I’ve always thought that marriage, rightly understood, is more than a civil contract. But I also believed that whatever lies beyond the contract was none of the State’s business. This article, along with the earlier ones in the series, has changed my mind. Marriage is unique, and it deserves a unique place in public law.
Government isn't doing a very good job of protecting the interests of children or of men in a traditional marriage. I suppose this is a question of implementation rather than philosophy but it is what we live with. The marriage contract isn't written down except in pre nups which can be randomly invalidated by some black robed tyrants and is definitely subject to ex post facto change by statute.
I’ve always thought that marriage, rightly understood, is more than a civil contract. But I also believed that whatever lies beyond the contract was none of the State’s business. This article, along with the earlier ones in the series, has changed my mind. Marriage is unique, and it deserves a unique place in public law.
On tax, government is incoherent. The urge is tax at rising rates as income rises. "Soak the rich."
But consider the cases:
A single person makes 100k.
Two separate individuals each make 50k.
A married person makes 100k, spouse stays at home.
A married couple each make 50k; together 100k.
Who if anyone ought government soak?
The only rational answer is flat tax, but nothing so clear is possible in politics.
Tax must only to fund the proper works of government, not to manipulate society.
Government has no business manipulating. That creates dirigiste monsters.
Government isn't doing a very good job of protecting the interests of children or of men in a traditional marriage. I suppose this is a question of implementation rather than philosophy but it is what we live with. The marriage contract isn't written down except in pre nups which can be randomly invalidated by some black robed tyrants and is definitely subject to ex post facto change by statute.