There is some one reader out there, one chatter, who keeps daring me to defend my position that in the absence of children, marriage is simply going steady, an arrangement easily broken with no harm to a third party, and one not requiring sanctification by the state.
This person is outraged, much as Gina was when we first discussed this matter 6,000 years ago in our book. The outraged chatter points out that without marriage, people who love each other and want to be committed to each other in good times and bad and whatnot will not be able to qualify for all sorts of government benefits allowed to spouses, will not benefit from inheritance laws, will not be able to make legal decisions for the other in times of incapacity, get death benefits, and so forth.
All true. And I think that contract law should recognize this special state, which I will now call "phreebation." When two people agree in writing to a state of phreebation -- all that is necessary to solemnify this is a notary public -- they get all the benefits and responsibilities currently available to married people. The only difference is that the government is no longer in the rather icky and immature business of certifying who loves whom, and setting rules and regs and hurdles for how and when one can fall out of love and under which circumstances, and if this should happen, who owes what to whom and who gets the dog. We are all adults here.
Matrimony as currently practiced, involve "bonds." The "bonds" of matrimony. That's a heavy word. I think it is necessary when children are present, for obvious reason; marriage should not be casually broken. There need to be penalties, lawyers, people looking out for the innocent third party. But there are no "bonds" of phreebation to break. The state of phreebation, which is a contract matter entirely, shall be breakable by either party at whim or will.
