ubertuber

Docbungle,

This makes more sense to me (though I disagree). Actually, your unemployment benefits comparison is one of the better arguments I've heard in terms of limiting marriage to straight couples - it's a pretty solid precedent.

Now, on the other hand, I think it is worth pointing out that gay rights advocates actually aren't the ones proposing amendments - it's the gay rights opponents that are amending things to make sure that everyone understands that marriage can't be applied to people other than straights. Between that and the murkiness here with whether there is an equal protection issue (speaking of tax and inheritance benefits), I feel that it's looking like marriage should go back to being an issue solely in the domain of the churches. Maybe the governmental benefits of relationships should be handled through contractual arrangements.

An aside: in my job, I am constantly finding that if you are having such a hard time making something work or defining a niche, it is often because you're looking at the problem from the wrong angle to begin with. I'm thinking that all of the disclarity present in the ramifications of marriage/unions/state, federal, religious definitions and right etc. is a sign that we're coming at this all wrong.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam