ST Alpha - "The solution is to change the state/federal definition of marriage to be more of a corporate construct between N+1 persons." (Reading a Post)

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 156

The solution is to change the state/federal definition of marriage to be more of a corporate construct between N+1 persons.

Posted by Beryllium (aka grayman) Mar 26 '13, 11:35

I'm only partially joking; I note that there is a similarity between the domestic partnership and the business construct of a partnership. And of course, being single is a Sole Proprietorship. So ... plural marriage is an incorporated entity? :)

Responses:

The fact that we're still fighting over this, years after the first person said "why is the gov't in the marriage business, anyway?" speaks volumes - Dr.Vermin Mar 26, 11:41 11
- [deleted] 10
  - the marriage business impacts tax rates. so the government has to be involved. right? -- nm - amanda Mar 26, 11:48 7
    - This is what I was thinking. But the suggestion to treat it objectively, as in corporate taxation ...... waaait a sec. - Beryllium Mar 26, 11:50 1
      - (serious response to my own IM) - Beryllium Mar 26, 11:52
    - [deleted] 4
      - The federal government could get out of it though by not granting any financial benefits based on status though, right? - Max Mar 26, 11:52 1
        
        [deleted]
      - but marriage age is a state issue, right? like, you can get married younger in WV than in PA without consent, yes? -- nm - amanda Mar 26, 11:51 1
        
        [deleted]
  - Well, I suppose what we're discussing this week goes to the core of this question: What is the definition of marriage? - Mop (190 lbs) Mar 26, 11:47 1
    - [deleted]
Joke if you will, but I've been advocating this for a while. - Mop (190 lbs) Mar 26, 11:38

Post a message top

The solution is to change the state/federal definition of marriage to be more of a corporate construct between N+1 persons.

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.