You see government entanglement and want to expand it to yet another segment of society (homosexuals), I see it and want to remove the entanglements for everybody.
I'm not sure why you want the government poking it's nose into your personal affairs.

These would be special rights, of course. As I've pointed out, homosexuals have exactly the same marital rights as anyone else. Straights aren't allowed to have same-sex marriages either.

You know, the push for same-sex marriage has to be one or the worst PR campaigns in history. That's because of the instance on the use of the word, "marriage," which is freighted with tradition, history, religiosity and convention. If the gays had invented an identical institution with the same legal rights, the resistance would have been fractional.

__________________
“Quod scripsi, scripsi"

"Sometimes, the source of the beautiful dawning light that drives back the darkness, is your house burning"

Why should the mere fact that somebody is married entitle them to tax breaks?
"I do not recall" is valid testimony and irrefutable.

Perhaps parents should determine child custody sans a court. My ex and I managed to accomplish it quite well without a court intervening.

These would not be special rights... these would be equal rights.

Separate but equal is not equal... so sayeth the Supreme Court.

__________________
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

-- Hitler, April 11 1942

same =/= equal.

I know plenty of gays that are Christians and they considered themselves married in the eyes of God.

Weddings, Baptisms & Special Services

In more sane eras, when children weren't considered commodities, and when it was recognized that marriage produced other social benefits, such as restraining the natural short-term thinking of human males, official encouragement of marriage through such thins as tax breaks was considered a good return on investment.

Those quaint bygone years have little to recommend them, other than towering economic advances, prosperity, deep social stability, and lowerv tides of generalized insecurity.

Actually, it's not. A judge can certainly hold a witness in contempt and chastise them is he does not believe that the witness' memory is so faulty.

I remember a case some years ago in Florida, in which a jaded judge refreshed the witness' memory in near-miraculous fashion by casually mentioning that under very old laws that had never been repealed, he could sentence a purgerer to death.

Perhaps they should Perhaps they should also "suck it up" until the kids are grown. But we know that many will not.

Barring a marriage contract, the State can assert that the children are being abused simply by the fact that the two guardians are in conflict.

(The state will certainly soon come to the policy by usage that parents are provisional Guardians, and that the State, is always the Primary Guardian ((owner)) of all children.)

In any conflict, the State, from its point of view, will simply assert its rights as the true custodian of the children.

We must never lose sight of the fact that Humans tend to create Despotisms instinctively, and never be surprised when we see the process at work.

__________________
“Quod scripsi, scripsi"

"Sometimes, the source of the beautiful dawning light that drives back the darkness, is your house burning"

Unfortunately, those quaint and bygone years have been replaced by a welfare state daddy that offers tax breaks to single parents.



Failure to recall is not perjury. Nobody can force anybody to remember anything.



Such power in the hands of the state is just more proof that the state needs to be removed from the equation, as I pointed out earlier in this thread.

As I've said many times before, that the case that gays don't have equal rights simply cannot be made rationally. Everyone has the right, when of age and unmarried to marry a willing and eligible member of the opposite sex.

Gays have this right too. Their complaint is that they are not allowed to marry the person that they would wish to marry. This argument may be approached rationally.

And the Supreme Court, having said that separate can never be equal, has gone on to support the inequalities of racial quotas, a progressive taxation, and affirmative action, thereby displaying a multiple personality profile.

Further, since men and women represent two actual poles of human physiognomy, it hardly seems that a unique institution joining these poles should be seen as in any way inappropriate or objectionable.

__________________
“Quod scripsi, scripsi"

"Sometimes, the source of the beautiful dawning light that drives back the darkness, is your house burning"

Unfortunately the right to marry whom you are in love with/attracted to only applies to heterosexuals. And it is the emotional considerations that have been the primary discussion of court decisions and law making. So your assertion that it's equal is patently false.

Which is the right that was afforded by Loving and other SCOTUS decisions...

Though on the issue of fundamental rights, this is not the case.

There is no reason for two of the same polar inclination not to join either...

__________________
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

-- Hitler, April 11 1942

It's amusing to see you say you aren't sure why I want these marital benefits / rights, but then you completely fail to address the point I made.

Can you address the issue I raised?
Maybe just try?

One of the marital rights / benefits / entanglements (as you put it) empowers a spouse to make medical decisions in case the other spouse is incapacitated.
We have similar legislation which allows family members similar powers, but typically the marital powers trumps the familial powers (which can be reviewed on a case-by-case basis).

If the government removes the marital "entanglements", that would leave the "family" to make such decisions with the spouse's powers removed...

Maybe a better question should be how you could just plain ignore that...

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein