All the arguments I’ve seen here concentrate on the value of SSM for the individuals concerned. Unfortunately it is the State that grants the priviledges of marriage, so what’s in it for the State?
For example, out of hetero marriages the State expects to get children - future taxpayers, which the State hopes are worth the investment the State provides. By definition there can be no children arising from a SSM.
I think that once people who want SSM can crack this and persuade legislators of the benefit to the State, then legalisation of SSM will swiftly follow.
I’m straight and married, and I don’t recall having to promise the state that we would produce children to “pay them back.” Good thing, because we never planned to have any. Are we cheating the government by not reproducing?
The OP is flawed – if SSM is a right, then it is a right not because the state grants it but because it exists as one thanks to nature and to nature’s God. The most the state can do with a right is to recognize and guarantee it, or refuse to recognise and refuse it.
Further, the idea that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation is simple to refute. To start with, every woman over menopause would be a divorcée, her husband having left her for a younger woman who can still conceive, and our laws would not only encourage but might require that. Couples would be required to prove their fertility prior to being permitted to marry. The state would gladly subsidize couples having as many children as possible during their fertile years.
And it truly surprises me that the OP has never heard of adoption, fostering, in vitro fertilization, and several other processes for matching children with parents who did not conceive them through sexual intercourse.
The OP makes the mistake of assuming that people will change their minds on this issue when their own self-interest is pointed out.
Here in Ohio, the Governor and both state senators (all three conservative Republicans) were opposed to the SSM-ban amendment, on the grounds that it would ultimately hurt the state.
While I don’t disagree with most of the comments already made, I think there absolutely is something in it for the state in recognizing same sex marriage. The institution of marriage promotes social stability. It is one of the foundations of the family, and the existence of strong families is of benefit to the whole of society, because families look out for one another, and the more people look out for each other, the less collective agencies like governments or charities have to look out for people. Allowing same sex couples to marry will strengthen their family units, and will diminish the burden they would otherwise place on the state. In short, everyone wins.
Are any states actually trying to encourage procreation as a matter of policy? I don’t think I’ve heard of any state that was so worried about being depopulated that they actually tried to encourage more births. If anything they encourage child planning to minimize unplanned births. And in terms of procreation, is traditonal marriage really the best system for maximizing child production? What about polygomy or some other model. Marriage may have existed for the reason you state at one point, but I don’t think anyone uses it to maximize child production anymore. It does create a stable environment for raising children, but then gay couples can raise a child as well as any other couple.
Gay couples could also provide adoption or foster care for orphans, lessening the burden on the state. Also as many of them are childless, they tend to have more income, which means they pay higher taxes while not producing children to burden the school system. Really its’ in a states advantage to attract gay folk and allow them to live their lifestyle as they see fit.