hypercrites

I'm not familiar with civil marriage in Israel but it all boils down to the fact that the US government should treat people as individuals whenever possible.  I think the government goes astray when it puts people into groups and and then either grants them special favor or imposes special punishment.  Private organizations, like churches, should be allowed to draw such distinctions but lawmakers shouldn't.

Quote from: wbcoleman on March 28, 2013, 01:59:29 am

I'd call inheritance rights a bit more than "a minor convenience"!

Right now if you're married and you die, your stuff automatically goes to your spouse.  If you don't want this all you have to do is draw up a contract that spells out your preferred terms.

In a USA where the government didn't recognize the religious designation of marriage there would be a greater need for a written contract rather than today's implied contract.  As I said, I would guess that most churches would have some standard contracts on hand that basically said, "I leave everything to my spouse."  The couple would sign on the line that is dotted after the ceremony and legally it would be no different than it is today.  This seems logical and reasonable to me.

In the case of married people who didn't have a WILL, I suppose it would be decided much like it is today for singles who live together but never get married.  They would have the matter resolved in the court system.

Iowahawk makes a brief but effective argument I think.  The state doesn't recognize, nor confer special benefits on people who have been baptized or confirmed.  There's no special tax benefits taking communion.  Marriage is really a religious designation and even though it is widespread and popular, the state shouldn't be involved.

I've underestimated you guys. I thought my lead was insurmountable.

You don't believe that spouses ought to be able to inherit each other's property automatically?