|
Contracts already exist for almost all of the stuff that marriage makes implicit. In fact, marriage is just a contract that includes the federal, state, and local laws by reference.
If the state got out of the business of defining marriage an industry of standard contracts would quickly arise and the institution would be infinitely malleable to the needs, desires, and situation of the involved parties (and the next battles of group and incestuous marriage also go away).
Since the government has created a definition it has become a shorthand for private institutions but they'd quickly adjust.
The only real need for government intervention remaining is on behalf of the children and child custody and obligation laws have already been almost completely redesigned to work independently of the institution of marriage? Why, because the government definitions to match reality to a different part of the government said "screw them." It's time for all the parts and the private sector to say the same thing.
But that won't happen any time soon.
I think in the long run it is a bad idea for the battle over gay marriage to be won judicially instead of popularly but I certainly won't be upset if the CA Supreme Court settles it in the affirmative. I just think it is more likely to inflame things like Roe v. Wade did than settle them.
|