alansmithee

That IS what I'm saying. To clarify more, I'd like to see the government get out of the marriage business all together. If I love someone, and I want to profess that love before GOD, I don't think I need government approval for that. But I shouldn't get special benefits just because I choose to share my life with someone, either. But that's where children come into the equation-it's felt that children are better off being raised by a stable household, and that it's best when one parent can stay home to attend to them. Because those children are future members of society, society has an intrest in them being raised in the best environment possible, therefore tax benefits for married couples and benefits for married couples, the better to help one be able to financially stay at home and take care of children.

That's why I don't personally see so-called civil unions as a compromise. I don't see anything mystical about the word "marriage" that would inherently exclude anyone from using it. However, I do see that the benefits that come along with what the government defines marriage as being something that would be best limited to couples that can produce children. If it were possible, I would use the term civil union for the government endorsement and leave the term marriage out of law, and for use by people.

As for where that belief came from, when the gay marriage issue first started being raised, I thought that the whole concept of marriage should be re-examined. Filings for divorce make up a large portion of legal suits. More marriages now end in failure (if you determine failure to be divorce) than not. I started thinking what the purpose was for government to be involved at all anymore. Why should someone gain special status just because they choose to "shack up" with someone else? "Til death do us part" is a joke. Marriage used to be more of a necessity, a woman's best economic plan was often to get married. That's no longer the case. Therefore, society no longer has a need to subsidise aany marriage as a way to help fix economic inequality between the sexes. If people want to get married, fine, but the government doesn't need to be involved. If a married woman without children now decides she doen't want to work and wants her husband to support her, fine. Just don't expect anyone outside of your husband to have to foot part of the bill. But it's assumed that children benefit from having one parent stay at home, so society has a stake in making sure that children are raised in the best environment possible.

That's also why I don't see the gay marriage debate as a rights issue, I see it as a purpose of government in marriage issue.