The Chronicles of a Capitalist Lawyer: Family Law

Showing posts with label Family Law. Show all posts

Indonesia adalah negara yang tidak pernah kehabisan ide-ide lucu nan menggemaskan. Baru beberapa hari lalu saya membahas soal kesetaraan gender dan pilihan dalam hidup guna menanggapi ide Presiden Turki yang absurd terkait kesetaraan antara pria dan wanita, Wakil Presiden Jusuf Kalla mengumandangkan ide pengurangan jam kerja untuk karyawan wanita, alasannya karena wanita punya tugas untuk mendidik anak-anaknya.

Saya sangat berharap ini hanya hasil ceplas ceplos belaka dan tidak akan dijadikan bahan penyusunan kebijakan publik yang serius karena menurut saya dampaknya berpotensi merugikan. Sebagaimana sudah saya bahas di artikel sebelumnya, berpikir bahwa wanita dan pria sudah memiliki pembagian tugas yang kaku karena alasan biologis dan doktrin merupakan cara berpikir yang melantur.

Apabila kita melihat konsep klasik keluarga yang katanya merupakan persatuan dari suami dan istri, mengapa tugas mengurus anak dan rumah tangga dikhususkan untuk ibu? Pendukung perkawinan yang sah dan lengkap selalu ribut soal pentingnya keluarga yang utuh sebagai modal pertumbuhan anak, bahwa peranan ayah dan ibu itu penting, bahwa keluarga dengan orang tua tunggal itu bermasalah, bahwa anak luar kawin bermasalah, dan bahwa perceraian akan berakibat buruk. Aneh apabila kemudian kita sibuk mendukung keutuhan keluarga tapi masih percaya bahwa pembagian tugas antara ayah dan ibu adalah mutlak, yaitu bahwa ibu mengurus rumah tangga dan ayah mencari nafkah.

Karena kalau pembagiannya semudah itu, untuk apa ada institusi perkawinan? Wanita cukup mencari pasangan yang mau membuahi dirinya. Kemudian si pria sekali-kali bisa datang ke rumah untuk mendapatkan kepuasan seksual sepanjang tak lupa mengirim uang bulanan untuk menghidupi keluarganya. Si pria tak perlu lagi pusing mengurus anak. Mengapa tidak? Toh tugas ayah dalam pandangan yang hampa ini nampaknya tak lebih hanya untuk membuahi sang ibu dan membayar uang rutin bulanan. Dalam hal ini kita berasumsi semua wanita ingin punya anak dan malas bekerja rutin di luar pekerjaan rumah tangga, sementara semua pria malas mengurus anak dan bersedia membayar untuk terlepas dari kewajiban tersebut dengan kompensasi seks.

Kebanyakan orang akan marah apabila disodori pengaturan keluarga seperti di atas. Tetapi kalau anda tidak sepakat dengan konsep tersebut, seharusnya anda juga tidak sepakat bahwa fungsi pengurusan anak hanya ada di ibu atau difokuskan pada ibu semata. Menekankan bahwa hanya ibu yang punya kewajiban mengurus anak dan rumah tangga sama saja menyatakan bahwa peranan ayah dalam pertumbuhan anak tidaklah penting. Yang menyedihkan, bahkan pembuat undang-undang di Indonesia pun masih memakai konsep bawaan yang kacau balau ini dalam menyusun UU No. 1 Tahun 1974 tentang Perkawinan ("UU Perkawinan"). Lihat saja misalnya Pasal 31 dan 34 UU Perkawinan.

Ini mengapa pembagian tugas keluarga seharusnya tidak perlu pusing diatur oleh negara. Kalaupun negara mau memastikan bahwa anak akan diurus dengan baik oleh orang tuanya, maka tugas itu seharusnya dibagi rata kepada setiap orang tua. Tiap orang tua bertanggung jawab atas perkembangan anaknya, karena bagaimanapun juga, pendidikan dasar terhadap anak berpengaruh besar terhadap masa depan anak tersebut, apakah akan menjadi sukses atau menjadi sampah masyarakat. Dan pendidikan dasar dipegang oleh orang tua. Lihat artikel menarik dari Prof. James Heckman dari University of Chicago, pemenang hadiah Nobel ekonomi tahun 2000, mengenai maha pentingnya peranan edukasi awal terhadap anak di sini.

