State protection

Published on 27/08/2012 00:00

With regards to the ongoing debate in these pages and further afield about “gay marriage”, may I suggest the following solution: we need the state, our elected fellows, to share in our personal relationships to safeguard our property and look out for the wellbeing of our children.

People who wish to share each others’ company and property but not have children would benefit from contracts that clarify ownership and plans for separation should they part. Whether or not their aim is to enjoy sexual congress is immaterial.

People who have children through procreation (decisive or accidental) or adoption, would automatically invoke a different contract that is aimed at the wellbeing of the child until it reaches maturity.

If the parents never live together, part during their off-springs’ childhood or have children by multiple partners, then they will be bound automatically by a contract of parenthood until their last child reaches the legal age of independence.

Once the child has become a legal adult the parents’ financial affairs can be legally separated. Naturally, the parents can continue to be as generous as they wish but the law will have nothing to do with it.

Given contraception, there can be no legal difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals. People who have chosen a religious tradition can marry as their tradition dictates.

The state need not be bothered with a definition of marriage, all that is needed is legislation to care for children and mitigate arguments over property if people decide to no longer cohabit.

Michael Bartlett

Brue

Isle of Lewis