Homosexual Marriage

I see your argument, but there are legal reasons for marriage too. These are some of the benefits from marriage joint parenting; joint adoption; joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents); status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent; joint insurance policies for home, auto and health; dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support; immigration and residency for partners from other countries; inheritance automatically in the absence of a will; joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment; inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate); benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare; spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home; veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns; joint filing of customs claims when traveling; wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children; bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child; decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her; crime victims' recovery benefits; loss of consortium tort benefits; domestic violence protection orders; judicial protections and evidentiary immunity; and more.... http://www.religioustolerance.org... There is no reason that Heterosexual couples should have these rights while Homosexual couples don't. If they make the commitment. And as for there being one definition of marraige, due to the resolution, we will use the legal resolution. "And while the first two senses of homosexual marriage are interesting, it is the linguistic sense that we must be concerned with. Religious definitions (I am told) must be kept out of the government, and the government landing on one side or the other in a religious debate is coercion. As for the socio-historical sense of marriage, it is irrelevant in policy debate. Our country prides itself on breaking traditions and this issue will be no different. The matter will not be resolved by an appeal to the past. It only makes sense for a democracy that legal definitions be decided democratically. But to be truly valid and representative, the definitions should not be based on a mere majority, but by an overwhelming consensus. Marriage is an institution with massive implications in society and religion and relatively minor legal implications. The government has no right to come down on one side or the other. Society ought to shape government, not government society." This is not about society, it is about the legal benefits and merit of marriage "The only reasonable and fair thing to do is to follow the European example. The government should bow out. Government should refrain from defining marriage at all and allow whatever civil unions are reasonable. Any citizen ought to have the right to define his legal relations with others. And no government ought to be able to legislate societal structures." I need some clarification, So are you saying we destroy the government involvment in any marriage? That is all.