Why does government recognize marriage? Do they really give a rat's patootie about whether the parties really love each other? What's the reason for governmental blessing and the resulting taxation considerations of marriage?
My position, as stated in Part 3, is that government attitudes toward marriage are all about perpetuation of the species, and the established benefits of a "traditional family" to achieve that end. Yes, you can point out many instances of "traditional" marriage that don't support the "perpetuation of the species" principle. But despite the many deviations from the desired result, the fact remains that the best, most effective path to perpetuation of the species depends on the definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman.
So it seems to me that the idea of support for marriage, and especially families, is the impetus behind tax breaks and other considerations that governments give to married couples. This strikes me as reasonable, but not entirely necessary. To be even more useful, I would limit these benefits to those at the lower end of the income spectrum, much as the Earned Income Credit is currently implemented.
So when it comes to Same Sex Marriage, I'm all for giving them the societal and legal benefits of marriage. It helps a small but significant slice of society with virtually no impact on everyone else.
But when they start sticking their hands into my pockets, I've gotta say, "hold the phone!" Tax breaks, non-contributory pension benefits, insurance rates, or anything else that's going to increase the cost to society is merely the transfer of wealth from us to them, without any justifiable reason. Why should a same sex couple get a part of my money, through taxes, insurance subsidies or any other method?
I respect their choices on how to lead their lives, even praise their decision to spend their lives together, devoted to one another. But why should they get my money?
So here are my preferences on how government should deal with same sex relationships in descending order:
Establish a mechanism for providing the same legal rights to same sex couples as those available to married couples, such as joint ownership, rights of survivorship, medical visitation and decision-making, etc. Call it a Civil Union for simplicity's sake.
If that's not acceptable (although I believe the above action should be taken in any event), remove any financial benefits, be they governmental, insurance or otherwise, which aren't supported by hard financial facts (such as actuarial tables in the case of insurance) for married couples. Put all devoted couples, regardless of sexual preferences, on an even playing field, and I would much prefer any change to be in the direction of reducing financial contributions, rather than increasing them. As an option, retain marital benefits for low income married couples.
Eliminate all governmental recognition of marriage, and leave it to religious bodies. I believe this will require a compensating change to protect younger folks from the mixture of clueless (or truly evil) parents and adult predators.
Change the government's definition of marriage to include same sex couples. As I've made obvious already, I'm strongly opposed to this choice.
I believe we can give same sex couples the rights and recognition that they deserve without forking over more money to support their lifestyles. There are many ways we can approach this, and I believe that there are several choices which would be acceptable to most Americans across the political and religious spectrum.
