e other person ). As at present,the law will have to struggle with situations where there is a claim by a "formal spouse" and an "ascription spouse," but thesesituations should not be encouraged by allowing multiple "formal" spouses. While there are already some claims for legal recognition of polygamy or "group marriage," given that "spousal status"imposes potential costs on third parties, especially employers, it seems fair (at least at this time) to limit each individual to one"formal lawful partner" at a time. Further, there are concerns about the welfare of children and the position of women inpolygamous and group marriages, though there does not seem to have been much research into these relationships,particularly in regard to their effects on children. If we move towards the new social and legal regime of the RDP, an initiallimitation to one partner at a time seems appropriate, though there might be some evolution in the future.Contract: While at one time contracts between same sex partners to regulate their relationship would have been regarded as contraryto public policy,(28) there is no doubt that now these contracts are now as legally enforceable as contracts betweenheterosexual partners. In the absence of an adequate statutory regime, in the last few years contracts have been especiallyimportant for same sex partners.For any domestic contract, it is at least desirable (and arguably necessary to ensure legal validity) for the partners to discloseassets and liabilities, and to have independent legal advise to ensure that the parties each understand the agreement and toprevent exploitation. There is typically less inequality between same sex partners than in heterosexual relationships and lesspotential for exploitation.(29) The law should however, ensure that courts retain a jurisdiction to override an unconscionable(or "unfair" to use the British Columbia term) domestic contract between same sex partners, especially one that m...
