When Sheldon says in the above video that “mutual indemnification” is always romantic, he is saying that being IRRESPONSIBLE or NOT RESPONSIBLE makes things more “romantic”. This quest to avoid responsibility began in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve, in fact, as we point out in our Path to Freedom, Form #09.015.

The ENTIRE civil code governing statutory “citizens” is just like this “relationship agreement”. See:

Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/StatLawGovt.pdf

Statutory “citizens” (and “residents”) are the ONLY parties to what the U.S. Supreme Court calls a “social compact”. What both of these things have in common is DOMICILE or RESIDENCE. See Form #05.002. The legal definition of “compact” is CONTRACT. That is why voting is referred to as the “elective franchise” by the courts: Because only voluntary group members and contractors called “electors” can select members of the government. Every agreement MUST presume consent of the parties (Form #05.003) or it is implicitly invalid. The government MUST also provide, per the Constitution, a way to protect those who DO NOT consent using the COMMON law and the Bill of Rights, INSTEAD of the STATUTE law. This is an outgrowth of the common law maxim that you have an absolute right NOT to receive a “benefit” and thereby avoid the cost or obligation of DELIVERING the “benefit”:

“Cujus est commodum ejus debet esse incommodum. He who receives the benefit should also bear the disadvantage.”

Hominum caus jus constitutum est. Law is established for the benefit of man.

Injuria propria non cadet in beneficium facientis. One’s own wrong shall not benefit the person doing it.

Invito beneficium non datur. No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent. Dig. 50, 17, 69. But if he does not dissent he will be considered as assenting. Vide Assent.

Potest quis renunciare pro se, et suis, juri quod pro se introductum est. A man may relinquish, for himself and his heirs, a right which was introduced for his own benefit. See 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 83.

Privatum incommodum publico bono peusatur. Private inconvenience is made up for by public benefit.

Privilegium est beneficium personale et extinguitur cum person. A privilege is a personal benefit and dies with the person. 3 Buls. 8.

Que sentit commodum, sentire debet et onus. He who derives a benefit from a thing, ought to feel the disadvantages attending it. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1433.

Quilibet potest renunciare juri pro se inducto. Any one may renounce a law introduced for his own benefit. To this rule there are some exceptions. See 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 83.
[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856; https://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]

For anyone in the government to suggest that this is NOT the case indirectly is to advocate unconstitutional SLAVERY in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. The result of such advocacy literally is criminal human trafficking.

Judges will corruptly, illegally, and even criminally try to FORCE you to become an unwilling party to this “relationship agreement” or “compact” as follows:

Choice of Law, Litigation Tool #01.010
https://sedm.org/Litigation/01-General/ChoiceOfLaw.pdf

For more authorities on the legal aspects of “benefits”, see:

1. Sovereignty and Freedom Points and Authorities, Litigation Tool #10.018, Section 4.10
   https://sedm.org/Litigation/10-PracticeGuides/PointsAuth.pdf
2. The Government “Benefits” Scam, Form #05.040
   https://sedm.org/product/the-government-benefits-scam-form-05-040/