That's an interesting idea. Levels of formalization of relationships.
We have that, sort of, in case law, at least here in Washington and presumably elsewhere. By necessity, the courts have had to develop ways of dealing with people who live together for awhile and then break up. Suppose, for example, they pool their incomes and use it to pay the mortgage on the house they're living in, but only one of them owns the house (it was hers originally, and he moved in with her and she never changed title to joint names). Is all his investment in the mortgage gone? Stuff like that. It's all based on case law, since the statutes have nothing to say about it.
People move in with each other all the time without even thinking about the financial aspects of it or thinking that they may break up some day and want something out of the money they put into cars, houses, furniture, etc. It's messy, no doubt about it, for hererosexual couples as much as homosexual ones.
So presumably there could be a variety of options available to couples (or groups) to define their legal rights and responsibilities, with marriage itself reserved for a one male-one femals couple willing to make a long term commitment that will be harder to dissolve (if you're living together, all you have to do is move out!),.
Interesting. Many problems I can see off the top of my head. But would solve others. |
