Balderdash. Living wills and trusts don’t exist with more than two people? If we throw definitions of marriage out of the window, and base it on “love” without regard to sex, gender, sexual identity, etc, why hang on to such Victorian notions as “two”?
The State provides benefits, pensions and social security based often on marital status. It would not be able to do that if the numbers involved in a marital arrangement exceeded two. For that reason, no country would enact legislation that enabled matrimony between three or more people.
The government has already dealt with those issues in cases of serial marriages. There is not reason it can’t be modified to reflect more than one spouse at a time.
I think I agree with Oliver Reed…ummm Scipio.
I can understand your sentiments, Dex, but to be honest, anything seems possible these days. I mean, one hundred years ago, who would have thought that no-fault divorce laws such as they are now would be enacted? Seventy years ago, who would have thought that about abortion? Fifty years ago, who would have thought that about same-sex civil unions? Twenty-five years ago, who would have thought that about same-sex marriage? The truth is, though it seems ludicrous, if we aren’t awake to the possible threats - now that there are so many - and take steps to defend against them, they’ll creep up on us.
:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:I can understand your sentiments, Dex, but to be honest, anything seems possible these days. I mean, one hundred years ago, who would have thought that no-fault divorce laws such as they are now would be enacted? Seventy years ago, who would have thought that about abortion? Fifty years ago, who would have thought that about same-sex civil unions? Twenty-five years ago, who would have thought that about same-sex marriage? The truth is, though it seems ludicrous, if we aren’t awake to the possible threats - now that there are so many - and take steps to defend against them, they’ll creep up on us.
And anyway, this is happening now. Look at all the legal knots around paternity issues due to IVF, surrogacy, etc. Does that stop it happening? No. Why should legal issues like this stop anyone. If anything, it’ll probably prompt it - lawyers and authors of legal policy and legislation stand to make a packet for all the work that’s involved in the changes, and when have you ever known anyone in the legal profession to let truth stand in the way of money?
Forgive me, but so what? If three people want to live together and tell everyone that they’re married, what difference does it make what the state says. I’m not trying to dismiss your point, I’m trying to understand it.
It makes a difference what the state says is marriage because public schools will use the law as justification for teaching young children the state’s definition of marriage even against the will of parents, and people who disagree with it will be called bigots, be sued, lose their job or business, or be put in jail for not going along with it. This is already happening.
Oh please… people are not being put in jail for ‘not going along with it’.
Sorry, but you are wrong. A father in Massachusetts was arrested for wanting to opt out his child from a day when his child’s Kindergarten class was going to teach the children about “gay marriage”. The public school district used the law which allowed for so-called “same-sex marriage” as their justification for teaching it to the Kindergarten children. When something becomes the law people who don’t go along become known as “lawbreakers”.
You’re going to have to provide proof of that. And an arrest does not equate to jailing in any case. And I would have a hard time believing that such an arrest was actually lawful.
Given how difficult it seems to be to get members of the abominable WBC arrested and jailed, I fail to see the danger you do.