I disagree with homosexuals couples getting economic benefits from marriage. The societal purpose of those benefits is to encourage production of future generations, of which homosexual couples, as a unit, are incapable.
Um... if one spouse dies, the other spouse inherits all of his/ her assets without incuring inheritance tax. However, if his/ her assets are willed to any children he has, it IS subject to inheritance tax. Wait - how is that about the children again???!!!
I do agree that government marriage and church marriage should be seperated, however I'm not going to accept a 'civil union' because they are useless outside of the state they are performed in! Unless we receive legal support from the federal government, the union will be null and void anywhere where it wasn't performed.
There is also a certain amount of confusion that civil unions generate. Like, there have been many an occasion where someone, like a hospital worker, has asked a gay 'unioned' man whether he is married, single, widowed or divorced. He says, "I'm in a civil union". She gives him a confused look, and ticks, 'single'. I mean, what the hell is a civil union? Most people don't recognise it. You say, "I'm married" and everyone knows what you're talking about.
To the person who suggested leaving marriage to the church, and reverting all government marriages to civil unions, I think you may be onto something. For one thing, it would keep religious folk happy. For second, since the majority of people have government marriages, the majority of people would have civil unions... so they'd know what you mean when you say 'I'm in a civil union'. Confusion = dissapears!
Actually I like this idea.
One thing though - in this proposal of yours, would 'church' marriage get all the rights and tax breaks that 'government civil union' gets? So the government would still be involved in church marriage?
