\u201cMarriage\u201d is an ancient artificial construct that, in modern US society with no property rights attached to the female (i.e., dowry), has no real place.<\/p>\n
As I said on chosha\u2019s blog A Little East of Reality<\/a>, what\u2019s going on with California\u2019s Prop 8<\/a> and the LDS church\u2019s involvement with that, is one of defining the term. What needs to happen is that the underpinning law defining the term needs to change and then let linguistic evolution take over as to what is and is not marriage.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s what needs to happen:<\/p>\n You and your intended(s) go to a lawyer and draw up a contract (people already to this for prenuptial agreements). You specify things like kids, power of attorney, healthcare decisionmaking, who does and does not have access to your healthcare information (thank you, HIPAA<\/a>), and other things that heterosexual couples just \u2026 get \u2026 legally because they\u2019re married as defined by law. In this case, the contract becomes the law. The lawyer files it with the court (like a divorce decree, only it\u2019d be called something else like, oh, a companionship contract), the state collects its data, and everybody\u2019s good to go.<\/p>\n If you and your intended(s) then want to go to your local ecclesiastical entity (whatever it is) and have a rite performed, you do that. Or don\u2019t, if you don\u2019t want to.<\/p>\n Or \u2026 do none of the above and after X number of years, you\u2019ve converted from cohabitating to common-law \u201cmarriage” and that could apply to whatever living arrangement you have.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s the thing. You change the labels and the populace will decide what marriage is based on their vocabulary.<\/p>\n Since I\u2019m a libertarian, I have no investment in regulating what people do with their bodies as long as it doesn\u2019t endanger me and mine.<\/p>\n I also have no investment in helping the church attempt to define \u201cmarriage” in California (although thankfully I haven\u2019t been asked because then I\u2019d be forced to be rude) because marriage has historically been about money and alliances.<\/p>\n What I find hypocritical is that the people who are most invested in re-defining marriage to include same-sex couples then turn around and vehemently protest polyamorous unions, which should have the same protections under whatever law gets passed.<\/p>\n