The idea of getting the state out of the marriage contract is an interesting, but very flawed, idea.
The main reasons for the State being involved in marriage are
1. To raise up new productive citizens, you need a stable family group. This is the norm for all ages, and works better than any other arrangement. Most States have seen this.
2. Probate. When you die, your stuff is going to your spouse or your kids. If you don’t have a marriage license, the difficulties in getting the State to let the non legally married spouse have anything is enormous. And well should be. Otherwise when a rich man died, he would have “wives” all over the place clamoring for a piece of the pie (or visa versa).
Howdy redgolum. I’m thinking that these problems would pretty much take care of themselves or can’t be entrusted to gubberment in the first place. I could be wrong. For instance, nothing would stop a rich man from making out a legally binding contract of marriage and having a will, right?
As far as the stable family goes, I don’t like the gubberments record in this regard. They stink at making and keeping stable families. Most religions are good at making and keeping stable families. Why put the gubberment in a position of power over religion? Eventually gubberment will start sanctioning impossibilities like gay marriage. Trusting the gubberment to promote stable marriage is trusting too much, in my opinion, given the gubberments track record.
I think having the gubberment involved in marriage cheapens it. I need a license for driving, hunting and fishing. I shouldn’t have to get a license from the gubberment for permission to get married in the Church, in my opinion.
Like I said, I could be wrong my fellow freeper!
Freegards