danaeris: (Default)
[personal profile] danaeris
Just a thought:

If there were some kind of civil union called thingum which was designated: Union between two or more people to raise a child

And if Thingum permitted those people various tax breaks and financial incentives in return for doing their best to raise a child as a contribution to society...
And if Thingum was only permitted to people who either had compatible genetics or were adopting or were getting implants from those with compatible genetics...
And if Thingum was only permitted to people who met an objective psychological profile verifying their stability...
EditAnd if Thingum were only available once a child was born... perhaps it were set up through pre application and then once the child is born or legally adopted, it goes into effect, and when the child is done going through college or is no longer a minor, the incentives go away...

Then I'd be cool with the government's sanction of that. See, to bear and raise children, you wouldn't have to enter thingum. But if you wanted the tax breaks etc. that went with it, you'd have to sign that contract and meet its requirements.

But Thingum would be a different thing from marriage, which is a religious or romantic union.

Marriage would still have legal sanction, but there should be no financial incentives associated with that except those related to inheritance. The legal sanction would be instead a sort of registry to indicate that this was the person(s) who should not be contested in your will, who should be allowed at your side in the hospital, etc.

Just some thoughts.

Date: 2004-02-15 04:25 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hastings1066.livejournal.com
Exactly. I have been arguing against the usage of the term marriage in any offical documents for a while. People always exclaim that it is a semantics issue, but even if it is, how would the protesters of the SF decision and others react if *all* legal/tax-aware unions in society were *not* called marriage?

Take the religious taint out, and you actually have to argue the issues, fair rights for all and healthy and happy child rearing. If you are against those 2 things, you are a bigot. The bigots get to hide behind semantics right now.

By the Goddess, No!

Date: 2004-02-15 10:46 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] benndragon.livejournal.com
If there's anything I've learned from watching my country get maneuvered into war, it's that government can't be trusted as far as I can spit. Especially if it involved something as vital as the life of every child in my country. Even with outside controls, even with objective psychologists (as if such a thing existed; if it did, it would make a piss-poor psychologist), there is too much room for political machination, especially over time.

I'm not saying that the current system is optimal for raising a child. However, the road from what you propose to eugenics and people like Dubya determining the proper way to raise a child is too damn short for my liking.

Re: By the Goddess, No!

Date: 2004-02-16 12:34 am (UTC)
auros: (Default)
From: [personal profile] auros
Well, that's why I favor abolishing government involvement in marriage, but retaining the relatively simple "go to the courthouse and sign some forms" method for obtaining license/sanction for the various rights and responsibilities.

Though I do favor having both a "Civil Union EZ" which would cover the current marriage rights/responsibilities, and a slightly longers set of forms which would arrange for various people to be designated for different roles -- medical power of attorney, inheritance (possibly split among more than one person), etc, and would allow more than two people who lived together to register as a unit for tax purposes.

Profile

danaeris: (Default)
danaeris

August 2022

S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14 151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 22nd, 2026 12:11 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios