From: Steven Durrett 

Gary -

<< I'd rather get the government OUT of marriage altogether.  Once
upon a time marriage was a matter between the spouses-to-be and whatever
religion they subscribed to.  Many, many pioneers went out west and
considered themselves married when no clergy was available or relevent. 
I'd rather see "marriage" handled by legal contracts, wills,
powers-of-attorney, etc. >>

Your last sentence explains why the government has to be involved in
marriage. There are simply too many areas in which the state should
recognize the rights of a spouse when no written agreement exists:
intestate inheritance, medical consent on behalf of an incompetent spouse,
visitation rights in hospitals, etc. The list of issues runs into the
dozens and maybe the hundreds, and there has to be some test for
determining who has what rights. The state's involvement in determining who
is "married" could be as simple as recognizing that two people
view themselves as married (my choice), but as we've seen recently, a large
portion of our society don't think that is acceptable.

<< Should heterosexuals beyond child-rearing age be allowed to marry? >>

Why limit it to age issues? I married at 25, and knew then that I'd never
be able to have children.

Steve Durrett (retired lawyer, not licensed in any jurisdiction; despite
any references to specific matters of general interest, this message is
merely a discussion of legal theory and principles and should not be used
as legal advice or as the basis for making a decision in connection with
any particular matter)

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5