[Modernman]

Rightly so. How about government meddling in the secular institution of marriage?

The only way government won't meddle in the secular institution of marriage is if government is removed from the equation and marriage becomes essentially an issue of contract law. By its nature, when government gets involved in something, it'll meddle as much as it possibly can.

[RightWhale]

Okay. When the matter becomes law as in contract law, the state becomes the administrative agent. It is possible in this country for sectarian institutions to continue independently of the state administered institutions. For this reason, I believe we are talking about at least two forms of marriage that are at core unrelated although superficially they appear similar.

[mfx007]

Really, "marriage" already exists for homosexual couples. Many companies recognize domestic partners for health insurance. And well ... what else does marriage buy you? A higher income tax maybe? Property transfer after death is easy to do in a will. I do not know of any other "rights and privledges" due to a married couple. So when people call for equal protection - what do they really want?

Child welfare law is probably effected somehow. Don't know how. I suppose the "spouse" will automatically retain custody. Not sure of the alternative contract method there. Maybe extended family can now take a child away without "marriage" protection? I guess this is probably a case where marriage will "protect" from interference by the government in that case. However, you do not hear this much as a case for homosexual marriage.

In that case,you can pretty much scrap the idea of marriage in favor of some sort of "child registration" since keeping track of kids is what matters. Each child needs to be assigned to their biological mother and father and they are responsible for that child. Transactions would be handled like child custody in divorce court.

You pretty much need to either leave marriage as it is or scrap it entirely. If you can't say that marriage is not for a man and a woman exclusively (because of the procreation element), there is no possible arrangement that can be excluded.

I guess child custody is the big thing that needs to be adressed.

[mfx007]

Really, "marriage" already exists for homosexual couples. Many companies recognize domestic partners for health insurance. And well ... what else does marriage buy you? A higher income tax maybe? Property transfer after death is easy to do in a will. I do not know of any other "rights and privledges" due to a married couple. So when people call for equal protection - what do they really want?

Child welfare law is probably effected somehow. Don't know how. I suppose the "spouse" will automatically retain custody. Not sure of the alternative contract method there. Maybe extended family can now take a child away without "marriage" protection? I guess this is probably a case where marriage will "protect" from interference by the government in that case. However, you do not hear this much as a case for homosexual marriage.

In that case,you can pretty much scrap the idea of marriage in favor of some sort of "child registration" since keeping track of kids is what matters. Each child needs to be assigned to their biological mother and father and they are responsible for that child. Transactions would be handled like child custody in divorce court.

You pretty much need to either leave marriage as it is or scrap it entirely. If you can't say that marriage is not for a man and a woman exclusively (because of the procreation element), there is no possible arrangement that can be excluded.

I guess child custody is the big thing that needs to be adressed.