Of course, we’d have to come up with some legal structure to replace it, something that would cover property rights and responsibility for offspring. But that shouldn’t be difficult. There’s already an established body of statutes expressly designed to deal with similar matters in the context of a slightly different type of merger:
Corporate law spells out who owns what at least as clearly as probate or divorce courts. Corporate entities can have babies, although they’re usually referred to as wholly owned subsidiaries. Corporations can legally do all the chores associated with married life: cleaning house, airing out the dirty laundry, buying everyday items such as groceries and politicians.
And there’s no legal restriction based on sexual orientation as to who can form a corporation with whom.
I’m sure that will make some members of the religious right uncomfortable, but for the majority of Republicans, it’s unlikely to be a problem. The GOP loves corporations, and if the party can ignore golden parachutes, offshore shell companies to avoid paying taxes, shipping jobs overseas, and outright fraud, why should it be filled with righteous indignation just because a CEO and CFO of the same sex are engaging in PDAs during PUC hearings?
BTHOOM. (Beats the hypocrisy out of me.)
A world in which corporate mergers replace romantic connections wouldn’t necessarily be lacking in love. There’d still be love of bonuses and love of power (actually, that’s probably lust, but even old-style marriages benefited from a little of that), not to mention love of crushing the competition.
Which is one more reason for Republicans to support replacing marriage: Democrats have a natural loathing for corporations.
See, they’re anti-family.
Have your people e-mail my people at email@example.com.