I won't ever get it because I'm not a six year old little girl dreaming of her prince who rides in on a white stallion, sweeps her off her feet, marries her and rides away to the palace with her in a gold carriage. To me, "marriage" has always been an entirely a State construct. The State license my wife and I got nearly 32 years ago has never said anything about how much love is present in our relationship nor how committed we are to one another. I've never cared what the State thought of my relationship with my wife. I do not grant the State the power to dictate what my relationship with my wife is nor what it means to either of us. Marriage was the legal relationship a couple entered into because they wished to have their children recognized as legitimate and not in any way castigated for the marital status of their biological parents at the time of their births. The State rightly believed that children who grow up in a household with their biological parents fair better, on average (which is what you write legislation for) than children who are not afforded that opportunity.
If marriage had nothing to do with procreation, how then did the State arrive at the classification of children born out of wedlock as illegitimate (or illegal)? And by what means were children born to a couple considered legal? By the issuance, prior to their births, of a marriage certificate to their biological parents, right?
I've already heard (even from an idiot Justice) that "we allow infertile couples to marry, so ..." So what? So, let's correct a mistake by compounding it? Although truth be told, there used to be some measure of correcting this particular error codified in the tax code. You want the benefits of laws pertaining to marriage (written to encourage biological parents to remain with their offspring) in the absence of a desire or ability to have children? The State said, "Fine. But it's going to cost you." Why? Because such marriages do not result in the benefit to the State of a new generation. That was true until, IIRC, around the year 2000. It should be corrected and I sincerely do not see how same-sex marriage advocates (or non child producing opposite-sex marriage advocates) could be opposed to a re-instatement of that tax. For doing so would indicate that their position is far from "wanting equal dignity" and is more a desire to get something for nothing.
If marriage had nothing to do with procreation, how then did the State arrive at the classification of children born out of wedlock as illegitimate (or illegal)? And by what means were children born to a couple considered legal? By the issuance, prior to their births, of a marriage certificate to their biological parents, right?
I've already heard (even from an idiot Justice) that "we allow infertile couples to marry, so ..." So what? So, let's correct a mistake by compounding it? Although truth be told, there used to be some measure of correcting this particular error codified in the tax code. You want the benefits of laws pertaining to marriage (written to encourage biological parents to remain with their offspring) in the absence of a desire or ability to have children? The State said, "Fine. But it's going to cost you." Why? Because such marriages do not result in the benefit to the State of a new generation. That was true until, IIRC, around the year 2000. It should be corrected and I sincerely do not see how same-sex marriage advocates (or non child producing opposite-sex marriage advocates) could be opposed to a re-instatement of that tax. For doing so would indicate that their position is far from "wanting equal dignity" and is more a desire to get something for nothing.