Sir – It warmed my heart to learn that Mr. Surman agrees with me in the recent sex-in-toilets debate (Letters, July 2).

Now that this topic has been thoroughly aired, some mention must be made of the recent US Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell and Hodges to open same-sex marriage to all US citizens.

Although this move is to be vigorously applauded as a triumph of decency and common sense, it must be noted that in his judgement Justice Kennedy writes: ‘No vision is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family…Without the recognition, stability and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow less.’ One injustice has apparently been replaced with another, since the families of couples who aren’t married are still to be excluded and demeaned. If marriage in this form is to continue to be a vehicle of injustice, may I suggest that we do away with it altogether?

Isn’t state control of relationships rather absurd anyway? Aren’t people capable of making a commitment to one another, and aren’t parents capable of ensuring a safe, stable and loving environment for their children, without signing a piece of paper?

Surely relationships should be a personal and private matter, expressed through culture and religion, for example in marriage ceremonies, if that is a couple’s wish.

Instead of creating such divisions, and making unnecessary stumbling blocks for people, as a society shouldn’t we be uniting against the truly big problems of world hunger, and the apocalyptic problem of climate change.

Daniel Emlyn-Jones
Oxford