Should city employees be able to receive spouse benefits from such arrangements?
What about private employers, can they choose to support or ignore "same sex spouses"? Could they face discrimination lawsuits?
What about the inheritance issue? The courts are involved in that.
Can a church refuse to perform a same sex "union" ceremony? Would there be a media backlash against any church that dared to follow this biblical teaching?
You can "say" that you married the Universe but you will be unlikely to push for "spouse benefits/rights". Same sex partners want legal recognition (also remember that spouses cannot be compelled to testify against each other).
Sure are a lot of legal reasons for the government to be involved in determining what is a marriage and what is not.
I meant to show that the government is not restricting their private freedom. Such a declaration would have no legal bearing whatsoever.
Should city employees be able to receive spouse benefits from such arrangements [same-sex couple simply calling itself "married"]?
No.
What about private employers, can they choose to support or ignore "same sex spouses"?
Yes.
Could they face discrimination lawsuits?
No.
What about the inheritance issue?The courts are involved in that.
Private individuals are free to specify inheritance.
Can a church refuse to perform a same sex "union" ceremony?
Yes.
Would there be a media backlash against any church that dared to follow this biblical teaching?
I don't see why there would be.
You can "say" that you married the Universe but you will be unlikely to push for "spouse benefits/rights". Same sex partners want legal recognition (also remember that spouses cannot be compelled to testify against each other).
There are deficiencies in what social contracts the law permits private individuals to enter into. These should be addressed, but they are not unique to gay couples: in almost every case the same might apply to any configuration of persons that choose to form a family-type arrangement.
You've listed a lot of peripheral issues that have arisen around marriage. But I don't think any of them are telling in terms of the criteria that should be used. There is already a perfectly sound definition - union of one man and one woman.
I don't blame gay couples for wanting to opt in to the same legal structures and of course they desire the same financial benefits. But that emphatically does not mean the definition should be changed.