LustfulAngel wrote...
Then there's the Marriage of Defense act, which specifies that a marriage between a man and a woman is a valid marriage, the U.N Charter likely holds the same viewpoint.
Even if marriages become inclusive, the LBGT community is such a minor part of the world that I believe it should be privatized. In this case, "Separate but equal" applies in a fair state of law.
I mean, it's a piece of paper signifying your relationship. How can that possibly be a "right" and even if it is a right just how significant is it?
From a romantic standpoint, pretty significant. But from a lawful standpoint? Not so much and given all of the complications of marriage I'd rather avoid the divorce courts.
In the united states of america there are approximate 1064 benefits awarded to heterosexual couples who become married. This in enshrined in your defense of marriage act. Civil union was not even introduced into america until 2000 and was only valid in the state of vermont. AND under the defense of marriage act that you refer to, it is only valid in the state of vermont and not recongnized at a federal level of government.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html
I think what really needs to be noted here is this:
If you are in a same-sex marriage in one of the states where same-sex marriage is allowed (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and D.C.), or if you are in a domestic partnership or civil union in any of the states that offer those relationship options, none of the benefits of marriage under federal law will apply to you, because the federal government does not recognize these same-sex relationships. For example, you may not file joint federal income tax returns with your partner, even if your state allows you to file taxes jointly. And other federal benefits, such as Social Security death benefits and COBRA continuation insurance coverage, may not apply.
Even if you privitize marriage for whatever reasons you want, there are still a large number of benefits to having a marriage that aren't given to other people. If two people are in love and one of them dies, and they are same sex, the other person doesn't get a single penny of inheritence, not a piece of furnature, nothing. The family of the deseased can claim everything from that person even if that person had been in a relationship for 30+ years. Now how are you telling me there's any logic in that?