A First Time for Everything

Glenn Reynolds has an interesting debate on Polyamory on his site and I basically agree with his core point: the state really has no business in marriage. Yes there are welfare and support issues, but those are not actually marriage issues.


But why does any relationship produce an obligation on the part of the government to provide recognition or support? It's certainly true, as some other readers pointed out (and as Clayton's linked Mormon story reports) that some polygamous arrangements now are basically welfare scams. But that's a welfare issue, not a marriage issue.
Kurtz, on the other hand, says that Western marriage is based on "companionate love." I certainly hope so, but I wonder whether the cultural concern that he describes forms an adequate underpinning for legal requirements. (And wouldn't that, in itself, be an argument in favor of gay marriage, so long as it was based on companionate love?)

I'm a little surprised to be linking to Instapundit, mostly becuase I generally disagree with Glenn. However, I try not to consume only a steady diet of things I agree with, that leads to inflexibility and (occasionlly madness). Often that strategy is annoying or frustrating, but it does occasionally yeild little interesting nuggets.