Sunstein urges: Abolish marriage

*Adviser compares institution to country club membership

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.”

Read more:

I’ve heard this argument before from various leftists. Basically they believe that the state shouldn’t recognize ANY marriage, churches could perform ceromonies that would call themselves marriages between any two (or more?) people but in the eyes of the state there would be no marriage.“Marriage” wouldn’t exist as such. Usually this is their way of getting having same sex unions made legal- Civil unions would be granted for all.
Wrongheaded- and dangerous for children.
It is in the best interest for society to support traditional one man/one woman marriage, but fewer and fewer people can see this.

I have ceased to be surprised by anything put forth by these recent appointees.
Appalled, yes; surprised, no.

Still no, since you asked. Obama may be very nearly evil, but insisting on a wholly unnecessary war in Iraq while our hands were full in Afghanistan was worse than anything Obama could possible do. It is a far worse thing for a commander in chief to betray his troops than for a fiend to be a fiend.

That’s a really good point, actually…

And yeah, no surprise from the lefties. :rolleyes:

Why do you think so? What would change other than the name “marriage” be reserved for religion?

Well, don’t underestimate him…

This man’s ideas are disgusting.

I agree. Between the people he appoints and what he is trying to change in our country, it’s scary. With all the propaganda out there about him, it’s like most people are being brainwashed.

Who is betraying his troops now?
And in such a blatant, don’t give a damn about them way?

Although this is certainly NOT a good or ideal way to approach the issue of same-sex unions, it COULD in the long term have one advantage – taking marriage out of the hands of the government means the government no longer has power to define it or dictate what it means.

I have argued before on another thread that this kind of system could perhaps be seen as a last resort to keep the government from interfering with religious marriage, and avoiding any potential confusion about the definition of genuine marriage, if and when government recognition of same-sex unions becomes a reality.

I worry that if we continue with the system we have of the state recognizing religious as well as secular marriage, eventually the state will insist that ALL forms of marriage recognized by the state have to include same-sex couples or else they are “discriminatory.” A proposal like Sunstein’s MIGHT have the effect of preventing that from happening. Then again it might not, because the government does “interfere” to some extent in private organizations (business and private contracts) all the time.

Also, I seem to remember that some of the papal encyclicals on marriage (late 19th and early 20th centuries) contained statements to the effect that since marriage was a divine institution the State had no business governing it anyway. This was in response to the rise of laws that made divorce possible or easier to obtain. Of course those popes weren’t advocating total abolition of civil marriage, they were saying the state shouldn’t be allowing divorce.

Still, do we allow the state to regulate or define any of our other sacraments like baptism, confirmation, or Holy Communion? But then again, the state doesn’t have the same kind of interest in those sacraments that it has in marriage, which affects all of society.

As you can see I really don’t quite know what to think about this. :confused:

Why the question mark for “or more”? Fundamentalist Mormons are already performing religious marriages between more than two people, as are Muslims.

“Marriage” wouldn’t exist as such.

Religious marriages, in all their variety, would continue to exist as now. Civil Marriages would cease to exist and be replaced by the new Civil Partnership arrangement.

It might help by reducing the confusion caused by using the same word for both civil and religious partnership arrangements.


And our liberal friends still maintain that this is not a radical presidency. Unbelieveable.

Considering how far things how gone downhill these days in terms of sexual morality- probably not much would change.
But I think that marriage between one man and one woman being preferred by the state protects children- otherwise people could make whatever unions they wanted- polygamous/same sex/polyamory/ which would be disasterous for the raising of children.
We’ve already seen how the 60’s sexual revolution has resulted in harming kids.
Kids of divorce and single parenting now often have more problems than kids in stable two parent marriages- of course there are exceptions. And I know of a few- but in general.

I still think this would drastically weaken traditional marriage as we know it- of course it’s already been weakened. This would be the death knell- and this guy (sundstein) knows it.
That’s what they want. Destroy the traditional family. Now maybe Obama himself doesn’t believe in this- but some of the people he’s surrounded himself with I suspect do.

Obama has sure surrounded himself with radicals,that’s for sure.

If we’re going to abolish marriage, then let’s also abolish any governmental benefits accruing to either marriage or civil unions. Then the government could get out of the divorce business as well.

Yes, he has. He told us during the campaign that we could judge him by the people he surrounds himself with. I do.

Really? Worse than anything Obama could possibly do? You must have no imagination. I can think of plenty of things Obama could do that is far worse than anything Bush did. Hey actually I can think of things Obama WANTS to do that is worse than anything Bush did. The guy’s only been in office for 10 months, don’t give up on his capacity for evil just yet.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit