Why the ‘state’ has any say in marriage is the real question.
Marriage ought to be the province of and defined by religion; civil contracts could be entered into by any willing parties.
This is all in the name of defining deviancy down.
Then, how are things like Social Security survivor benefits and inheritance issues to be determined if the state can't recognize any such relationship?
“This is all in the name of defining deviancy down.”
Why bother with “slouching to Gomorrah”!
Everyone should have access to government-funded rapid transit to Gomorrah!
Sell a few more T-Bills to the Chinese to fund the project. Tell them we will buy the rolling stock from their factories.
/sarc
Marriage, in my view, certainly has a religious component, but civil marriage has been approved by society outside of the relgious context for quite some time. Laws usually contain a moral component, reflecting a consensus of society’s views.
No one seeks to control (at least not anymore) the actions of consenting adults, but no one has a “right” (as that term ought to be understood) to have society put a seal of approval on any relationship they choose to have.
Read Reynolds vs the US and you’ll have your answer.