The government should not be in the business of allowing OR disallowing relationships.

[cherokeeprogressive]

Period.

[cheapdate]

1. Without civil marriage, many areas of family law, estate law, contract law, etc.

become significantly more complicated and difficult to resolve.

Most states have laws that govern certain family matters as well as laws disallowing certain sexual relationships -- as between family members, adults and minors, etc.

Most of these laws are there for good reasons. Some maybe aren't.

[pnwmom]

2. They shouldn't be among consenting ADULTS. But they can establish regulations that affect relationships,

like marriage, tax, and inheritance laws.

[geek tragedy]

3. The government is in the business of attaching legal consequences

to relationships, however.

That is the entire point of government. Parent-child, doctor- patient, employer-employee, etc etcetera.

Just because it does not attach legal consequences to a relationship does not mean it's disallowing it.

If you're arguing the government should legally dissolve everyone's marriages, start a petition drive and see how many of your fellow citizens you can persuade. That is what democracy is.

[AngryAmish]

4. Of consenting adults not close relatived who can breed

[1939]

7. Billionaire who has terminal cancer

Marries his son (no problem with breeding). When billionaire dies, his son inherits fortune tax free as "surviving spouse".

[PowerToThePeople]

8. I agree. Eom

[blogslut]

5. I agree, but

...marriage is more than an emotional relationship. It is a binding contract between consenting partners. It establishes regulations/rights/protections for property, taxation and custodial responsibility for spouses and children.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. I open with the fact that you seem to be advocating for relationships between any and all ages

I do not agree with you there at all, few will. Children can not give consent. So rather obviously society and government exist in part to regulate relationships of some sorts.

You conflate 'marriage' and 'relationship'. Prior to 1975, the State of CA had laws against homosexual and some heterosexual activity. In that year CA legalized all sexual activity between consenting adults, it was all allowed. This did not in fact create the right to marriage. Same sex marriages took another 30 years for CA to grant, then they revoked that right with Prop 8 then it was restored in 2013.

So your theory is what, again? No rules to protect kids, no regulations of any sort about marriage, which can involved say all 2 or 200 people, it's all good, the people can be 9 years old or 90, again, not the business of government you say. Period you say.

[cherokeeprogressive]

9. Get real. Did I say that the laws governing the age of consent should be changed?

[Bluenorthwest]

10. So you did not mean what you said, which was this:

The government should not be in the business of allowing OR disallowing relationships.
Period.

You meant the government has great reason to disallow some relationships, which is in fact the opposite of what you said.

Aside from that, you don't seem to want to address the rest of what I posted either. Not surprised.

[treestar]

11. It is asked to intervene though

If you had no government involvement, people would have to make contracts. probably they'd fail to do that. Then when things go wrong and it's time for the break up , there is conflict. The courts end up with it. So it's fair for society to make some regulations.