Comments on: Republicans won’t embrace same-sex marriage anytime soon Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: TBKunz Thu, 28 Mar 2013 02:27:22 +0000 I was married on Aug. 19, 1967 we had our first child on October 2, 1968. Our second was born September 18, 1969.
That suggests what “marriage” “meant” for the many millennia it had been a human institution prior to the 1950 and the development of the birth control pill.
The 1000+ Federal benefits accrued to U.S. marriages in that socio-cultural context.
Persons were not granted “marital” benefits because they loved each other, had sex, married or were committed to each other for life. They got benefits to protect and encourage the couple to take on the expenses of sustained parenthood.
All human beings have the right of free association. They all have the right to name who they consider to be family. Socital benefits, however, are proferred by governments in exchange for benefits to itself from services rendered.
In the present environment,no couple, heterosexual or homosexual, deserves societal benefits for cohabiting with or without the title “married.” Those benefits were intended for persons who absorbed the enormous costs of producing the next generation of citizens.
Homosexual and heterosedxual persons have an equal right, under law, to marry. Societal benefits would only be conferred on those unions that raised children. That “benefit equasion” should be redisgned to meet the new needs of contemporary U.S. culture.

By: GRRR Tue, 26 Mar 2013 19:50:52 +0000 This is where the logic breaks down: If the percentage of Americans support same-sex marriage, the GOP cannot hold onto false dogma, lest it becomes a permanently minority party. For all the threats by Tony Perkins and others, they know that it is THEIR side that is shrinking.