Interesting, but the proposed “solution” does not address the expected exclusivity of the relationship (sexual, financial, emotional, social, etc) that is supposed to be established between the two persons entering into these partnerships.
In fact, this approach could possibly be manipulated to support group marriages between multiple individuals and would probably immediately legalize polygamy. The only real restriction would be having the financial wherewithal to support the children and some sort of pre-existing agreement concerning property (both joint and separate). A person, well-to-do (or otherwise) could establish these registry relations in multiple states between themselves and other contracting parties over and over again, theoretically without limit.
Many years ago, I stumbled into this minefield when, during a college class on politics, I suggested that the then proposed legalization of prostitution (never did occur anywhere except Nevada) would eliminate that (sexual infidelity) as an actionable offense between a husband and wife (or to be PC, between spouses). Turned out that the modern liberated women in the class weren’t so liberated after all.
I agree that, given the current political trajectory of gay marriage, discontinuing the use of religion to solemnize civil marriages/domestic partnerships/etc is probably a desirable thing to accomplish. Let the state call it civil marriage, etc.
Have them sign forms and a register without any special convocation of the community or invocation of community assistance to the new pairing. Make it about as interesting as taking out a building permit. I’m sure, given the tendencies of bureaucrats to well, bureaucratize, eventually they will manage to transform the current, relatively simple, process into a full blown ordeal complete with various fitness examinations, pre-counseling sessions, etc. Just consider, as an example, what it takes to adopt a shelter animal in many places these days.
However, if you want a religious ceremony, it is a separate matter and you are going to have to meet the criteria.of that particular faith tradition to get married. And for most traditions, but not all, that means one man, one woman.
Yes, item #2 in this proposal could be problematic for a number of reasons.
But, aside from the USSC possibly redefining marriage, there are problems with marriage law as it stands now in many (if not all) states - yes, even as it pertains to one man-one woman marriage.
IMHO, some one man-one woman couples are to blame for much of this mess. Some have been redefining marriage on their own for many years, and laws have been changed to accommodate their every want, laying the groundwork for marriage to be redefined completely.
All you is TRUE.
If the definition of “marriage” is left completely in the private domain, all you say can happen.
I don’t adopt this position lightly. Since the state has proven itself unable to define marriage correctly, let its role be relegated to be a bean counter of sorts and unburden it from its perceived power of defining new sorts of unions and new but synthetic human “rights.”
In my Church, matrimony is a sacrament; in someone else’s faith (or atheist association) it might be a hog-tie, perhaps even with real hogs. Who is to say? If the state don’t want to say what marriage is, or can’t bring itself to the true definition of marriage, then let’s take that power away from the state.
~Theo