Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Same sex (same old) marriage

By Kellie Toole - posted Friday, 20 September 2013


The institution of marriage is at odds with the liberal principle of liberty. The regulation of marriage draws the state into the realm of family and sexuality, which, by the definition of the liberal state, are private matters that deserve protection from the state not regulation by it.

Marriage also offends the principle against equality. It will continue to do so, in only a slightly reduced way, if it is extended to same sex couples. Marriage confers privileged social status and material benefits onto people who have the will and the opportunity to organise their personal lives according to a professed, monogamous intimate relationship for life, and so discriminates against people who organise their private affairs in any other manner.

The social status of marriage was conferred at a time when its importance as the foundation for social stability was taken so seriously that its termination was almost impossible and adultery was a crime. Its privileged status was earned through compliance with those rigid conditions. However, the social status has become an anachronism where divorce is readily available and socially accepted, and adultery carries no legal penalty and limited social stigma.

Advertisement

Marriage needs to be abolished as a legal institution.

An intimate personal relationship could still be called marriage, and be formalised in any public manner chosen by those involved. If civil society and religious institutions continue to admire and encourage 'marriage', then those relationships would still attract social approval. The beginning, middle and end of such relationships could be regulated contractually as a matter of private law, and according to any terms and conditions agreed by the parties to the marriage. However, the intimate relationship per se would lack a formal legal status, and the state would not be one of the bodies that conferred a privileged social status or any other tangible or intangible benefits on one group of citizens based on a certain type, of often temporary, intimate relationship.

It is now the time to end, not extend, the privilege of the legal institution of marriage in order to recognise true equality by abolishing the privilege of certain citizens on the basis of relationship status.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

25 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Kellie Toole teaches Criminal Law and Procedure, and Evidence and Proof in Theory and Practice at the Adelaide Law School, University of Adelaide.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Kellie Toole
Article Tools
Comment 25 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy