|
The Brussels Journal picks up the story of a Dutchman and two bisexual women who all decide to "marry" one another for love. It's a good old-fashioned European menage-a-troi, except that this time it is sanctified by law, it would seem. Look at the above referred post's trackbacks to see what a lovely little uproar this has caused among the anti-gay marriage crowd. Slippery slope!
Well, they didn't officially marry, as marriage is still a state-sponsored monogamous contract. But the Netherlands has something loosely translated as "the freedom to make contracts with one another" -- "contractvrijheid". Students sharing a student apartment ("kot") can and do set these up -- it's akin to setting up a small business, and it can be done with as many or as few people as you like. The state gets out of the way; you are free to engage in contracts with whom you want, outlining whichever rights and obligations to one another you want.
This is how it should be, almost. In fact, both the Church and the state should remove themselves from monopolizing the terms of available partnerships. In many countries a Church wedding is optional, as it should be. The same should hold true for the state -- it too should not be in the business of defining what's an acceptable living arrangement for grown-up consenting adults. Luckily, nobody can stop three people from shacking up and having out-of-wedlock births, should they want to. Why not provide clarity in such situations through a contract? Well, that's the situation in the Netherlands, and I approve.
Want to reduce the role of the state? Privatize marriage. True conservatives and libertarians should approve.
And both those libertarians can fight with all the neo-cons and religious nuts.
Posted by: Andrew on October 3, 2005 07:34 PMI agree, make marriage belong to religious institutions, but also give those religious bodies which are authorized to solemnize the marriage the authority to determine the conditions and effects of divorce, adoption, the rearing of children.
Let the Church do what the Church does best.
Posted by: Clayton on October 4, 2005 05:28 AMSanford
Of course it is. The delightful and underused word "troilism" (which, although not in my small Oxford dictionary, I know describes this Stefan-sponsored habit of sexual trios), is also derived from "trois" - it loses the "s", and this may have confused Stefan.
Stefan
"Contractvrijhijd" is not the same as "privatising marriage".
Nor, obviously, does entering into a private contract with other people override one's duties to the state.
Marriage in the sense of a personal relationship has nowt to do with the state - it is a life-deal you enter with (an)other person(s), participation of God or not is these days optional. The interest of the state in the deal is primarily in the area of tax-gathering. To remove the state from a financial interest in marriage would be neither especially "conservative" nor "liberal" of itself.
Posted by: Claude de Bigny on October 12, 2005 11:03 AM