tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post110298184344853092..comments2024-03-26T12:23:35.307-05:00Comments on The Buck Stops Here: Marriage LawsStuart Buckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05731724396708879386noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-1103433316801104632004-12-18T23:15:00.000-06:002004-12-18T23:15:00.000-06:00Exactly: I made the same point 1.5 years ago here....Exactly: I made the same point 1.5 years ago <A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fstuartbuck.blogspot.com%2F2003%2F06%2Falienation-of-affection.html">here</A>.Stuart Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05731724396708879386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-1103337128986492942004-12-17T20:32:00.000-06:002004-12-17T20:32:00.000-06:00Doesn't the law of contracts provide an easy answe...Doesn't the law of contracts provide an easy answer for this? We would all admit that commercial contracts are essential to the structure of our economy; without them, the entire system would fall apart. Our legal system hasn't responded to the necessity of protecting contractual interests by imposing criminal--or even civil--sanctions on those who breach them. It recongnizes the concept of efficient breach, i.e., that sometimes it's better for both parties to go their own way, and the various forms of recovery available to the wronged party simply ensure that he's not left worse off than he would have been had the other party performed. This is presumably sufficient to maintain a healthy environment for entering commercial contracts.<br /><br />The really difficult question is why, if the law still provides for tortious interference of contract actions, why have many states repealed their alienation of affection laws? That's a much closer analogy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-1103071971245917982004-12-14T18:52:00.000-06:002004-12-14T18:52:00.000-06:00Interesting argument, but it seems like this kind ...Interesting argument, but it seems like this kind of legal asymmetry isn't uncommon--the government taxes cigarettes but doesn't reward non-smoking, the government gives college scholarships to good students but doesn't punish bad students, the government punishes kids who skip school but doesn't reward good attendance. Maybe scholarships are a good analogy for this marriage question...<br /><br />The government has an interest in having educated citizens so it gives out scholarships. If those scholarship kids drop out of college, that injures the state--but the government doesn't make it illegal, it just takes away the scholarship. Similarly, the government doesn't make adultery illegal, but it does take away the benefits of marriage for divorced couples.<br /><br />So the government's treatment of marriage probably isn't logically consistent, but it might be consistent with the way the government does other things...<br /><br />Katie<br />http://aconstrainedvision.blogspot.comKatiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08461939657925115017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-1103066427040715812004-12-14T17:20:00.000-06:002004-12-14T17:20:00.000-06:00It's "Massachusetts", not "Massachussets".It's "Massachusetts", not "Massachussets".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com