There seems to be a misunderstanding on this thread of the distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage. The former is a matter of personal beliefs and customs, and is available to anyone. The latter is a government-created contract which was designed to benefit children through the maintenance of stable family units. As such, it's recognition is subject to specified requirements in the same way as are corporations and other legal entities. These requirements are determined in state legislatures and codified in various state laws. A common requirement for civil marriage is that you can't be married to more than one other person.
Most of the "benefits" associated with civil marriage were also designed to promote children's welfare. For example, the ability to file a joint tax return was predicated on one parent staying at home to care for children. Because two people of the same sex cannot have children, there was no need to extend these benefits to them.
However, social conditions have changed drastically over the past 50 years. Divorce is commonplace, as are children born out of wedlock. This has caused increasing envy and resentment towards the dwindling number of intact nuclear families, who are seen "privileged" to receive these benefits.
Perhaps it is time to do away with these benefits. Two-income families are the norm, and no-fault divorce has made civil marriage more of a tax avoidance scheme than long-term commitment. Are there any remaining reasons for the government to be involved in personal relationships?
Most of the "benefits" associated with civil marriage were also designed to promote children's welfare. For example, the ability to file a joint tax return was predicated on one parent staying at home to care for children. Because two people of the same sex cannot have children, there was no need to extend these benefits to them.
However, social conditions have changed drastically over the past 50 years. Divorce is commonplace, as are children born out of wedlock. This has caused increasing envy and resentment towards the dwindling number of intact nuclear families, who are seen "privileged" to receive these benefits.
Perhaps it is time to do away with these benefits. Two-income families are the norm, and no-fault divorce has made civil marriage more of a tax avoidance scheme than long-term commitment. Are there any remaining reasons for the government to be involved in personal relationships?