Craig - I thought that I had clarified it, but that reference was not meant for you exclusively...rather it was more to MichaelA who had referenced 'destroying the religious institution. You have been very clear that you are speaking only of government's involvement. It was prior to my morning Mountain Dew when I typed that and I guess I forgot to clarify. Sorry about that.
Now...to your counter-arguments:
1. Domestic Violence - I think that domestic-violence laws are on the books not to clarify the penalties, etc. If that were the only purpose, then simple assault and battery charges would apply. Without having read the laws, I would assume that the laws deal with the different ramifications of one person that is married and living with their spouse when the incident happens.
2. Child Support - Your argument does not cover adopted children, which is applicable in this situation. Say two gay people are 'unofficially' married and the primary financial provider walks out the door...there are no protections in the law to force that person to take responsibility for the well-being of that adopted child.
3. Student Loan Responsiblities - If I'm not mistaken, the law holds spouses liable for the loans incurred by their spouses. Present laws do not protect the government's ability to recoupe those costs in the situation of two gay people married.
4. Social Security - I agree that reforms would provide more money per person. However, the present system provides benefits to spouses, which are denied to gay couples.
5. Bankruptcy - Yes, both can file. However, the bankruptcy laws take into consideration the income of spouses. One could argue (devil's advocate) that this will allow for abuses by gays because their incomes do not reflect those of their spouses. However, hetero couples cannot shield that income when attempting to file for bankruptcy.
6. Welfare - Same argument as above. If you are allowed to shield the income of your spouse, then you are opening the door for abuse.
7. Divorce/Alimony - I agree with your statement, however I am assuming that there are laws on the books defining those responsibilities....laws which help to guide the courts during divorces. These standards presently do not exist for gay couples. So, considering the fact that the average person might not proactively draw up contracts prior to goign into these relationships, you have standards/rules/laws set out there that apply only to a segment of society.
8. Inheritance - You covered the tax part, however that does not cover inheritance rights, etc. Right now, states dictate how much each party has rights to when dividing up assets....or who is at fault. Gay couples do not have these protections, so it's not hard to see situations where "posession is 9/10ths of the law" will preside, even in cases of adultery.
9. Political Candidacy - There was a law listed there concerning the threatening and protection of candidate spouses (obscure
![](/boards/images/icons/smile.gif)
). A gay man can run for office, but his spouse is not provided the same protections (secret service, etc) as the spouse of a hetero candidate.
FYI...I am not a lawyer, so my above interpretations are quite possibly lacking in some detail or insight. However, they do help to demonstrate what I'm trying to argue here. Marital status is threaded in and out of the laws in this country. We have three options here:
1. modify all of these laws to remove this confusion
2. grant homosexuals the same rights of marriage/union as heteros
3. continue to discriminate against them
I understand that your position is to target the first option and I can see your point to some degree. However, that is a massive undertaking, which could take many decades. My assertion is that the first step is to right the wrongs that are being endured by gays and then focus on cleaning up the laws. My fear, however, is that option #3 will remain the path of our government as long as it's so politically charged an issue.