why should a spouse who only knew the guy for 2 years, married for 1, get 5th amendment protection vs the live in girlfriend of 5 years who hasn't reached common law yet doesn't?

This whole debate has been us saying it should no longer be tied to religious connotations

We got calling ground on that point.

we do

Common Ground asterisk

You would be able to make the legal argument than because of the length of the relationship, the same protection should apply

Could just make it so everyone is allowed to refuse to incriminate someone they know

That seems like a gross overpowering of the Fifth Amendment. Nobody would be able to get tried for anything at that point.

I guess it's a bit much but I disagree that nobody would get tried for anything

Will the religious fundamentalist have a point that marriage was never intended to be a man and a woman, the fact that these systems are ingrained into society the way they are, and the fact that we're moving towards a secular mode of thinking, calls for a secularization of marriage. The problem has never been with the system of marriage and it's legal form, the problem has been with access to those benefits.

wait.

Between that, and the step of marriage being taken to lightly

wut

i thought the religious fundamentalist argued that marriage was intended to be a man and woman....

They do, but i dont think anyone here would

okay, well i agree on the access to those benefits. But i disagree on the all or nothing of some of those benefits.

i.e. A Las Vegas wedding should not end up with more benefits than couple who have lived together for twice the amount of time the other couple has even known each-other.

But you got to widen the 5th Amendment, that would enable a lot of corruption. You'd be able to have employees, officers even, within a company refusing to testify against the CEO for instance on Fifth Amendment grounds

L sorry about the poor grammar by the way, I'm using speech recognition.

how? is their official mailing address the CEO's house?

Somebody mentioned something about not having to testify against somebody you know

Imagine if the mafia were able to follow that.

Many cases are resolved purely on expert testimony that presents evidence rather than witness testimony

Though I admit I didn't fully think idea through

A lot of the problems I see today, come from people making changes for the greater good without thinking about the future.

currently you can refuse unless they subpoena

The 5th amendment protects you from subpoena though

exactly

I can't be subpoenaed and forced to testify in my own case, neither can my spouse.

I have the right to remain silent, are right under the Fifth Amendment, add a spouse maintains that same right.

and if the idea for that is that it is a shared life, which is why a spouse is protected, i think that should apply to anyone who is living a shared life with someone else, regardless of if they applied for that protection.

Lads are you talkimg about that new court ruling ?

We're going full Convention of states in here

not anymore

but its related

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html

I dont know where i stand on this tbh

baker can refuse service to anyone

Thats my gut reaction

Government should just be does not compute about anything marriage

But then you can make shops for certain race only too