January 2, 2004
This is not even a real issue, but a phony one. People have forged
their own chains in this regard. All people need is to deal separately with the personal and property aspects of interpersonal
relationships.
It is not a legitimate function of government in a free society to
sanction either spiritual unions or promissory sexual arrangements between individuals. It's doubtful whether these
agreements even possess all the elements of a legally enforceable contract (19).
Personal unions can be meaningfully sanctioned only by the parties involved. Government has
no business in the approval process. Those seeking a sense of validation by ceremony may,
of course, wish to involve friends or spiritual organizations.
For the protection of adults and children the state has traditionally made provision for tenancy
and the distribution of property upon the sundering of personal unions, whether by death or other means. These provisions
apply to all people equally and can be utilized by them without any reference to the nature of the
union itself.
Any of the the following legal arrangements can be put into place by any number of individuals
living either together or apart. Details relating to these options can be easily researched elsewhere:
1. Sole Ownership
2. Joint Tenancy with Right of Survivorship
3. Tenancy by the Entireties
4.
Tenancy in Common
5. Various Forms of Business Ownership
This entire business has become an issue only because collectivist types are seeking majority
approval for sexual conduct which is not in keeping with evolutionary principals. The laws of nature and the laws of man are
not one. If a person's behavior makes no unjust encroachment against anyone else then there is no legitimate political issue.
In the case of marriage all people need to do is simply unchain themselves and "Just say no!" to big government.
