Prop 8 Nov. 15 Protest

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by LightBulb

This discriminates against couples with no children. Rights are not given in the interest of the state; they are recognized in the interest of the individual.

Additionally, couples who are not married (or only married on a state level) miss a lot of benefits that are completely unrelated to children. For example, when a gay married couple joins the Peace Corps, the two are not placed together because their marriage is not federally recognized.Civil/legal marriages have an important role for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. For example, an atheist couple would likely prefer to be married outside of religious institutions.

Only allowing benefits to couples with children wouldn't discriminate against childless couples anymore than marriage benefits today discriminate against the unmarried. Do you think offering marriage or civil unions unfairly discriminates against those without partners?

There ought to be a good reason that the state is involved in marriage or civil unions at all; otherwise the whole thing ought to be left to individuals to decide the terms of. The well being of children may be the only area in which I think it makes sense to offer a different tax rate, health benefits, automatic assumption of shared property, etc. Otherwise, why should the state be in the business of dictating the terms at all?

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

There ought to be a good reason that the state is involved in marriage or civil unions at all; otherwise the whole thing ought to be left to individuals to decide the terms of. The well being of children may be the only area in which I think it makes sense to offer a different tax rate, health benefits, automatic assumption of shared property, etc. Otherwise, why should the state be in the business of dictating the terms at all?

It's actually cheaper for my husband and me to have two separate individual health insurance plans than to have a single married plan. That particular "benefit" is not as shiny as people want to make it.

Why should the state be involved? Money. That's the bottom line. Married couples consistently show higher rates of income/wealth accumulation, lower healthcare costs, etc. It is to the state's benefit to encourage and recognize legal unions.