You're right about that -- the state shouldn't be in the business of sanctioning people's unions. It should be up to people to define their unions.

But, as a practical matter, people don't, even when they can (sure, every marriage should have a prenuptial contract, and every person should have a will, but people blow that off, so the state provides defaults, to sort things out wwhen people divorce, or die.)

And even if everyone did put it in writing, you'd need the state to enforce it (i.e., unless you prefer to resort to force, which some do anyway.)

But this decision is a big step in the right direction. So long as the state is recognizing unions, they should do it without rgard to gender preference. This decision helps to eliminate a serious inequity.

The State is force.

Yeah, sure it is. As Clastres correctly pointed out: "The state does not regulate violence. The state is the origin of violence."

But that's easy for me to say. I mean, I'm tall, agile, strong, and not easily intimidated. Few are likely to get the better of me in a physical confrontation.

With separating couples, it is not uncommon that the stronger party (usually, but not always, the male) tries to settle the matter by force, notwithstanding any agreements. In such circumstances, I don't disagree with the weaker party (usually, but not always, the woman) seeking the force of the state to counter that.

In a culture with an ethos where "the strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must ," the state has a useful equalizing role in the resort to force.