleteYou sound like such an intelligent person.
Go have another beer, watch Nascar, Fox, Etc. and leave the discussion to the adults. It sounds like you have a lot of growing up to do.
"Anyone that does not think that marriage is between a man and a woman can go to Russia."
ReplyDeleteI just called Rusia is full of gay marriages, and Vodka!
1:18~excellent!
ReplyDelete