As Marley23 pointed out, yes. If we were starting from scratch. However, short of a complete breakdown of western civilization itself, we won’t have the chance to do that anytime soon. These laws are on the books in the way they are because they have worked for centuries with modifications along the way.
I’m fine with law progressing like that. Now…it’s time to make a modification to progress.
And thus you have it. No one should be prohibited from a marriage license simply because they aren’t heterosexual.
It has nothing to do with length of time. We don’t have that many federally guaranteed benefits. If you are talking about things like health insurance that’s an employer-sponsored benefit to an employee. And a lot of companies have “SSDP” on their benefits package, even without an actual marriage license in your jurisdiction.
DOMA and the VA administration of it for service members was government policy as an employer (sadly) and it’s easily divisible from the social regulations surrounding marriage, which are targeted at next of kin information. This is governmentally used for judicial proceedings, social survivor benefits, and taxes. This is privately used for legal proceedings between two sets of competing interests on a medical decision and estate affairs. Note that next of kin not including longtime partners and having that partner shut out of end of life care or the estate by a family that disapproves is not unheard of.
Seeing as SSM partners have kids these days, you have to factor children into any discussion of the family unit. You can’t just go “OSM couples are the only ones who have kids, so we don’t have to worry about that.” That’s not reality.
I don’t agree. I didn’t say I want to abolish marriage. I don’t.
I simply asked a question.
But why?
What’s special about two people in love? Why not any two people who want similar kinds of benefits? Or more than two?
But not everybody gets it now. Only two people who aren’t otherwise married to someone else. Why? What’s the point? If you can’t even tell me why marriage even exists - why the state offers it, not why someone would want to take what its offering - then what’s the point?
Through what hellish catastrophe of grammatical misunderstandings you could interpret that sentence that way? I said this:
I said stability is good for the married couple, and IF they have children, that stability is ALSO good for the children. How do you read that very straightforward sentence and come away thinking I’d said marriage was all about the children? Have you never seen the word “and” before? Are you unfamiliar with clauses? I said plain as could be that encouraging stability is good for the married couple. I added that it’s also good for children if there are any. There’s nothing in there that makes the whole concept dependent on having children. And yes, one of the reasons we give benefits to married couples is that it’s in society’s interest to make it easier for parents to raise kids in a stable home. There are other reasons like the ones I mentioned in the very same sentence you quoted and answered but the kids thing is one of them.
Sure there is: the accumulated weight of history and tradition and the fact that it’s not really worth the effort and the complications that would ensue.
Please don’t be obtuse. You’re obviously being rhetorical, probably because you have a specific answer in mind that you’re waiting for someone to give so that you can use it as a reason for why marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Get to the point. Why do YOU think the state sponsors the institution of marriage?
There is a fine line between ‘cultural practices’ and ‘civil rights’. In the west, the government and most businesses close on Christian holidays (Christmas, Thanksgiving, etc.). Should Muslims, Jews, and those who worship Zeus ask for ‘equal’ protection? Marriage could be considered a ‘secularized’ Roman Catholic sacrament. If so, the notion of ‘equal protection’ would not apply.
The government is not required to observe religious holidays and doesn’t because of separation of church and state. The ones that are observed are recognized (and celebrated by most people) as secular. The only one that could possibly be construed as a religious holiday is Christmas.
Title vii refers to employment, which was one of the points you attempted to make.
…way back in 1986 New Zealand introduced the Homosexual Law Reform Act: a law that allowed consensual sex between men of a lawful age. Conservative Christian and right-leaning politician John Banks voted against that bill.
In 2013 John Banks gave this speech in parliament:
People change. Traditions change. What is acceptable can change. Customs can change.
The Gay Marriage Bill was introduced to Parliament by Louisa Wall, an MP in opposition, and was passed with the support of the majority from both sides of the house. After the bill was passed the house and the gallery sung a waiata. I tear up every time I watch this.
So why should anyone care about gay marriage? Well you don’t have to. But as the texter to Banksy said: this won’t have any affect on you, but it means a great deal to other people and their relationships. If you care about the happiness of other people, and if gay marriage will not adversely affect either yourself or anyone else, then why would you not support it?