Selain itu, pengurangan jam kerja ini juga tidak memperhatikan insentif ekonomi pengusaha dan karyawan. Ada beragam alternatif. Pertama, jam kerja karyawan wanita dikurangi, tetapi gaji diwajibkan sama. Dengan kata lain, Pemerintah memaksa ibu rumah tangga disubsidi. Hal ini berarti bahwa ongkos menggunakan jasa karyawan wanita meningkat. Kebijakan ini mungkin bagus untuk karyawan wanita yang sudah bekerja, namun jelas merugikan bagi kaum wanita yang belum bekerja (untuk apa perusahaan mempekerjakan karyawan yang kalah produktif dengan gaji sama). Belum lagi kalau nantinya berefek pada kemungkinan promosi bagi karyawan wanita yang sudah bekerja, yang mana akhirnya juga merugikan karyawan wanita yang sudah bekerja.

Bagaimana kalau misalnya pengurangan jam kerja diwajibkan sambil mengurangi gaji? Ini merugikan karyawan wanita yang sudah bekerja, karena jelas tidak semua wanita mau mengambil pengurangan jam kerja tersebut. Pengurangan 2 jam kerja dari 8 jam kerja sama dengan penurunan 25% jam kerja. Asumsikan bahwa korelasinya konstan (pengurangan jam kerja 2 jam = penurunan gaji sebesar 25%). Apakah kita yakin bahwa semua karyawan wanita mau mengurangi jam kerja mereka dengan kehilangan 25% gaji mereka setiap bulannya? Mohon jangan seenaknya berasumsi bahwa semua ibu bersedia untuk melepaskan segalanya demi anak.

Belum lagi kalau ternyata korelasinya tidak konstan, tetapi meningkat, yaitu penurunan produktivitas karena berkurangnya jam kerja selama 2 jam lebih besar dari 25% total produktivitas. Bukan saja gaji karyawan wanita bisa semakin dipangkas, insentif perusahaan untuk mempekerjakan wanita juga makin turun. Pertanyaannya, apakah iya semua ini bisa dikompensasikan dengan kualitas anak yang makin baik? Itu juga dengan asumsi bahwa bertambahnya jam ibu di rumah berkorelasi positif dengan perkembangan anak. Datanya bagaimana?

Yang sering terlupa adalah ketika suami dan istri sama-sama bekerja, hal tersebut menandakan secara implisit bahwa mereka berdua memang membutuhkan penghasilan yang lebih banyak untuk memenuhi kebutuhan keluarga. Contoh: kebutuhan pendapatan suatu keluarga adalah 100 dan kebutuhan tersebut dipenuhi dengan masing-masing suami istri menghasilkan 50. Apabila kemudian pendapatan istri berkurang menjadi 37,5 (turun 25%), kebutuhan pendapatan sebesar 100 tidak serta merta berkurang. Suami yang kemudian harus menambah jam kerjanya untuk menutupi kekurangan tersebut. Memang waktu kerja istri berkurang, tetapi kompensasinya, waktu kerja suami akan bertambah. Mengapa harus seperti itu? Apakah ayah tak punya hak bertemu anak-anaknya? Bagaimana kalau misalnya si ayah juga tidak dapat menambah penghasilannya? Konsumsi yang harus berkurang? Pasti akan ada trade-off.

