Sanctioned domestic partnership contracts are a legitimate government interest.

On claims of bald assertionThe reasoned claim that is the duty of government "to fight that which does insult to the freedom of its citizens to be, as well as to codify for future reference what is not within our freedoms, and to allow people as a group to determine what constitutes explicitly acceptable behavior, both for the government itself and for the people who are members of it" it is not an assumption. It is a claim to which there was data, particularly a pursuit of logical implications of our shared first principles. That data logically DEMANDED of those first principles that society as a whole, every person in it, had a responsibility to pursue that end, and that government existed as the realization of that shared responsibility, and a warrant back to the claim.Further, I did NOT simply declare a definition in my discussion as "freedom of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"; rather, that particular quote was not a claim, but rather DATA to prove an entirely different claim: That freedom is a concept that arises througout history independently. That freedom arises from many sources is evidence that freedom is more than just nonsensical fancy."[T]he other is equal to self by virtue of equal existence, therefore other must be treated as self, principally because equals ought be treated equally," is also not an assertion; it is a logical implication of the first principles that the universe exists, and the moral law that equals ought be treated equally. Further, this does NOT logically equal "do to others as you would have them do to you."; ALL THREE of those moral laws must be taken together, else the resultant thing is invalid."[I]ndividuals who live together rather than alone...spend fewer raw materials or expend less available energy for their combined survival and freedom." does not just imply that those individuals involved spend fewer resources, but also that they consume fewer resources, so long as they exist in such an imperfect world as ours. In their lack of consumption, those resources remain available for society. This is an important point which cannot be overlooked, and is foundational to the argument that Domestic Partnerships contribute to the public good.A priori responsibility to the people to foil natural evil as a trait of any rightful government is one of the vital points for supporting the resolution of the debate, and this has not been adequately challenged because...Con's declarations on the nature of government"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil," Is itself an argument from authority, in character no different from a mere assertion. While it might be interesting to see an ACTUAL argument leveled from either first principles or observations of reality, this is not such an argument; likewise the quotation of the words of Jefferson similarly fail to be anything beyond mere assertion.It is no small thing to note that from my previous statement, particularly against such spurious claims, "that which the other may not do is that which the self may prevent from being done, and that which the self would prevent from being done to self is also that which the self ought prevent from being done to others, as equals must be treated equally"; it is not within the freedom of any person to just shirk their responsibilities. The same logic that entitles a person to freedom also binds them to defend the freedom of others, and also defend them from natural evil. This means that it is not undue coercion when government does things for the public good, particularly if such a thing is limiting the effects of evil. There must be some "evil" present for it to be considered a "necessary evil", and nothing CON has said so far actually supports this claim.The social effects of domestic partnershipSo, one of the supported responsibilies of government is to lessen the effects of natural evil upon society, not only from first principles but also from the de-facto charter of said government (1). From that it follows that if reducing the overal need of society for material consumption is an effect of domestic partnership, and such constites reduction of the effect of natural evil, then it follows that the government should want as much domestic partnership as it can bring about, and that it has the responsibility and ethical authorization to lay taxes for the purpose of bringing about that end.After all, IF there existed some injection which utterly removed a person's need to eat and their hunger and harmed them in no way, would it not be within the government's interest to subsidize and encourage its citizens to choose such a course of action? It would utterly end the need for so many of us to farm crops, and this is surely within the general welfare, itself being an utter end to the natural evil of hunger and starvation. What of an injection that merely reduced the need by half? Certainly! Indeed, any reduction in need afforded by such a measure ought be encouraged and subsidzed through taxation, so long as the effect of the measure is greater than the overall impact of the taxation, and where the measure itself does not get utterly forced upon the people. It is further not just in the benefit of some private enterprise; in fact, such a measure is AGAINST the benefit of specific private enterprises. However, it IS in the benefit of SOCIETY.Here, though, instead of hunger, we are looking at a measure, freely taken, which reduces the consumption, hunger, need different resources: housing, electricity, heat. So long as the overall benefit to the general welfare in convincing them of such a course of action is greater than the cost of the taxes which support it, MUST similarly be within the duty of government to provide such a benefit.On privatizationCON asserts that private actors would see it in their best interest to cohabitate and dictate their own terms for doing so without government intervention. I can, in fact, agree with the first clause of this claim, that people will in general see it within their own best interests to cohabitate. However, on the second claim, this is not borne out by reality. The existence of people fighting specifically for government regulated and recognized domestic partnership contracts is proof that private actors DO wish there to be government involvement and regulation in such contracts, and need for arbtration of disputes arising over informal cohabitation is evidence that the state DOES have interests in considering laws which formally outline resnsibilities in such situations.However on his second assertion, I entirely agree; the govermnent DOESN'T have any business forcing an activity which by all rights in such contracts would be voluntary. However, the government does have business encouraging it to take place. After all, the government in many cases rightly tells us how not to go about our biological urges for mediating boredom; they clearly prohibit drunken driving, and though sexual education have every responsibility to encourage safe sex. Within this same logic, they also have a responsibility to encourage responsible cohabitation and to mediate its successful cessation when such is necessary.After this, CON continues to argue from the spurious bald assertion of before, in his declaration of government's function and his claim that such would constitute government coercion. There is, here, the claim that the citizenry is forced to comply with some edict; in this case the edict "IF you choose to file a domestic partnership contract withthe government, the government will provide you specific benefits" does not in any way dictate action by persons. It dictates the levying of a TAX, one which is far smaller than the societal benefit, which government is otherwise authorized and even required to seek.[1] Constitution of the United States, Article I section 8.