> Having children raised in a heterosexual modeled family IS the government interest.
Yep.
It is also in the state interest to have males restrained by female companions, to have women protected and nurtured by a male provider and protector, to have women protected from the whims of men, to have stable, long-term households, to have large numbers of children, and to have these children turn out to be healthy.
We would be well-served as a nation to stop and consider why the nation-state and civilized societies created the odd institution of marriage in the first place, and placed the limitations and demands on it that it did.
To put it another way, we should ask ourselves why the state created a special (”odd”) form of contract, calling it “marriage,” and imposed on it some particular burdens but also allowed it special privileges. And, it should be noted, made THIRD PARTIES subject to the contract, compelling them to recognize it and give it considerations not given to singular individuals.
Note that any two parties can form a contract between themselves. In this contract, they can promise to be loving, devoted, share wealth, etc. This is perfectly legal and proper today, right now.
We should take note of how a marriage is a special form of this contract.
For that matter, note that any three or twelve or 157 parties can form a contract amongst themselves. These parties can be all male, or all female, or any combination thereof. They can promise to each other to be loving, devoted, etc.
Why didn’t the state allow this in the terms of what it calls marriage? Why didn’t it allow male-male marriages, or female-female-female-male-female marriages?
The state did not create marriage as an act of favor and mushiness towards the loving couple making a commitment to each other.
It did so to compel the male to behave, in return for somewhat regular sex and regular companionship. It did so to protect females from powerful males and husbands. It did so because the state want large numbers of children produced. It demanded that marriages be permanent so that women were protected and nourished, men didn’t run wild, and children were not only plentiful but healthy. And, btw, with these children the state could grow economically and defend itself militarily.
The polygamous marriage does not accomplish these objectives. The same gender marriage does not accomplish these objectives. The adult-child marriage does not accomplish these objectives.
Well, maybe in the interest of a real kinky state.
It did so to compel the male to behave, in return for somewhat regular sex and regular companionship. It did so to protect females from powerful males and husbands. It did so because the state want large numbers of children produced. It demanded that marriages be permanent so that women were protected and nourished, men didn’t run wild, and children were not only plentiful but healthy. And, btw, with these children the state could grow economically and defend itself militarily.
Sorry, ALL of what you describe are cultural acceptances.
For "the state" did NOT "create marriage."
Marriage is a loving commitment made before God and the community. Traditionally, it has been also something people have wanted acknowledged by their preferred religious tradition, all over the world. That's why geneologists spend so much time in churches, looking through the marriage records and banns.
What 'the state" does is acknowledge "marriage" for tax purposes. That's it. And that's why allowing such a level of government definition is an incredible rape of the true meaning of the term - and of the human beings joined in matrimony.