[who_would_fardels_bear]

Interesting point. Marrying for love is a romantic, i.e. bohemian concept. And if you go to any place on earth labeled as bohemian you will find a plethoria of alternative lifestyle folks.

So if we return to the good ole' days where marriage was purely a business transaction, then the state is justified in regulating, supporting, and subsidizing it. By regulating marriage, the state is helping to bind people to the contracts they make, guarantee that the wealth is passed down in a predictable way, and that the overall business climate is just and ordered.

But if marriage is about something as private as "love" then the government shouldn't really have anything to do with it.

The fact that businesses are expected to provide health benefits to their employees is equally nonsensical proceeding from some romantic notion about how corporations are inherently evil and need to atone for their sins by guaranteeing the health and happiness of their oppressed workforce.

[Tired of Taxes]

Thanks. That's the way I see it, too.

[GovGirl]

So in Canada, there are enough single straight men that they have no other option than to enter into a same sex marriage (even if it is only for the tax benefits)? I think I'm in the wrong country.

I wonder if we raised taxes here enough (or provided better tax incentives) if a good portion of men would get over their "fear of commitment" in a hurry. :)