Sorry, Kinky Friedman said it all.
"I support gay marriage because I believe they have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us."
Seriously, I can understand why the religious might sincerely object to the 'sacrament' of marriage being broken by such. Of course, since I'm an atheist, this argument has no force for me, but I recognise it does for some. To which I'd say, simply because something is legal does not make it compulsory: and any church not wishing to allow gay marriage surely has a complete right not to, if it's against the beliefs/rites/practice of that church.
I'll leave it up to that church how to square the circle of telling some of its own religious adherents they're not good enough to get married there.
Other than that, if two people want to enter into such a contract, why not.
If there are tax breaks... well, maybe those can be rethought, if some are unfair. Or attached to children, if preferred. But I'd have thought any government taking a moral stance woudl prefer marriage (of two consenting adults) preferable to the alternatives, so might limit benefits thus. Over here we don't have any tax benefits to marriage, unfortunately.
And my heart really doesn't bleed for insurance companies forced to pay extra 'survivors' pensions for the occasional gay 'widow' (er...?) , assuming said couple have paid the rates which would normally allow that.
To me it's a rather frivolous subject anyway, and certainly not one or any particular angst in either direction... I'd generally rather err in the direction of fairness. |
