Comment: I agree

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Double edged sword. (see in situ)

I agree

Calling civil unions "marriage" was a contrived misnomer, least we forget, that giving the public the idea that the state provides freedom, is a huge deception only the state profits from.

The state has enjoyed the deception knowing that it can profit off "LOVE" beit "marriage", divorse, lack of legal heirs, by making precident THE law, which is so expensive, even rightful heirs can not compete with the power of the state to claim what once was rightfully theirs.

I don't believe ending marriage is the correct course because marriage, when understood that this is a CONTRACT between two people FOR THEIR CHILDREN, and not about LOVE, can empower and protect people and their heirs from the robbery of the state.

The state would LOVE nothing more than to eliminate marriage FOR THE SAKE OF THE HEIRS because then people are easier to eliminate when they have no one to legally help them (and I don't mean a laywer representing the state), when the state decides to target them for their wealth, or life.