Marriage is a carry over from the past, as an estate planning tool.
People had many mistresses and many children. But under feudal laws, only the legitimate issue could inherit property.
In other societies, such a China, people had many wives and the father would choose whom of his children would inherit.
Marriage is now obsolete in a modern society, so I do support the “TG option”.
But still, if people want to get married, let them be.[/quote]
There is some truth in each of your broad historical generalizations, but I’m speaking specifically about the US tax code of which it is most definitely true. In the US, the intent of affording benefits to married couples was to provide an incentive for people to raise law-abiding, productive, citizens. It was thought to be a benefit to society and the economy. You (and Rich and a few others) are clearly of the opinion that it is neither.
If gay marriage has no socio-economic impact (specifically regarding child rearing), the logical conclusion is, as Rich said, that this is a big non-issue.
