Marriage (Privatisation) Act 2015

This concept has two advantages according to Prof Shrage.

1. By eliminating "marriage" and focussing on care giving activities, the state focuses its interest in ensuring that the vulnerable receive care and nurturing without reference to the type of the union of the parties; and

2. Second, equality before the law. By adopting such a focus, the state will treat all family units equally, irrespective of how they are composed.

This perspective indicates that there are no good reasons for the state to prefer one care giving arrangement to others. Other perhaps than chasing votes, that is.

Reaching the same conclusion but through other means is David Boaz of the libertarian Washington D.C. based think tank CatoInstitute. He slams both sides arguing the merits for or against same sex marriage as missing the point. He states that it is not as leftists see it, a civil-rights issue, nor is it an example of minority "rights" being imposed on the majority conservative culture.

He asks: "why should anyoneneed to have the state sanction a private relationship"?

Boaz offers a couple of definitions for privatising marriage. The more interesting one seeks to treat marriage like any other contract: The state may be asked to enforce it, but the parties themselves define the terms and conditions. The existence of children or great wealth should prod a couple to agree between themselves – free of government interference - to the respective rights and responsibilities of each party.

By stripping the Crown of its involvement in the (hitherto heterosexual) marriage business, privatising marriage would simultaneously solve the same sex marriage problem. It would put gay relationships on the same footing as straight ones. No union, across genders or amongst genders would have official government sanction.

In many countries including Australia, religion is privatised. This is commonly known as the separation of church and state. While some of us would wish others to burn in Hell for their views - other than those calling for Jihad - we generally don't fight to impose one religion by force of law. Many social conflicts can likewise be defused if kept out of the realm of government.

So why not privatize what we now call "marriage"?

Proponents expect unions to be formalised by private contracts between two individuals, either through a standard (default) terms and conditions or if they want, couples could individualise the terms and conditions to suit themselves.

Regardless of the agreed terms, proponents of this concept expect such contracts to be enforced by a court.

If nothing else, privatisation solves the same sex marriage issue and simultaneously doesn't force organised religion into positions contrary to their values.