Ide ini juga menunjukkan kemalasan berpikir yang akut. Isunya jauh lebih kompleks dari sekedar pembagian fungsi suami dan istri. Kita bicara mengenai pendidikan suami istri, seperti kapan seharusnya pasangan punya anak, apakah setelah mereka mapan? Atau bagaimana cara mendidik anak dengan efektif? Ironis sekali bahwa ketika kita mewajibkan banyak profesi yang tidak penting untuk memiliki ijin, kita justru tidak mengatur soal ijin untuk membentuk keluarga. Tentu banyak yang akan cepat berargumen: masa perkawinan saja perlu pakai ijin, ini kan hak asasi. Ya kalau begitu juga untuk apa diatur peranan suami istri harus seperti apa? Kalau mau serius memastikan orang tua akan mendidik generasi unggul, kita justru pertama-tama harus berinvestasi untuk menciptakan generasi orang tua yang unggul mulai dari sekarang! Pendidikan itu penting. Jangan terus menerus mengulang kesalahan generasi di masa lampau.

Isu lainnya adalah kalau kita peduli dengan kebutuhan anak akan alokasi waktu yang lebih banyak dari orang tuanya, ya fokus juga di infrastruktur! Khususnya transportasi publik. Anda pikir berapa banyak waktu orang tua yang terbuang karena sehari-harinya menghadapi kemacetan. Berapa banyak inefisiensi yang muncul karena gagal mengatur lalu lintas? Saya akan membahas soal ini di artikel terpisah. Tetapi perlu saya tegaskan bahwa isu ini berhubungan erat dengan pembinaan keluarga. Tidak ada gunanya mengirim orang tua pulang lebih cepat kalau mereka hanya akan menghabiskan waktu di jalanan macet, menggerutu dan stress sepanjang jalan hanya untuk pulang ke rumah dengan kelelahan, tak siap lagi mengurus anak, dan besoknya kembali menjumpai neraka yang sama.

Terakhir, setelah membahas semua hal di atas, perlukah Pemerintah mewajibkan perusahaan untuk memberikan hak pengurangan jam kerja hanya apabila diminta oleh karyawan wanita? Saya akan berhati-hati sebelum mengimplementasikan kebijakan yang lebih rileks ini. Pertama-tama, kompetisi antar perusahaan bisa memberikan efek yang sama. Kalau perusahaan membutuhkan kemampuan si karyawan wanita dan ingin mempertahankan karyawan tersebut, tanpa diwajibkan pun, perusahaan akan memberikan kemudahan pengurangan jam kerja. Kuncinya justru adalah bagaimana membuat karyawan wanita menjadi semakin bernilai sehingga para perusahaan akan berlomba-lomba menawarkan insentif serupa! Memaksa perusahaan mengaplikasikan kewajiban itu dapat berpotensi membuat perusahaan bias terhadap karyawan wanita, karena sewaktu-waktu mereka bisa diminta untuk memberikan pengurangan jam kerja kepada wanita terlepas apakah karyawan tersebut sebenarnya produktif atau tidak.

Seperti yang bisa anda lihat, kita butuh kreativitas dalam menyusun kebijakan publik. Meningkatkan kualitas sumber daya perempuan butuh pendidikan, butuh perbaikan budaya, dan masih banyak lagi. Isunya juga kompleks, tetapi kalau mau serius, kita harus selesaikan masalah di level dasar, bukan dengan kebijakan tambal sulam, apalagi kebijakan ceplas ceplos yang terkesan hanya ingin menyenangkan kelompok tertentu saja.

I wonder how many people are aware of this, but our Legislative Board (DPR) is currently in the process of drafting a law on gender equality. I take this news as a positive, development and I hope that the law can be soon promulgated.

What concerns me are the various critiques made against such laws based on the notion that women’s and men’s rights and obligations are not the same, especially in the family. Thus, these critics urge that the state should instead maintain a division of tasks between men and women in a family, which of course has been stipulated under the marriage law.

This is indeed a pity since there are two major misconceptions relating to the above notion. First, people may believe what they want to believe, but it’s outrageous to ask the state to regulate how people should manage their family matters.

While Islam provides certain guidelines on how husbands and wives should interact and how they should manage their family, from a legal perspective, Islamic law does not provide any penal sanctions to a couple who chooses to use a different method of family management.

