When this debate started my thought was that the state shouldn't marry anyone. Leave the word marriage for people to define themselves and the state would offer economic family partnerships to anyone.
The states purpose of marriage is to establish the benefits for things like medical decisions, child rearing, income based benefits, and death benefits. And to establish the rules for dissolving the partnership.
No one liked this stance as essentially it said anyone outside of church marriages wouldn't be married and people on both sides really like the word marriage.
The part of the debate I never understood from religious people is that they accepted stage marriages outside of the church with no intent of having children. Aren't these just as offensive to the religious institution of marriage.
I know when I was 16 I was against gay couples adopting kids because I though 2 different sex parents were better. That slowly evaporated over the past 20 yrs.
|