Liberty Alone

In one way I’m glad that California will recognise gay marriage. As far as I’m concerned the state has no business discriminating between unions of heterosexuals and homosexuals. Civil partnerships are still discrimination, even whilst they are better than an outright ban.

On the other hand, this simply reinforces the idea that marriage is something to be granted to us by the state.
I am firmly of the opinion that the state has no place in regulating our personal relationships in such a way.

The state entering into this role of approval for marriage discriminates against many, not just those who are deemed unable to marry.
There are many who do not wish to get married for philosophical or political reasons. These people cannot benefit from the advantages which marriage brings, despite being in committed, long term relationships, often with children as well.

The state should get out of the whole business of marriage, except as an arbiter of last resort. If people wish to formally confirm their commitment then they can draw up a contract.
If a religious group is opposed to various relationships then they can argue against them to their members and refuse to recognise such relationships. They should not be able to use the power of the state to enforce their views upon others.

As a practical effort however, I applaud the Californian Supreme Court’s decision.

I’ve just read this article describing Christmas in a polygamous family in the second half of the 20th Century.

It tells of times when the family could not be together because they were being pursued by the state for the ‘crime’ of polygamy.
Personally, I know I couldn’t cope with polygamy (or polyandry or whatever other arrangements there are) (the conclusion the author makes for herself), but I can see no reason for it to be outlawed.

The thing which really struck me was the harm that the legal intervention did. It fractured the household, it nearly got the children taken from a loving (if unconventional) family and given up to the state - something which today would do incredible harm, 40 years ago I shudder to think of the consequences for the children.

This story strengthens my belief that marriage should just be a private contract, entered into as people see fit, devoid of any state sanction or rules. The Church can refuse to bless anything they see as wrong, it would be up to the church.
People can publicly acknowledge their love for each other and their commitment to each other however they wish on terms of their choosing. If that be multiple husbands or wives, so be it. Why should the state care?

The Law Society has proposed that cohabiting couples should by default have protection if they split up.

I am opposed to this- taking on responsibility towards another person should be done with explicit consent. You give that when you get married or form a civil partnership (which should be the same as marriage but that is a different matter).

This would have the effect of assuming consent to these rules when two people cohabit. No positive commitment is made, no contract drawn up between the parties, yes one is forced upon them, or they must draw one up themselves to escape from it.

This is apart from attempting to define cohabitation, something which is bound to be fraught with difficulty.

I do wonder about the motives for this. Who would benefit most? It seems to me that the lawyers would. A whole new area of disputes for them to administer, handed them by law.

My suggestion is that the Law Society should draw up basic contracts which people can sign setting out their responsibilities towards each other. A bit like marriage really, except even more explicit. This will generate work for the lawyers, and make the system far more flexible and entirely voluntary.
It even opens up the door to other living arrangements. Do you have multiple partners living with you? Well, you can have a contract between the three of you. How about long term house mates? No sexual relationship but things might be purchased together - how do you apportion things in the event of one leaving?

This could be well publicised by the legal profession, helping do away with the myth of common law marriage.

It also acts as a good signal to people in a relationship - is the other person not willing to take responsibility? That might make you think again.

Everyone wins in this situation. Contracts you explicitly make are easier to enforce, they let you define your own terms rather than someone else telling you what you should require and needn’t be expensive. Its the ideal liberal solution.