Depositing a $2 trillion dollar coin to reduce the nominal debt would itself have relatively little impact on the.value of the dollar, since it’s just in the essentially fake books of the US national government. Dollars, after all, are just coupons for “I am worth $1 towards any US government debt or court judgement.”

Depositing a $2 billion coin with the UN, in contrast, would have exactly the same inflationary pressure as giving 200,000,000 Americans 2000 $1 coins.

So you want to remove all of the various privileges and duties bundled together as legal marriage, save for the ones that people manually enter into. I think that’s a terrible idea.

People already have freedom to contract. With a competent lawyer you can already co-parent with one adult, give another your medical power of attorney, and specify the disbersment.of property after you pass in a relatively tax-efficient manner. Even if you’re married to someone and want those other adults to all be someone other than your spouse.

If we did what you suggest and remove the underlying default bundle of agreements we call marriage, we would dramatically increase the cost of divorce and the rate of economic spousal abuse. All someone would have to do to get out of a “marriage” absent its original terms would be to burn the copies of their agreement, and even the simplest separations would be subject to adversarial litigation.

I think there’s some wide latitude to modify that default bundle and remove some of its limitations and presumptions. (Especially when it comes to taxation and social welfare, where a UBI + ~40% flat tax is better in nearly every way). But humans do pair-bond, and it seems to make much more sense to argue for the actual changes you want rather than insisting that we wholly disregard the atomic unit of human civilization.

Your argument seems more against religion (and inferrably monogamy) than it does marriage itself. Especially if “civil union” is your alternative.

I don’t see what the benefit would be to just go through the family law and replace the term “marriage” with “civil union”.

If each and every person should matter then It should be ok to recognize each and every person for what they are being targetted for. And I see this law as doing just that.

Please note that, by all accounts I’ve seen, Italy’s femicide law does not cover any similar offense against men. It’s an elevated offense to try and reduce the disproportionate number of Italian women who are killed by intimate partners.

We don’t define in law the assisted suicide of a white cis man as categorically less severe than the assisted suicide of a black genderqueer female.

Are you familiar with the US Supreme Court case Moritz v. Commissioner (which my wife brought to my attention after she saw the movie.)?

An important advance in feminist law was literally about a man who wanted a tax deduction but was denied because the deduction was meant for women.

So, what’s the link to this english-language translation of the law in question?

Here’s an unattributed quote presumably from such from a BBC article:

The Italian law will apply to murders which are “an act of hatred, discrimination, domination, control, or subjugation of a woman as a woman”, or that occur when she breaks off a relationship or to “limit her individual freedoms.”

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1dzp050yn2o

As described in the above quote, it seems exactly as sexist as I presumed – special protection in the law for cis women, which categorically excludes cis men, trans men, and trans women from its protection.

Do you have a contradictory summary or, ideally, a link to the actual text and a professional translation?

If you come and burn a cross on my white church-going family’s lawn you should be charged with same list of assault, trespass, and arson charges as if you did so on my jewish, black, or pagan friends’ lawns.

A group of black men who banded together and murdered a white boy for dating one of their daughters should be charged with the same anti-lynching statutes enacted to stop the KKK.

The white christian guy who bombs a federal building because the government doesn’t do what he wants should be charged under the same terrorism statute as a brown muslim guy who bombs a federal building because the government doesn’t do what he wants.

Oh, you’ve read the law in question. Great! I can’t read Italian, and the linked article didnt have a statement of what the law actually said.

Does the law specify “woman” as a protected class or “gender”?

With the enactment of this law, is a man who murders a woman for the covered motivation treated differently than a woman who murders a man with the equivalent malice? What’s the actual difference?

Does this imply that previously killing women wasn’t criminal in Italy?

I presume that femicide is a subset of “homicide”, but I can’t tell if it means “any killing of a woman”, “any killing of a woman by a man”, “any killing of a woman because she’s a woman”, or “any killing of a woman by a man because she’s a woman”.

And I shudder to imagine how trans-women and trans-men fit into this weirdly sexist label.

(In America we have nice gender-neutral crimes, with enhancers if it was done out of prejudicial hate.)

So Australia, being a country formally ruled by a crown but governed parliment-style via legislative majority with a designated royal proxy, had the people of said “emergency fallback spare government” talk to each other before actually doing one of the only things they’re still allowed to do?

Was the royal governor thrown in jail? Was the claimed non-involvement of the queen with someone whose literal job was to act in her name used to argue against abolishing the crown of Australia and changing to a formal Republic?

I don’t see the scandal here. If my country’s infamous president claimed that, say, the senate-confirned secretary of defense reached a conclusion on his own but they were discreetly in communication it might at worst be embarrassing, but hardly scandalous.

Is this a weird Australian thing or a weird British thing?