Quote:I think anonymous' post, which was largely ignored, needs to be reiterated.

 

It seems to me that this "battle" over marriage equality is rooted largely in the socioeconomic benefits (or lack thereof) associated with being married. Access to health care, property rights, tax breaks, etc. It isn't really the name that's the issue, its the rights and privileges associated with that name under the law that is. Once everyone figures this out on both sides, and gets out of their own way, this will quickly become a non-issue.

 

No, I think you are incorrect in thinking the opposition is based on economics. It's social/religious in nature.

 

The people in opposition I've talked with (I'm ok with same-sex marriage) don't much care about the "benefits" of being married. They just don't think it's right.

 

I also differ from the viewpoint of - there should be no benefits to being married. You might want to think about that, especially if you are conservative. Tax policy doesn't live in a vacuum. It's used to promote values that society sees as beneficial - i.e., two parent homes that provide stability for children, home ownership that help create stable middle-class neighborhoods and give people a stake in the game, etc.

 

I don't know what "getting out of their own way" means, but some thought needs to be given as to what we want out of our tax policy and out of our society. It's never been neutral and I doubt it ever will be. Should it be?

---