This is in line with my thesis that Islamic law is efficient (research that I currently pursue). That is, while Islamic law provides moral guidance, it will only provide penal sanctions when there are clear net social losses caused by an act.

A good example is this: There is a penal sanction for being drunk, but there is no sanction for eating pork, even though both are prohibited under Islamic law. Being drunk can produce a net loss to the society — even the United States acknowledges their drinking problem.

But eating pork? While some might argue that the prohibition is related to health problems, in general, it’s a personal choice to either eat it or not. In short, it is your own responsibility to assess the costs and benefits of eating pork, including its effect on your own health. But that’s it, there are no clear social losses caused by eating pork.

I think the same view is also adapted by the current marriage law. While the law still tries to make a division of labor in the family, there is no sanction for those who do not comply with such a rule, meaning that people are generally free to choose what they want to do with their family management.

This brings us to the second argument. From an economics perspective, it would be more efficient for a couple to decide by themselves on how they will manage family matters, simply because they know best about their own affairs. You can’t expect the state to be an all-knowing entity that can determine what is best for a person.

I am not against women being housewives, but I am also not against women having a career outside the house. What really matters to me is that whatever the choice is, it should be made consensually between the husband and the wife. And to achieve such purpose, of course, they should have equal position.

Imagine this, suppose you think that you want to become an engineer, and you are currently pursuing an engineering education. Suddenly, the government tells you that after further deliberation, they’ve determined that you are not suited to become an engineer, and that you should be a singer instead. Even worse, the government forces you to be a singer. Would you agree to be treated like that?

I will say this: If the government has the capacity of God, is able to know everything up to the sub-atomic level and can predict the future with 100 percent certainty, I will support the idea that the government should determine what we should become — it should select only the best of the best, and those untalented people should just work as blue-collar laborers.

Fortunately, the government does not have such capacity, and even we know that God does not force a person to follow certain paths simply because God respects human individuality. Various Islamic sources confirm this, such as the case of Noah’s son who refused to hear his father’s plea, and died during the great flood.

Even a prophet cannot bring his own son to follow him. How come? Because each man is responsible for his own deeds, and God lets people decide how they will assess the costs and benefits of their own actions. That’s further evidence of the notions of efficiency in Islamic law. So let the family decide by themselves. Remember, you can preach, but you can’t force. It’s as simple as that.

A couple of days ago, the Constitutional Court decided that Article 43(1) of Law No. 1/1974 on Marriage is deemed conditionally unconstitutional. You may read the complete decision here. This is indeed an interesting development. For many years, most legal scholars agree that a child born outside a legitimate marriage will only have legal relationship with his/her mother and not with the father. In other words, the Constitutional Court decision revolutionizes the entire concept of illegitimate child. The big question is, is it a good thing?

I must say that I am disappointed that the decision is poorly reasoned. From a total of 45 pages, the majority opinion only consists of 3.5 pages. It is true that you can't assess the quality of a legal opinion merely from its length, but still, I think that the majority should further elaborate their thoughts before making such a revolution, especially when they claim that: (i) marriage registration is only an administrative requirement of marriage instead of a validity requirement, and (ii) that sexual intercourse that produces child imposes a legal obligation to the parties involved.

The discussion will be divided into 3 sections. First, we will discuss the claim made by the majority opinion that marriage registration is only an administrative requirement. Second, we will discuss whether Constitutional Court has the power to change the concept of father's obligation toward illegitimate child. Third, we will discuss the economic analysis of this major change and how it will affect the incentives of Indonesian people.

A. Marriage Registration is not and should not be an Administrative Requirement

I do not understand how the Constitutional Court can say that registration of marriage should only be an administrative requirement when in fact Religious Court usually, if not all the time, does not recognize a marriage which has not been properly registered even though such marriage has satisfied the so called "religious" requirements. While this is only a reasoning and is not a part of the decision itself, it still gives an ammunition to the proponents of unregistered marriage who believe that they can validly marry without having to register the marriage, seriously jeopardizing the rights of the parents (either the mother and/or the father) and the children in case they don't have any supporting evidence in the court.

