Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
Maybe, but if you want to basically do away with "marriage" as a civil status you're talking about a whole lot more than just doing that. You're talking about overhauling tax laws, pension laws, social security laws, insurance laws, inheritance laws, health care laws, and on and on.
While many may not see any valid state interest in the state's regulation of marriage, the reality, I think, is that we've operated this way for so long, and it's so engrained in the "system" in so many ways, that it's not very practicable to try and make that kind of change.
|
It makes about as much sense to me to do away with it as it does to expand it. Once we move away from what's been traditional, for lack of a better word, in marriage it becomes a whole lot easier for me to question the value of state endorsement of the whole institution.
It's not a question of wanting to exclude gay people because same sex marriage really doesn't bother me, but once you start to examine the whole institution and how it's practiced or not practiced, it's hard to figure out why it ought to be perpetuated.
It's not regarded as essential for having and raising children. It's not regarded as especially permanent. What's the point anymore really? (If you have a good marriage, it's not really the state endorsement that gives it meaning probably.)
I don't think anyone believes people should marry for health benefits or tax breaks, so why would they be a good reason to perpetuate the institution?
Threaded Mode
