I wasnt talking about seperating heterosexual and homosexual. I ment:
If I wanted to get married, I would take my girlfriend (with her consent obviously) to a church and get a religious blessing on my union. Today, commonly called a “marriage”.
If I was gay, I would take my boyfriend (with his consent obviously) to whatever institution accepted us, and get that institutions blessing.
In both cases, if I wanted the gov benfits of tax and visitation and such, I would go to the courthouse and fill out a form explaining our union to the Gov. On that form the word “marriage” would be absent. It is a contractual agreement between me and ________ to take care of each other in a economic and social way so as to improve the lives of both parties. In return for this, as a way of improving the lives of the people, the gov will give me certain, limited, perks and abilities. Like slightly lower taxes. Incentives for children would be tied directly to the actual presence of children, not the possibility of their existance.
In this way, Gov is not advocating gay marriage, nor is it taking away any of the “rights” gay people claim are being romoved from them.
It would also be a perfect way to force people to get prenups, which I think everyone should get and will not marry without(personally). It is an admendment to the contract spelling out how the contract will be disolved, if so desired. No fuss, no muss, and no bitter angry feuds that never end. ( I am not saying that anger and bitterness wont happen, only that we will know how to resolve the dispute someother way than a judge handing down judgements on some kind of misguided public policy like for example the woman always gets the kids.)