There is a good reason why we want marriage to be registered and as far as I can see from the majority opinion, they too reach the same understanding, i.e. that it will be more efficient for court and administrative process if the marriage status of citizens is clear. Maybe the majority think that since an illegitimate child will have legal relationship with his/her father after this case, it will not be harmful to say that marriage registration is not a requirement for marriage validity. If this is true, then the majority has made a big mistake.

Under the rational choice theory, we could safely assume that rational people who choose the path of marriage would love to have their marriage properly validated. This means that they will do all the necessary requirements to ensure that there is nothing wrong the legal status of their marriage, including their marriage registration. And it is also rare to find a modern day case where these rational people fail to register their marriage properly only because they don't know about such requirement.

This indicates that marriage registration can be considered as an effective way to screen those who want to have a valid marriage and those who want to find a loop hole within their marriage. As such, we can infer that unless there is a strong evidence of good faith negligence, people who do not register their marriage must have a bad faith intention. After all, it would be highly questionable if a couple would let go all of their marriage benefits by fail to register their marriage, unless they have other goals to pursue.

Right now, there are some ambiguities in the law on the legal status of marriage registration. While legal ambiguities are usually bad, there are situations where ambiguities are helpful, such as in this case. We can screen the bad faith couple and since there is a risk that the marriage is invalid, parties will have the correct incentives to make their own decision for the marriage. However, by saying that marriage registration is only an administrative requirement, we destroy the protection given to the good faith couple and also the effectiveness of the screening mechanism.

Remember, marriage cases can be complicated and it does not have to include child issues. It could be that a male want to avoid responsibility, it could also be the husband want to have another wife, it could be that a woman want to steal another woman's husband, etc. In any case, priority of protection should always be given to those who have a valid marriage. First, the costs to assess the validity would be cheaper. Second, it also gives incentives to good faith spouse to question his/her spouse on why they don't register the marriage. That would not happen if we say that registration is only an administrative thing, meaning that the marriage would still be valid even without any registration. How could an average person (without any legal knowledge) effectively screen his/her spouse if he/she can convince her that registration does not affect their marriage?

If Constitutional Court wants to talk about the right of illegitimate child, they should focus on the relevant article, instead giving a poorly reasoned analysis like this. It does not help the already problematic marriage case and it will reduce the costs of being unfaithful.

B. Constitutional Court Authority for Making Such Decision

Can we say that the Constitutional Court breached its authority by saying that an illegitimate child also has a legal relationship with his/her father? Not necessarily. Legally speaking, declaring that the provision of Article 43(1) of Law No. 1/1974 which says that an illegitimate child only has a relationship with his/her mother is unconstitutional can only mean one thing, that an illegitimate child should also have a legal relationship with his/her father. This is an a contrario method of interpretation and is acceptable among legal scholars.

The fact that the Constitutional Court must add the requirements for having a scientific test in order to prove the blood lineage is something that we can't avoid. If the Constitutional Court does not say anything about such problem, it would be problematic for district and religious courts in determining the status of their child since currently there are no clear standards for such proceeding. As such, I believe that the decision, poorly reasoned as it may be, did not breach the scope of Constitutional Court's authority.

C. The Economic Effect of the Decision

The economic effect of this decision would be interesting. On the one hand, people who want to avoid marriage responsibility by refusing to register the marriage will have less incentives to produce child, while those who want to steal other people spouses will try their best to produce an illegitimate child. For the illegitimate children, this might be a good decision, at least if they are unwanted, the parents will have less incentives to give birth to them. However, I still have some concerns, especially with the Court's reasoning on marriage registration and also the right of legitimate child.

To the extent the couple can successfully prevent the birth of a child in unregistered marriages, I doubt that we can reduce the rate of unregistered marriage if we say that it is only an administrative requirement. And this will be bad for people who don't know how to protect their right under a valid marriage. It seems the Constitutional Court forgot that a child is only one actor within a marriage and that we should also consider the right of the husband and wife.

