Do you argue that ministers should be unable to act as a notary of the marriage contract? If not, that's basically the way it is now.


Well, you asked why gay people are not okay with a "civil union". And the answer is because the state currently calls those "marriages". If you get a contract that says "marriage" if you're marrying a person of the opposite sex, and a contract that says "civil union" if you're marrying a person of the same sex, that is separate. If you want to say that all such contracts should be labelled "civil union", I think that the gay community would be fine with that. But you didn't include that sentiment in your question.

Honestly, all of this is based, in my opinion, on an antiquated notion, which is that a pair of people who take care of each other must have a romantic relationship.

Imagine a pair of siblings. One really just wants to stay at home and be domestic. The other wants a career, but has no interest in dealing with a household. Why can they not live together and deal with a household in the manner of a traditionally married couple without having a romantic relationship? Of course, the answer is that they can. But they don't get the benefits that the state provides to married couples. Chances are that the sibling with the job cannot extend his or her health insurance to the other sibling, for example. Why shouldn't this situation be recognized?

Now, what if, instead of siblings, they're just friends who met at school? Why should that be different?

Now what if those friends also happen to have a romantic relationship? Well, now you're talking about a "traditional" marriage. (Assuming they're of the opposite sex.)

What this comes down to is that the state is determining your legal ability to be married based on whether or not (you claim) you're in a romantic relationship. Which, when you think about it, is just ridiculous.