[vgh]

I think this is still a false dichotomy. Some of us just don't want the government subsidizing marriage at all. Why should any dual-income pair get tax benefits? I say this as a married person.

The thought I'm guessing at the time was to encourage new families to build up society, but not even all straight, married couples are doing that. Why not just take the government out of the equation and let anyone declare any kind of relationship status they want. It's not like I have to take part in it.

[Frondo]

Personally, I agree! I'd get the government out of marriage entirely, except to recognize whatever union you wanted.

Because again there are real-world consequences, like being considered a family member if your loved one's in a hospital, or getting access to death benefits if your loved one dies in the line of duty, or whatever.

But that's not what one of the two mainstream parties is saying: they're saying, "traditional marriage, and the rest of you can go sit on a fence."

This stuff gets personal for so many people so quickly because, in effect, one political party is telling a lot of folks that their humanity is lesser or less deserving of access to government than the rest of us.

How do you not take that personally (and make social choices based on), if you're in that group that's being told they should have less access to government?

[vgh]

Yeah, the hospital visitation rights and death benefits are good points. I'm not sure why those are so restrictive at all? Why even require a documented relationship? Just let people choose who can visit them, or get their death benefits. Is that a crazy stance?