Need more proof that we have commies in the White House?
Check out Cass Sunstein’s views on marriage:
The U.S. government should abolish its sanctioning of marriage, argued Cass Sunstein, President Obama’s regulatory czar.
Sunstein proposed that the concept of marriage should become privatized, with the state only granting civil union contracts to couples wishing to enter into an agreement.
Sunstein explained marriage licensing is unnecessary, pointing out people stay committed to organizations like country clubs and homeowner associations without any government interference.
“Under our proposal, the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government,” wrote Sunstein and co-author Richard Thaler in their 2008 book, “Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness.”
In the book – obtained and reviewed by WND – Sunstein explains his approach would ensure that “the only legal status states would confer on couples would be a civil union, which would be a domestic partnership agreement between any two people.”
Compare that to goal #40 here. It’s from the Communist Manifesto presented to Congress in the 60s.
Sunstein and I have come to similar conclusions from completely opposite ends of reasoning. I agree that it’s not for the federal government to say that anyone can or cannot marry, and that it’s best privatized.
However, I believe that it’s best left between individuals and God–or at the very least, left to the states to decide which unions they’ll recognize. The Constitution does not enumerate the recognition of marriage as among the responsibilities listed for any branch of the Federal government, which, by the Constitution’s own definition, means that that responsibility is left to the states (assuming that their constitutions enumerate that responsibility).
Each state now issues its legal binding document for marriage. In Arkansas you can get your license and married at the same time but in Missouri you have to wait 3 days.
When it comes to benefits like Social Security, you have to have some proof you were married or “legally bound” together. Otherwise, if your spouse dies and you go to collect benefits, someone else could also apply for those benefits. Maybe he had a mistress who believes she’s entitled to his benefits and without some legal document to prove you were the spouse, the courts will have to decide.
As if the “benefits” discussion will be relevant much longer, given the way Social (in)Security is broke.
But you are right, to a point. And it’s why I said it’s entirely up to the states to decide who and what to recognize, and not the Federal government to impose.
So when do we start the purge?