Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein urges the term ‘marriage’ abolished

The left wing nutjobs surrounding Obama get more whacky by the day. Latest example (at this hour) is Cass Sunstein. From the man who says your pets should be able to sue you, and have attorneys, nutjob Sunstein now says that the U.S. government should abolish its sanctioning of marriage! 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. According to The Woodward Report:

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.”

He proposed marriage not be recognized by the government. Marriages would instead be “strictly private matters, performed by religious and other private organizations,” he wrote.

“Governments would not be asked to endorse any particular relationships by conferring on them the term marriage,” added Sunstein.

Sunstein slammed current government recognition of marriage as “an official license scheme.”

“When the state grants marriage it gives both maternal and symbolic benefits to the couples it recognizes. But why combine the two functions? And what is added by the term marriage?” he asked.

Sunstein explained terminating the issuance of state marriage contracts would not affect the commitments of those in the “partnership.”

“People take their private commitments serious,” Sunstein wrote. “Members of religious organizations, homeowners’ associations, and country clubs all feel bound, sometimes quite strongly, by the structures and rules of such organizations.”

Take organs from ‘helpless patients’

Sunstein’s proposal regarding marriage is hardly the only controversial section of his book. WND reported last week that in the same book, Sunstein defended the possibility of removing organs from terminally ill patients without their permission.

He also strongly pushed for the removal of organs from deceased individuals who did not explicitly consent to becoming organ donors.

Sunstein and Thaler discussed multiple legal scenarios regarding organ donation. One possibility presented in the book, termed by Sunstein as “routine removal,” posits that “the state owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone’s permission.”

“Though it may sound grotesque, routine removal is not impossible to defend,” wrote Sunstein. “In theory, it would save lives, and it would do so without intruding on anyone who has any prospect for life.”

Sunstein continued: “Although this approach is not used comprehensively by any state, many states do use the rule for corneas (which can be transplanted to give some blind patients sight). In some states, medical examiners performing autopsies are permitted to remove corneas without asking anyone’s permission.”

Sunstein’s example of medical examiners removing corneas, however, applies only to patients who are already declared deceased.

No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)

October 23, 2009 · Filed Under Obama Czars


Comments

  • MotherRedDog

    God help us make it through the next 3 years. I don’t want to die knowing that my granddaughter is going to be left in a world where people like this are in a position of power. This guy must think that he is God. Of course, I’m sure he’s a non believer and therefore so much smarter then everyone else. How sad for our country.

  • Kurt Klinedinst

    I suppose the writer of this piece would
    consider himself to be a small govt conservative.
    Ironic that the highlighted leftist is actually
    more on the side of personal freedom and less
    govt intrusion on this issue. Marriage is a deeply
    personal issue between individuals, God and
    their churches. Govt should have no place in
    marriage. Govt should only be allowed to
    recognize legally binding contracts.