Like Roy, I tend to be an advocate of contractual solutions to these issues, and don’t believe the government should be used to force others to embrace or denigrate behaviors freely chosen by competent adults.
However, I cannot agree with the separation of marriage and state. There are third parties involved, and they can be deeply affected by the behavior or misbehavior of adults. I’m talking about children, of course. And while it is certainly true that procreation cannot be considered the sole function of marriage ? what about those who choose not to have children, or cannot due to age or disability? ? a prudential argument I’ve heard in favor of state-sanctioned marriage is that it makes it more likely that men will stay committed to their spouses, thus reducing the risk of out-of-wedlock births (even if the marriage in question is not procreative).
I still favor voluntary, contractual solutions, but I’m just saying that I do think state involvement can be justified when the legitimate interests of children are involved. I don’t mean that the state should treat adults as children, by the way, or make policy as if only children are involved, so don’t push me down a slippery slope I haven?t already descended (I’ve slid down enough of them already!)
