Quote:
Originally Posted by 70Chip
Our government is based on compromise. I am willing to extend all the legal rights of marriage to homosexuals. Since homosexuals are not really under seige in any serious way, is it too much too ask that I and likeminded folk be allowed the single, harmless concession of pretending that the institutions we hold dear will not be thrown under the bus? It is this way with all these issues. The courts leave traditionalists with nothing to hang their hat on, and then the left accuses them of radicalism if they dissent.
|
In addition to legitimizing unions between man/man and woman/woman, recognizing that "marriage" includes same-sex couples is a shortcut to getting those legal rights. Without that, you would have to enact "separate but equal" laws in every single state. I am not a fan of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 70Chip
I also wouldn't object if the government simply ceased to recognize marriage completely and it became a purely religous designation. Treat everyone as an individual in the eyes of the law. Homosexuals would have no trouble finding Unitarians, etc. to "marry" them and traditionalists wouldn't be required to sanction something they abhor through public institutions. I've never been a big fan of the various benefits that married couples get anyways.
|
I think the transaction costs would be exorbitant, since, first, you have to overhall all laws relating to marital rights (e.g., taxes, adoption, joint ownership, etc.) and, second, you would have to have to come up with new ways to handle those situations (e.g., how many people could adopt a child?).