[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Saying that the government should not be involved in marriages is not as easy a solution as it sounds. The fact is that there are so many legal implications of being married (many of which most people agree with, like the right to inherit a spouse's property, etc.) that the government cannot simply divorce itself (pun intended) from the marriage business.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not that hard. People make private contracts outside of the government all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not all of the legal implications of marriage can be replaced by private contracts.
Examples:
The right of a spouse not to testify against his or her spouse in court one reason why it shouldn't be involved. No one should have the right of being an accomplice of another. Should parents have this right too? Children?

The right of a spouse to sue for the death of his or her spouse Families do this all the time. Ask the Brown family who sued OJ.

The rate at which people's incomes are taxed based on whether or not they are married Another bad reason that should be abandoned
Issues relating to the custody of children You have to be married to have children? This is not unique to marriage

[/ QUOTE ]