> Meanwhile, the Times' editorial feature "Why regulate marriage at
> all?" matches two contending columns - both of which agree that it's
> absolutely necessary. The possibility that families might not need
> "official government sanction" is apparently beyond Times parameters
> for polite debate.
I used to take the same position you're espousing but I've since reversed course. The reason the state needs to be involved in "chartering families" is because familial relations are important considerations in the resolution of legal (i.e. state) questions such as "who is authorized to 'pull the plug'?'" "who has hospital visitation rights?" "amongst whom should a dead person's estate be divided?" "who is entitled to child visitation rights upon a divorce?" and so forth.
These are hardly trivial questions and they often need to be resolved by the state or some state-like entity. Of course, the state could create rules for resolving these conflicts that don't necessarily involve deference to familial bonds, but it's hard to see why that'd be much of an improvement. An alternative system sounds like a giant pain in the ass, actually. Why not just make legally-recognized marriage attainable to those who want to get married?
-WD