Furthermore, granting legal relationship to illegitimate children would not be a problem to the extent it is applied to a father who only have one spouse. It would be problematic if the illegitimate child was produced with his mistress, since it means that the grant of such relationship is made on the expenses of the person's wife and legitimate child. This is something that should also be considered. It might be that this decision will give more incentives to wives to increase their supervision on their husbands, ensuring that they will not cheat outside and thus increases the costs of their marriage. But it could also be used by a husband to subdue his wife to follow his intention of having another marriage since no matter what, once he produces an illegitimate child, such child will still have legal relationship with him, and the legitimate wife and child will not be able to do anything.

From these scenarios, we can see that the problem is not that simple. Personally, I believe that it would be more efficient if the Court clearly says that the marriage without any registration is invalid, after all, all of these problems would not happen if not for the registration issue. This would give better clarity and give incentives to people to avoid unregistered marriage so that guys cannot trick women into that kind of marriage and vice versa. Nevertheless, the decision has been made and we will need to abide by it. I could only hope that it will not produce the wrong incentives to Indonesian couples.

The legalization of same sex marriage will always be a controversial issue to be discussed as it encompasses many fundamental aspects of human life, including religion, morality, law and economics. In this post, I will focus on two issues that in my opinion are worthy to be discussed before we can consider the incorporation and legalization of same sex marriage into our law, i.e. (i) the problem of equal position in traditional heterosexual marriage, and (ii) the legal complexity that same sex marriage will impose to ordinary family law.

A. The Problem of Equal Position in Heterosexual Marriage

As you may be aware, even in the most developed nations, there is still a tendency for distribution of domestic tasks between the husband and wife. In general, the husband will be most likely responsible for providing the main family income while the wife will be responsible for maintaining the household chores, which usually includes the additional task of grooming and raising the children. I don't know whether this task distribution is incorporated into a law in other jurisdictions, but in Indonesia, the incorporation is pretty much clear. Under Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, the husband is responsible for providing the living needs of the wife to the best of his ability (in his capacity as the head of family) and the wife is responsible for maintaining the household (in her capacity as the house wife).

Though seems simple, in reality, the effect of the above arrangement is significant and I dare to argue that such arrangement has already turned out into a baseline (see my discussion on baseline here). In countries and communities where economic activities are dominated by men, women position is generally weak and it affects their bargaining power within the marriage. It is true that by imposing the legal obligation on the husband to provide the main financial support for the family, it seems that the regulator is protecting the interest of the wife on the assumption that the wife is the weaker party. However, there is an inherent problem that might have been overlooked.

Logically, if you are financially dependent to a person, you will need to comply with such person's demand to the extent that it is necessary to maintain the benefit that you receive. Even when the law says that husband and wife have the same rights, it is nothing more than dead letters in front of economic reality, i.e. those who have better economic power within a marriage tends to control the relationship within such marriage (and in worst cases, the control issue can turn the marriage into an abusive relationship).

In my opinion, imposing a legal distribution of domestic tasks might create the wrong incentive (though in the case of Indonesia, I would say that our culture and religion hold the bigger portion).First, it forces the husband to always become the family's financial backbone even though in some cases he does not have enough capability. Second, it creates an impression to the wife that working outside the family household is a bad thing, forcing them to believe that stay at home housewife is the best option for them. Would not it be better if a couple can determine by themselves how they will regulate their family relationship, including on getting family income, maintaining assets and raising children? Further research will be needed to answer this problem.

Unfortunately, the notion of distribution of job has been deeply embedded into our subconscious, making a considerably slow progress in creating equal position within a marriage. Even nowadays when women position has already getting better in marriage due to their higher involvement in the job market, it is not uncommon to find women who will trade their economic power for the sake of raising the children in the family.

So what's the connection between the issue of equal position and same sex marriage? To answer that question, we need to understand first whether the traditional distribution of task is also applicable in same sex marriage. Since this is a marriage between same sexes, there are no husband and wife, no head of family and housewife, and therefore, I would assume that the distribution of role within such family will need to be agreed between the couple themselves instead of relying on any particular standard. In other words, to accept same sex marriage in our law is to revolutionize the entire concept of equal position in a marriage.

