Why do states have to get involved with any type of marriage in the first place? (including heterosexual)
A marriage is a legal contract. Contract law is handled by states. Rather than having a unique contract for each marriage, it makes a lot more sense to have a single contract for everyone. If you want to argue that you don't need a legal contract, feel free to not get married. I don't even see any reason why a church wouldn't agree to perform the ceremony of your choice, if you believe that you need religious certification.
Why do gay people believe a Civil Union with identical legal status to marriage in terms of property rights, hospital visitation, and child custody wouldn't be "good enough" if it wasn't called "marriage"?
I cannot speak for homosexual people, but my personal opinion is that "separate but equal is inherently unequal".
P.S. A friend from India tells me that (at least in his region), the marriage laws are even funkier.
If you are Hindu, you are allowed one wife. If you are Muslim, you are allowed four wives.
I suppose having only three would be overly restrictive. And having five would be sinful.
Or maybe you're just being greedy (or a glutton for punishment, depending on your perspective).
The Koran allows for up to four wives, specifically in situations of widows with children. So there is some basis for the difference. Note that polygamy is (civilly) illegal in many Muslim-majority countries.
Previous Topic
Index
