“Why does anyone need a government stamp of approval to “recognize” what is suppose to be a joining of two people before God.”
Because in a civil society, you need some form of arbitration to settle custody and property rights, and that has fallen to government and the court system.
Start pushing for mandatory joint tax filing, thus higher joint income and higher tax rates for same sex marriage - the same as traditional marriage. Include in this partners who have lived together for more than 3 years - irrespective of marriage (including the Hollywood crowd who live together and don’t get married), and nail them with the same tax burden that the rest of us have. It’s only ‘fair’.
“Why does anyone need a government stamp of approval to “recognize” what is suppose to be a joining of two people before God.”But what is marriage in the eyes of the law? If you take the religious overtones out and squint your eyes a bit, what you have is a corporation of two people plus offspring, with the corporate purpose of raising said offspring into spinoffs. The basic Articles of Incorporation are boilerplate, so much so that they don't need to be written down, but referenced on a single piece of paper, referred to as the "marriage license." That piece of paper also brings into play a *ton* of statute law and court opinions, so much law in fact that "family law" is a recognized specialty for lawyers.Because in a civil society, you need some form of arbitration to settle custody and property rights, and that has fallen to government and the court system.
(Beyond the scope of this particular discussion, but germain to my point, is the whole subject of "palimony". Where does that fit in? With current law, it doesn't, really. But now we have precedents for payouts from such personal unions. Go figure.)
The biggest problem of them all is that the tax code is riddled with recognition of only one particular form of incorporation for the purpose of raising children, to the exclusion of all other forms. Also, it does not recognized that "family" can extend to the support of people not related to the taxpayer, but does a service to the State by keeping such people off the welfare rolls. The Census recognizes such people and counts them for voting purposes, but not the tax authorities for support costs. Such people can cost more than a child...
For example: ever tried to claim the deadbeat living with you because s/he has no job, no home, damn few other friends, and no desire to "conform" but who is not your child? (Even though, for all practical purposes, is a child and wouldn't last long on his or her own?) You provide all support, including medical care, and you don't get a dime from the government; contrast that with the unmarried welfare queen who popped out a new kid every few years just to get the additional money from the government -- from us -- to feed a drug or drinking habit.
Some charity gets rewarded, some punished. Thank you, Mama Government.
The law is a patchwork of quick fixes. That's why we have so much bad law right now -- someone said "we ought to do something" and what was done applied then but doesn't wear well as things change. Plus, the smart people at MIT love to game the systems, which is part of the reason we all have such thin paychecks and thick tax bills.
Which gets back to the question about a government stamp: the whole body of marriage law is a fester on jurisprudence, three hundred years of a mish-mash of hastily-cobbled statues plus ham-handed legal decisions that stare decisis propagates. The right thing to do is re-think the legal ramifications of marriage. Leave the religious aspects to the religions. Where they belong.
(Like that will ever happen.)