The grand question is: can we accept same sex marriage if we have not even reached the state of equal position in heterosexual marriage? It would be questionable to legalize same sex marriage without even reforming laws on ordinary heterosexual marriage and redefining the position of husband and wife in such marriage. In the end it's a whole package.

B. Family Law Complexity

Another major issue that is sometimes overlooked when dealing with same sex marriage is the complexity that it will create toward traditional family law. Legalizing such marriage does not mean that we can just simply give the right to marry to same sex couple and everyone would have a happy ending, further revisions must also be done the the overall body of family law which may include: child status, inheritance, divorce requirements, and joint assets (which may also cover tax issues). And revising those provisions would be a major challenge.

1. Child Status

Child status will be the first to be caught under the complexity. The problem is clear, same sex couple cannot produce children without the help of other sexes. So what would be the status of the children produced from the offspring of unmarried biological parents? Should it go to the father or the mother or to the ones who have established a family, i.e. the same sex couple? The current default rule is that a child produced by unmarried couple can only be claimed by the mother. In short, it is impossible to authorize same sex marriage, without revolutionize the concept of a legitimate child.

Imagine also when each of the couple want to produce a child. If successful, it would mean that a same sex family might have two completely separated by blood children, and these kids are not prohibited from marrying each other since they don't have any blood relationship anyway. So that would be an interesting form of family. I won't give a moral assessment for this kind of family, but I am quite certain that it would be more complicated. Thus, I would say that for same sex couple, adopting an unrelated child might be easier than having a child from their own flesh and blood.

2. Inheritance

Further, the complexities caused by the child status will directly affect inheritance. One thing for sure, by default, only one person in the same sex marriage will have family relationship with the child (in case they choose to use their own offspring). Assuming that they have two separate children, one will inherit based on blood relationship, the other one will only be able to inherit through a testament in case one of the parents died. Again, another complexity.

It would also be interesting to learn about how the couple in same sex marriage will inherit each other assets especially in a regime where there are differences of inheritance portion for husband and wife (such as in Islamic law). Or should the law create a different set of inheritance system for same sex marriage? What would be the efficient inheritance system?

3. Divorce and Child Care

The process of divorce in same sex marriage will need to be amended in case there are differences in the procedures for husband and wife. Furthermore, in such divorce, who will be responsible for the child custody? Can we sue for a husband alimony payment as in the usual heterosexual marriage? Although I doubt that can happen if there is no distinction. Should alimony be imposed upon the party having better financial conditions? Or if there is no blood relationship with the child, can we actually impose alimony payment?

4. Joint Assets and Tax Problems

Revising the concept of joint assets for same sex couple would be easy to the extent that we only need to change the definition of marriage. But there might be some problems from tax perspective, especially for the tax relief usually given to married couple. Is that something that the tax department will ever give? Of course if the amount is not that big, the same sex married couple might renounce such right for the sake of legalization (there is always a trade off). But if the amount is high, would these couple agree or will they claim that there is a discrimination? That would be an interesting case. I heard though in the US that same sex couple are fighting for this kind of tax equalization. One thing for sure, even getting a tax equalization for a booming industry in the biggest muslim populated country such as Islamic finance is very difficult, so I wonder whether that kind of equalization will be granted to a controversial arrangement like same sex marriage.

5. Conclusion

Like I said in the first portion of this post, accepting same sex marriage means that some radical changes must also be done toward heterosexual marriages main concepts. The same is also applicable to the laws surrounding the marriage. Again, it's a single package. An additional thought, with all of these complexities, would it be better for same sex couple to govern their relationship purely through agreement/contract instead of waiting the government to regulate the structure of same sex marriage?

Now, I will not offer any solution here nor any endorsement on what would be the best concept of marriage, the analysis within this post is purely positive, not normative. However, if you are interested to read further on this issue, you may download this paper from Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, titled: "What is Marriage?" Happy reading!