Except for the “custody” part of your argument, then the children lose.
I’d be a starry-eyed idealist if I had the time. Divorce happens, and I admit it. That doesn’t make it a good thing – but it makes it a thing we must deal with somehow.
fix:
Everyone loses. Marriage is an institution that existed from the beginning. The state has no authority to redefine such a fundamental institution.
Whether or not marriage ‘existed from the beginning’, the state – or rather, the society – has
every authority to redefine institutions. Such fundamental institutions are what
make a civilization, and if the society recognizes a need for change they will be changed.
What I am proposing makes the entire question irrelevant: you get to keep your straights-only institution of marriage, everybody (
including you) gets to enjoy the societal benefits that come from living as partners in union.
Civil unions are simply a cover to introduce homosexual marriage. They are not needed. The law is available to secure agreements for folks who have tax issues, or medical issues, or inheritence issues. There is no need to create faux unions to solve these problems.
That law already exists – but only for heterosexuals. Extend the protections and privileges that come with being committed to live together to all, no matter their orientation, and then it will be fair and just.
Maranatha:
Children have a natural right to a male father and female mother.
If they do, then make single motherhood illegal. Force everyone to live in plastic hamster-bubbles to avoid the possibility of making widows or widowers before the children attain majority. These follow naturally, do they not?
When a couple has children naturally, they take on a difficult sacrifice that benefits the public good. A marriage also benefits the public good when a couple adopts - especially when they adopt because they can’t have children. Since societies benefit in these situations, it is right for the government to give benefits to people to take on these tasks.
I have no problem with reducing or restricting government benefits to heterosexual couples that do not raise children. I would even suggest the government should increase benefits to couples that do have children.
I applaud your consistency
If childless heterosexual couples and (childless) homosexual couples were considered on the same
civil level by the government, with rights such as hospital visitation and inheritance, and the tax breaks and other goodies came when children started appearing, would you be satisfied?
