FiremanBob wrote:It is not a legitimate function of government to "provide survivor's benefits". Take away the socialist property-redistribution activities and government's role in defining marriage becomes completely irrelevant.
Which is as it should be.
A+ in providing a laser focus on one part of a bigger picture. Sure, I agree that part of government benefits packages shouldn't include survivor benefits, but that's a different conversation and right now they do provide those benefits, so it should be equal across the board.
More people are affected by benefits provided by private industry (who take their cues from the government). "Oh, the government says you're not married. Too bad, no coverage for your partner."
Don't want to talk about benefits? What about custody of children if one parent dies? Once again, what the government considers "married" weighs heavily on the adoption process. Sorry kid, you're gonna be shipped off to your Aunt June who lives 7 states away and has never seen you because your other parent isn't classified as a legal guardian.
What about gay couples filing jointly on tax returns? My wife and I get benefits because the government considers us "married" but the gay couple down the street who have been with each other longer than we have don't get the same benefits? Of course you can say "the tax code is all messed up and people shouldn't be getting those deductions anyway" but right now it is what it is and it should be equal.
So right now the government's role in defining "marriage" is completely relevant and very unequal.
lets eat. 
