"Covenant" Marriage Law

[Robert Cochran]

        I won't speak for Rick Duncan, but it seems to me that there is
nothing about libertarianism that suggests that the state should not
provide a remedy for breach of a contract.  (If I am wrong, I better think
twice about entering any contracts with Rick.)

        The modern state claims that it is treating marriage as a contract
and then treats marriage unlike any other contract.  Parties enter into a
lifetime commitment, one party (usually the wife) relies on that
commitment to have and raise kids, the other party runs off with a
beautiful young secretary or an engaging young student, and the party that
made the sacrifice is hosed.  What happened to the wife's reliance
interest?

On Sat, 21 Jun 1997, Larry Ingle wrote:

> I don't understand why Rick Duncan, who has been mightly influenced by
> libertarianism, would want the state to validate a couple's covenant.  If
> a couple so inclined wanted to do so, what would prevent them from
> agreeing to their own covenant and living by it?  Why must the state pass
> a law authorizing such a procedure?  Is it just that the state's
> imprimatur would publicize and give public validity to a covenant?  Or do
> supporters of such a law want one passed to enforce it against one of the
> couple who later might decide to violate the covenant?  That's a strange
> libertarian position in my opinion.  Perhaps I am missing something.
>
> Larry Ingle        Larry-Ingle at utc.edu