But instead, let's try this. The ideal is equality for all yes? And you've said that we already have it, yes? (in the quote above actually) So, imagine that the law is suddenly changed to allow only couples of the same sex to marry. It would still be equal across the board because the same-sex stipulation would apply both to men and women (in the same way that the opposite sex stipulation currently applies to both men and women). You would be free to marry any dude who would have you under the law, but not females. Religions could still marry, spiritually not legally, whomever they chose. But the fathers couldn't be recognized as legal guardians or have parental rights over the children, wouldn't have legal rights to visit the wife while in hospital and vice versa, no legal standing for the wife as inheritor should the father die or vice versa, no insurance coverage from one spouse to the other, adnauseum. I assume that since you're OK with it for homosexuals you'd be OK with it for yourself yes?
This would be equal, yes, but what would be the function of it? How would such an institution serve national interests, in specifically
discouraging couples which are able to bear children, and encouraging only couples which are not?
If you live in China, perhaps this might make some sense, if you think that population reduction is a national imperative. However, if heterosexual couples were entirely prevented from having children, such a population collapse would be catestrophic economically.
Again, Skar, the question you keep ignoring in your hypothetical examples: What is the function?
[And, for the record, I do not feel that the institution of marriage, in its original form, and with its original purposes, is outdated. I do, however, feel that a lot of the current ritual, pomp, circumstance, and sentimentality which surrounds modern marriages is outdated, and I reject these things (insofar as my fiancée will let me). As some mild examples: There will be no garter toss at my wedding/reception, and there will be no line.]
Realize, Skar, that tax differentials are arbitrary, and the
only reason I can see a government for taxing married and non-married couples differently I can think of which might at all be justifiable is to encourage them to produce children. This is not applicable to homosexual couples. Insurance companies insure families as a unit primarily to allow single-income families to still have insurance on all members. The reason single-income families are not discouraged is because many believe that it's important to have one parent home to bear and raise children. Once again, this is a non-issue for homosexual couples. Hospital visitation is entirely arbitrary, and hospitals could change their rules in a heartbeat, if they so desired. And inheritance can be handled by a will just as easily as by a marriage contract.
So, I ask you again: What function would it serve?