48 ms·

One of the most brilliant ideas I've heard on the subject is a couple of proposed constitutional amendments stating that (a) your body is your personal property

by lukifer 11y ago

One of the most brilliant ideas I've heard on the subject is a couple of proposed constitutional amendments stating that (a) your body is your personal property, and (b) you have an inalienable right to define who is a member of your family. When framed in that way, even most social conservatives would agree with the underlying principles.

tommorris 11y ago
> (b) you have an inalienable right to define who is a member of your family So if Charles Manson decides you are his wife now, you don't get much of a say in it. Sounds awesome.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
kevin_thibedeau 11y ago
Then what is there to prevent two people who've never even met in person from agreeing to be "married" for tax purposes.
- jasonjei 11y ago
  What's to prevent two people who've met in person from agreeing to be "married" for tax purposes? Marriage fraud is marriage fraud--an application for marriage doesn't prevent that even presenting themselves before court officers. However, there's a whole discussion on how tax benefits for married couples is in violation of the equal protection clause...
mark-r 11y ago
You underestimate social conservatives. They're perfectly capable of working out the consequences of such a change.
hobbyjogger 11y ago
In an odd way, your constitutional amendment (b) would outlaw marriage altogether. When you have an inalienable right to something, you can't bargain that right away through contract.[1] An inalienable right to define who is family would make it impossible for anyone to enter a "contract" for an exclusive relationship (which alienates your right to marry others you want to have in your family). You couldn't get married (at least as that term is used now) any more than you can enter a contract to become a slave. [1] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Inalienable+rights http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Inalienable+ri...

by lukifer 11y ago

tommorris 11y ago

> (b) you have an inalienable right to define who is a member of your family So if Charles Manson decides you are his wife now, you don't get much of a say in it. Sounds awesome.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

kevin_thibedeau 11y ago

Then what is there to prevent two people who've never even met in person from agreeing to be "married" for tax purposes.

jasonjei 11y ago
What's to prevent two people who've met in person from agreeing to be "married" for tax purposes? Marriage fraud is marriage fraud--an application for marriage doesn't prevent that even presenting themselves before court officers. However, there's a whole discussion on how tax benefits for married couples is in violation of the equal protection clause...

mark-r 11y ago

You underestimate social conservatives. They're perfectly capable of working out the consequences of such a change.

hobbyjogger 11y ago

In an odd way, your constitutional amendment (b) would outlaw marriage altogether. When you have an inalienable right to something, you can't bargain that right away through contract.[1] An inalienable right to define who is family would make it impossible for anyone to enter a "contract" for an exclusive relationship (which alienates your right to marry others you want to have in your family). You couldn't get married (at least as that term is used now) any more than you can enter a contract to become a slave. [1] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Inalienable+rights http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Inalienable+ri...