Quote Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife View Post
Just really curious.....What is your objection to the state being a party in the contract, and how would you change things then so that the rights and responsibilities of marriage would be granted to those legally marrying - sexual orientation aside? I'm talking transfer of assets upon death, that kind of thing. Rob
I guess it depends on how you define 'the state'. If you're talking about the several states mentioned in our constitution, I think it's only right and proper for them to set standards for social contracts within their jurisdictions. If you're talking about the federal government, then my objection is that it should not be in their purview. By what right does it choose not to accept a legal contract originating in one of it's states?