Interesting article. However the author has not given any valid reason why government should be in the business of registering sexual relationships in the first place, nor if they are, why polygamous marriages, or any particular sexuality for that matter, should be discriminated against.

It is not legitimate to conclude, from the fact that the state has intervened in a field, that therefore it was for the common good. There is always the possibility that the interference was done for purposes of majoritarian bullying based on nothing but bigotry and prurient intolerance. This is especially so where the interference is in the field of sexuality, as much for polygamy, as for homosexuality.

Criminalising polygamous marriage on the ground that it is not “equal” is no more valid than discriminating against homosexual marriage on the ground it is not “natural”. The consent of the parties answers all questions of morality involved, and the rest is precisely none of anyone else’s business.

Governmental registration of sexual relationships should be abolished.

“If we apply Mill’s principle to same sex marriage then we may conclude that if Jim and John marry, and Jane and Josie marry then neither of those marriages has any affect whatsoever on the marriage between Frederick and Francine.”

Of course, we know when same-sex marriages have been introduced Christian adoption agencies are closed down or attacked. And what about the rights of children to a mother and father in all of this? I’ve never bought adults-only libertarian arguments. From expressive divorces to creating fatherless families it is always about "the big people."

This article doesn't sufficiently separate the religious and the non-religious position of marriage in the community.

The key phrase in her Lord Penzance quote, for example, "Marriage as understood in Christendom is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman" must surely be "in Christendom". The relevance of "one man and one woman" does not stretch beyond those boundaries, nor did the noble Lord intend it to.

When he made that observation, "Christendom" had a reasonably well-accepted meaning, and was a definition that included England at that time. It was therefore quite reasonable that the law of the land should follow, to a great extent, the dictates of that religion.

The same observation can hardly be made today. And while we all know that there is a portion of the population, both there and here, who wish from the bottom of their dismayed hearts, that immigration - particularly of people who are "different" - had never taken place, the clock retains its forward momentum.

It follows that the influence of religious views should have less impact, and the realities of the community that we have become start to take precedent. If part of that community wishes to retain the "one man, one woman" basis for marriage, that should be their absolute right.

But the correct course for government, surely, is to begin to disassociate itself from the spiritual aspects, and concentrate on the practical. Thus, any benefits accruing to "couples", or "families" should have simple, non-sectarian rules associated with them.

The concept of "marriage" itself may then safely be left to those self-selected sections of the community who wish it to have a narrower meaning.

the right of kids to have a father and mother not mentioned. Kids always come last when trying to justify what is not natural. Julia should study history a bit less selectively and see what made the West the powerhouse it was. It had very much to do with God. Unfortunately that has been whited out of most text books. Only fools ignore moral laws that has served us well. "gay' marriage is an oxymoron.

Pericles
Marriage is by definition an act of faith, namely, undertaking to be bound by the marriage vows, so good luck with trying to winnow out the spiritual aspects from the practical.

I once read that the breakdown rate of de facto marriages is about six times higher than for true marriages, and since the only difference between them is that the latter involve explicit commitments as a matter of good faith, while the former do not, therefore obviously this spiritual act has supremely practical consequences.

That aside, there is no reason for government to be conferring benefits, or imposing liabilities on people, because of their sexuality or personal preferences.

The problem is that everyone has an agenda to push. The Christians want to further the interests of children in having a legally sanctioned father. The feminists want to use the marriage and divorce laws to further women's interests in enjoying a double standard of unequal privileges. The gays want to further their interest into hornswoggling everyone else into legitimating their sexuality. And I want multiple wives!

The only possibilities are
a) to treat people equally, in which case all different forms of sexuality will have an equal claim,
b) to arbitrarily discriminate against some, in which case there is no reason why gay marriage should not be discriminated against, or
c) to get the gumment out of the question entirely, and leave it to people to decide for themselves, subject to a general ban against the use of coercion.

Yeh, I know I'm old fashioned but, for me, the question is one of what is fundementally right and fundementally just wrong. Just because the gay community have an ever-increasing voice doesn't mean they automatically deserve ever-increasing legitimacy - IMO.
Same sex marriage is just wrong. It's just not meant be. Laws of nature etc., etc. It seems to me that the gay/same sex marriage crowd just keep banging away at us normal folk in the hope that we will eventually buckle in our resolve to maintain our views. In their opinion I am no doubt, out of date, out of touch, ill-informed or un-informed and therefore someone whose opinion should be ignored ir ridiculed.
Well, I AM informed, thank you very much and I retain my views irrespective of what's now seen as ridiculously politically correct, fashionably topical or trendy.
All this from a happily married man of 35 years (yes, it can still happen if you're prepared to make an effort!) with 2 fantastic kids, who has led a very fotunate life, for which I am truly thankful.
Just because something is old, it doesn't automatically mean it needs to be changed - IMO.